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 ...
I have gone over most of this entire thread... And I find many silly arguments...
It absolutely does not matter any legal impediment nor right - Constitutional or otherwise...
We, as God given Free People have the Right to cast off any imposed government any time we please...
Yes - such an act could cause war or may not... depending upon the acceptance of such acts by the populace...
No government has the eternal right to exist... especially when the governed are extremely dissatisfied with the actions of the government.
If this were not the case - then all of us would still be under the command of the descendants of King George the III of England.
Yes - any such actions to cast off our so called government could and would likely result in confrontation, conflict or even war ...
But to say it could not be allowed is simply inappropriate, inaccurate, and inapplicable. Because what will happen when free women and men are subjugated, manipulated and taxed beyond tolerance is simply not controllable.
When the ‘critical mass’ is reached... and with what egregious acts are happening now in this country - the critical mass will be reached sooner or later. Then when that time comes — the government will be ‘cast off’.
And a ‘new beginning’ will commence.
Other arguments restricting such - be damned.
Find your private parts yet?
;>)
If you look at the government from a bottom up approach, the individual is a citizen of two governments - federal and State. (Conversely, the state and federal governments have separate and dual regulatory jurisdiction over the individual and NOT over eachother. It is not hierarchial in form.)
It is the individual who is the original sovereign force. It is the individual who compacted with other individuals to create a form of self government and to breath life into it through a delegation of limited authority - retaining certain rights from government. The “or to the People” portion of the 10th Amendment is the most important part as the People retained individual rights, set aside from being governed by either the State or the federal government.
A constitution, as Justice James Iredell stated, was “a declaration of particular powers by the people to their representatives, for particular purposes. It may be considered as a great power of attorney, under which no power can be exercised but what is expressly given.”
This is why special conventions were formed in each state for the one and only purpose of considering replacement of the Articles of Confederation by ratifying the Constitution. The State legislatures were found to be incompetant to the task because authority flowed from the People, themselves.
This was not a new comcept. Declared the author of “The Genuine Principles of the Ancient Saxon, or English Constitution,” if the constitution were to be a “sett of fundamental rules by which even the supreme power of the state shall be governed,” it must “be formed by a convention of the delegates of the people, appointed for the express purpose.” Only then would it be unalterable, “in any respect by any power besides the power which first framed it.”
The government formed was fractionalized into layers and branches in order to protect the individual and his retained rights from the will of the majority and the efficient and abusive reach of government.
Said John Taylor in “An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government”:
“It is our policy to consider the people as retaining a vast share of political power, and as only investing their government with so much as they deem necessary for their own benefit...Power is first divided between the government and the people, reserving to the people, the control of the divident allotted to the government. The divident allotted to the government, is subdivided between its two branches, federal and state.” Then these two portions were further broken up and “distributed in quotas still more minute” to the various departments and branches of the government... all our governments are limited agencies.” “Power is divided by our policy, that people may maintain their sovereignty...”
Unfortunately, as the Union was created by and originated from the People, it cannot be dibanded by a mere creation of the People (the State.) Likewise, the State does not stand in a hierarchial position between the individual and the federal government. It cannot nullify or block a Constitution federal law with application directly upon the individual. It can, however, refuse to participate in extra-Constitutional federal programs that offer funding in exchange for State cooperation and implementation.
The federal Health bill is clearly not in the power of Congress to enact, (unless some weird interstate commerce justification is used,) and enforce directly upon the individual. If it requires State collaboration, that must be purchased voluntarily from the State through strings attached to program funding. In that case, the State has it in its power to say no.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..[W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..
What? You didn’t like Johnson?
Yes - Exactly ... what you posted was said by one of our forefathers in a much more eloquent manner than what I wrote...
But for those on FR who profess that we have no right to reject our so called government - to succeed - are at best misguided... and at worst - are just plain ignorant...
What we now have in this United States of America are people who are frightened to fight for their own rights...
What we have are people who are afraid of the confrontation necessary to remain free people...
When a populace becomes too comfortable in their daily existence or have become so afraid that they cannot understand, see or detect that they have become ‘SUBJECTS’ (for all intents and purposes - have become ‘slaves) to their own government ... then those that object to the actions of others to free themselves ... those sheep - must be ignored and pushed to the side...
One of those rights is the right to establish a government that functions to protect personal liberty. This has been the case for centuries, repeated throughout history, as tyrannical and unjust leaders were overthrown by men who knew *instinctively* that they did not have to live under the heel of others.
Nullification is coming. The 10th Amendment has been invoked many times throughout history, but any number of states, over a vast array of issues.
Leaving the Union - that's a long way down the road.
No printing of fiat paper money.
Coin gold and silver instead.
If Texas is going ‘succeed’, then it’s best to do it right.
The Texas dollar would be the strongest currency in the world AND Texas could capture the profits of seignorage.
Specifically, the "people" argument finds is said to rest on two parts of the constitution - the famous "we the people..." preamble and the ratification clause.
The matter of the preamble is a load of bunk because the Convention records clearly show that it came about as a stylistic truncation to avoid an obnoxiously long list of states ("We the people of Maryland, Virginia, New York, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation blah blah blah"), as had been the case in the Declaration of Independence.
The ratification clause is a bit more complicated, but again convention records do not impress any grand philosophical significance to the act. Gouvernour Morris, the primary stylistic editor of the Constitution, was actually content to let each state choose its own manner of ratification for itself. When the proposal came about to use "conventions" it was done out of the belief that they would be a more expedient means of ensuring that ratification was successful, with the whole business of it being about "the people" amounting to little more than an afterthought. James Madison openly admitted as much:
Mr. Madison considered it best to require Conventions; among other reasons, for this, that the powers given to the Genl. Govt. being taken from the State Govts. the Legislatures would be more disinclined than conventions composed in part at least of other men; and if disinclined, they could devise modes apparently promoting, but really, thwarting the ratification. The difficulty in Maryland was no greater than in other States, where no mode of change was pointed out by the Constitution, and all officers were under oath to support it. The people were in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over. They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the Bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to.
Earlier on Madison had elaborated on this point by stating that he believed the Articles of Confederation were "defective" because they set the bar too high for achieving ratification. And he was essentially alone in even referring to these so-called "first principles" or much of any other reason besides expediency. Everyone else who spoke in favor of it did so simply because they thought it would be easier to ratify that way.
Rufus King: "Conventions alone, which will avoid all the obstacles from the complicated formation of the Legislatures, will succeed, and if not positively required by the plan, its enemies will oppose that mode."
Nathaniel Gorham: "urged the expediency of "Conventions""
Pierce Butler: "was of opinion that the alteration of the confederation ought not to be confirmed by the different Legislatures because they have sworne to support the Government under which they act, and therefore that deputies should be chosen by the people for the purpose of ratifying it"
James Wilson: "did not fear, that the people would not follow us into a national Govt. and it will be a further recommendation of Mr. R.'s plan that it is to be submitted to them and not to the Legislatures, for ratification."
Hugh Williamson: "observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized to ratify the system. He thought too that Conventions were to be preferred as more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States."
Save for its plainly secondary place in Madison's arguments, the aura that some today now afford to conventions of "the people" simply wasn't there in 1787. The delegates were looking for a way to get the thing ratified quickly and with as few hangups as possible. They believed the state legislatures would bottle ratification up for years as they picked the Constitution apart in the grist mill of the committee system, whereas a convention - being only temporary and being convened for the purpose of ratification alone - would get it done quickly.
Texas would have ten US Senators which would change the game in the Senate. If enough conservative States similarly divided in order to get more conservative Senators, the Senate would be where the socialist agenda is stopped.
Texas would still have the same number of Congressional Representatives.
“Doe this mean that you do not believe in the Declaration of Independence?
It means I believe in the Constitution.”
Poor sap...
Bravo! Why aren’t you running for governor!!
No federal taxes are allowed to be collected in Texas.Texas establishes its own income tax system and decides how much, if any, to send to the federal government.
Its pay to play , baby!
Nullifiation~!
Help me out here. I was under the impression that prior to the Civil War, the right of States to secede was arguable, but generally you could make a good case for its legality, but after the Civil War, amendments were made to the Constitution to completely assert that the United States was one indisoluble union.
Is that right?
That is not what I read in the quotes you cite at all.
“And as for natural born,, if you wound up getting born elsewhere, you are clearly handicapped.”
LOL! Yeah, ok.
“Yup, I have two nephews at Ft Hood. Do you really want to know what they’d do if Zero told them to shoot at us? I didn’t think so......”
I haven’t posted anything relating to whether or not federal troops would fire on american citizens. Any reason you posted this to me?
Not much, no.
And when did that happen? The United States predated the Constitution. The United States didn't end when the Constitution was ratified. At what point did Rhode Island cease to be a state?
Isn't that what you're saying about secession? The Constitution does not forbid a state to leave so a state can leave. Well, the Constitution also does not say that a state cannot be turned out of the Union against its will. So therefore it must be permitted, right?
Sorry, it's the other way around. The Federal Government can only do what the Constitution specifically says it can do.
I'm taking about the states, not the government. Do try to keep up.
I'm waiting.
As am I. So answer the question. Can a state be turned out of the Union against its will by the other states, yes or no? If not, why not?
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.