Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
If the federal government exceeds its 10th amendment authority, the law should be considered void ab initio. A nullification resolution only points out the fact that the federal statute in question had no underlying constitutional authority.
That's crazy.
My wife and I both had to sit for Membership examinations with the Eldership of our church prior to being admitted into communicant voting membership.
Should we so desire, however, we can freely leave the church at any time.
The fact that a voluntary club practices limited admission does not in any way imply that the club has a right to put a gun to the head of dissatisfied members to force them to stay. Or do you think that churches should have the right to threaten their parishioners with violence if they decide to take their worship elsewhere?
Not at all. Article III, Section 2 defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The legal definition is the power to interpret and apply the law for a given area.
But, let’s be honest....it was Marbury V. Madison that really pushed it.
Marbury v Madison set the precedent but you can argue the responsibility was always there.
“The Feds would cut off everything. Power, water”
Texas power grid stands intact by law. NO such thing as anything the Feds can do to “cut off the power”. Energy? Are you kidding me? Oil, refineries, etc,,,all in Texas. Food, no prob, we grow more peaches that georgia, more rice than japan, and dare i even mention beef?
By the way,,, when Texas natural gas is cut off, it’s gonna get chilly in the northeast. I heard it snowed up there. But im sure Hugo Chavez will be happy to halp out.
Feds Cutting off Texas is like ripping the engine out of your car. Good move.
And the rest of the world loves Texas. They will all support our movement. Did you really think going around the world, breaking up other countries, might not make it home?
What goes around comes around.
Maybe the best answer is for Obama to stop being a communist.
“No, we cannot secede. The Supreme Court ruled on it and said it was unconstitutional.”
Piss on the Supreme Court! They are the problem, not the solution.
You don't see just a little bit of difference between the Constitution and your church?
The fact that a voluntary club practices limited admission does not in any way imply that the club has a right to put a gun to the head of dissatisfied members to force them to stay
If permission is required to join why shouldn't leaving be the same?
Or do you think that churches should have the right to threaten their parishioners with violence if they decide to take their worship elsewhere?
A very poor analogy. For a more accurate one how about a business contract? Would it not make sense for the protection of all members of the partnership to prevent one member from unilaterally breaking the agreement?
BRAVO SIR! A real Tour de Force that was,,,,, Someday, i hope to be that eloquent. You explained it perfectly, and wrapped it with a bow. They need Texas a lot more than Texas needs the communist.
What about him? Alf Landon was the only Republican to win election as governor in 1934. He ran against Roosevelt in 1936. His 4 years as governor, at the height of the depression, was noted for lowering of taxes and a balanced budget. I don't know about you but I think those are pretty conservative traits.
When reading the comments that follow this article, I had to stop and check that I was reading the Austin A/S blog. While the article itself is typical of the leftist crap that appears regularly in this newspaper, the fervent patriotism of the denunciations in the commentary was totally refreshing! Levinson is safe while he stays on campus there at UT, but the next time he leaves it had better be to pick up his luggage for his last trip out of state.
My church has its own constitutions. Which is why I'm able to see an analogous situation -- we're discussing two constitutionally-organized entities.
If permission is required to join why shouldn't leaving be the same?
Because Freedom of Association necessarily implies Freedom of Disassociation. No contract allegedly requiring permanent membership and/or requiring permission to leave can be validly enforced unless that contract specifically stipulates permanent membership and/or the requirement of permission to leave. In private society, any limited-admission club that tried to claim that members who wished to leave had to jump through certain hoops not specified in the membership contract, would be laughed out of court.
We all have our cross's to carry.....:O) Old ma Richards was a real beaut. I love the way Bush jr. kicked her out as governor after she made the snarky remark about Bush Sr. at the democrat convention..
“Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution.”
Perfectly constitutional in my reading of the U.S. Constitution.
LOL can’t you see it,,,
“OK BOYS,,Listen up!! The supreme court has ruled against us, so everyone go on home now, and clean your guns before you put em back in the safe,,,,,Sorry for the false alarm, next time we rise up we’ll get a better lawyer!”
Snicker,,,
(The issue of slavery *is* settled. Not by the barrel of a gun, but by the common consent of free men. As was going to happen without the war.)
Yeah, it just doesn’t make sense that a state would tell the feds they “ain’t got no juice here”,
and then just accept a FEDERAL court ruling against them.
“And W bought that ranch in Crawford just before the election to help fool the masses.”
Yea! Or that fake house in Dallas he retired to!
Yessir, that was a paradox i was seeing too. As for me,, if we had a revolt against the Feds, i think we’d be way ahead of the game to include the Supreme court in the group we did not recognize the power of.
Of course, i’d still prefer all Americans be freed from the emerging socialist government in DC, personified in Obama.
Texas has about 24 million residents and about 60 million guns.
God Bless Texas!
“God save us from yet another Texan president.”
We’ve had what...two so far? Both have been unmittigated big government walking f***ing disasters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.