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 ...
Yes, well beware of what you wish for.
No...as the column points out, nullification and secession are not the same.
Of course, the column ignores thde BoR.
Only two implied that, and Madison himself said that the concept of conditional ratification was ridiculous.
Yea? Good for you, but the Feds don't and they have broken the contract. Now it is a Lie and Swear contract. Congress lies and SCOTUS swears to it. This is not the limited and enumerated Fed that the States, and the people, authorized.
“How’s that going to work if TX secedes?”
He was born an American citizen. That’s got to carry at least as much weight as the one we’ve got now.
Says who? You? Well the feds say that they haven't broken the contract. So what makes you right and them wrong?
You prefer Hawaii, Arkansas, Georgia...?
You are assuming that all federal laws are de facto supreme over the constitutional rights reserved by the states.
Yes, the SCOTUS has severely diminished state’s rights over the years, through vehicles such as the interstate commerce clause, but that’s a different issue from the point of what the Constitution intended.
Yes, the Constitution requires balancing state sovereignty with the powers reserved to the federal government, and in the last century the SCOTUS, sometimes rightly, has tilted that balance toward the feds. But the Constitution never intended that the federal government could pass any type of law it wanted, make any type of intrusion it wanted, in any area of governace and state citizenship, and then simply force the states to go along with it.
Even today there are many laws that states are not actually required to follow. It’s just that if they don’t, the feds refuse to send the states money. So the states follow the federal laws simply so they don’t lose federal money. That is quite different than being required to follow the federal law by law.
Egads, NOOOOOOOO! Gov. Goodhair has to move up to RINO status during election every four years.
Yes you can, constitutionally and legally — if you use honest Constitutional lawyers and legislators.
No states needs to actually secede in order to get out from under some of the overreaching of the federal government.
I think Madison touched on this in one of the Federalist Papers:
“To these (supportive of an oppressive Federal Government) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments (state and local) possessing their affections and confidence... Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”
Well, I tend to take the word of the victim over the word of the armed home invader.
What about states rights afforded in the Constitution?
The corpse-men may be.
Article II Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
It says nothing about current residency or current citizenship. I think Rick Perry meets all the parameters listed above.
Zman...I think I love you!!! At least I agree with you.
Since we're speaking of hyptheticals...
Obama would have to give the order to fire on and kill hundreds of thousands of US citizens at that point. If he did...how do I put this nicely?......since we are still speaking hypothetically...his ability to expel CO2 would be compromised. At that point I doubt the Union would survive.
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.