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 ...
A state can NOT be expelled because that would violate Article V guarantee for representation in the Senate. A state can only be withdrawn from the Senate by its own consent (and forcing it to do so with military force would be the Lincoln way of might makes right).
It’s kind of funny that “pay to play” is considered scandalous behaviour until the federal government does it. Several states now have laws to forbid the practice, but the fed can pay to play whenever it wants. I suppose it will take an egregious abuse, like Kelo, before the practice is reexamined in the light of undue influence. A lot of people think that the use of federal money to control state legislatures is wrong.
Thanks for the ping!
I see where you're coming from. As I see it, though, the real problem is that, for a whole bunch of reasons (some structural and some just out of the impulse to give up freedom in order to get crumbs from the feds), states have few *practical* options in refusing federal funds.
The SCOTUS has upheld the concept of tying federal funds to federal goals. In fact, this has worked in favor of conservative causes at times, such as when Libs sued to overturn restrictions on using federal funds for abortion and the SCOTUS said basically, "If you want the money, you have to take it on the federal government's terms."
So, I don't have a problem with the basic concept of being able to restrict how money is used or even under what circumstances it will be distributed. HOWEVER (big however), in practice the federal government often has abused this "power of the purse" and used it to enable its insinuation deep into every aspect of state sovereignty. Then once you get the public feeding at the federal trough, it gets even tougher to refuse federal funding, much less affirmatively sue to keep the feds out.
For example, look at public education. Not only did we create a public education system, we then made it centrally planned and controlled, money-wise at least, by the federal government! Now we have to fight like hell to get a crummy voucher for poor kids to go to a charter school in D.C. None of this had to be part of the federal government's function. Yet here we are. And now you'll find judges who will say because this is where we're at, we have no right to go in a different direction with education.
In many ways, we've created our own extra-Constitutional vicious cycle.
Your other post set me to wondering, again, if there was some way that a state could send a large bill to the feds and demand that they pay it. The feds are generally smart enough to own thier own lands, so parks, federal buildings, and other installations wouldn’t work. Ports are federally controlled.
The feds aren’t perfect, and I wonder if there is something that they missed, something that a smaller state could use to tell them to take their lucnch money, or their highway funding, and shove it. There would have to be something the state could control and tell them that if the feds don’t pay, they lose it.
I have no idea what that might be.
Yes Ma’am!
Well, you're obviously too obtuse to understand what I am saying.
Because the action you describe concerns the operations of 49 States acting as a Union to expel the 50th State from that Union, therefore: They can do that as individual States -- by leaving the present Union and forming their own.
If they wish to do so collectively, acting as a Union, to expel a member from the existing Compact, their Compact of Union must specify that they can do that -- because the Union only has such Powers as are specifically ceded to it by the individual States. (I.E., see Amendment X).
As I have told you.
An issue which has been wrongly decided, has not been decided at all.
I don't regard Roe v. Wade as settled law, either, for that matter.
You throw a lot of 'must' and 'specifically' and yet you can't point to where the Constitution says states cannot nor point to where the word 'specifically' is in the document. So the only conclusion any rational person can come to is that states may secede unilaterally because you say that they can and that states cannot turn another state out against its will because you say that they can't. With all due respect that's nonsense.
As I have told you.
Over and over and over again. What you haven't done is provide anything to back your opinion up.
Texas Gov. Perry refused Federal funds for education because of all the *strings* attached. He's been getting grief since then from people who basically don't understand how the process works (and Liberals)
This is just one item in a long line of Federal mandates'programs/dept. that states need to nullify as a way to chop the FedGov down to a controllable size. Time to ween the states off the government teat.
Quite frequently in Civil War threads some U.S. supporter will make the claim that the Southern actions were illegal because Article I, Section 10 says that states cannot enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation. The response from the Lost Causers is always that Article I, Section 10 did not apply because the seceding states were no longer in the Union and not under the Constitution. And that same argument invalidates your position as well. If a state is expelled then it is not under the Constitution. As a result, it has no Article V guarantees and it is not entitled to representation. So what prevents a state from being expelled against its will?
And yet another non sequitur, in an endless stream of non sequiturs, from Non-Sequitur...
Your OWN admission in post #410 contradicts( any and ALL )of your positions.
“I don't have a problem with a liberal state seceding. I don't have a problem with any state seceding if that's what the people there truly want. Just work out all the issues about their share of debt and national obligations, the return of federal property and the like in a manner that is fair to both sides and I'm willing to wave bye-bye.”
If Texas does vote for secession - Plus, Sends delegates for that PEACEFUL separation - Then are denied that peaceful resolution - Who's side are you on? Just askin’
The American people, North and South, went into the [Civil] war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects … what they thus lost they have never got back. – H.L. Mencken
But nothing, I notice, from the great and wise Galt to show where I'm wrong. A legend in his own mind and little else.
Oh, and I deleted your message without reading it. If you want to take shots at me tehn be man enough to do it on the open form instead of by private Freepmail.
Please tell me that you cannot be so moronic as to miss the fact that I'm asking other's to justify their position that states can leave without consent but states cannot be expelled without consent? I mean really, you've been sticking your nose into these threads for how long now and you someone managed to conclude that I've reversed my position over the past two days? Do you honestly think you boobs are that persuasive as to get me to change over night? My God, you people truly are legends in your own mind.
But for your benefit, and to nip any sort of happy victory dance you're contemplating right in the bud, my position as stated in 410 hasn't changed.
You people....
Why not read it? It could have been fan mail.
It's admirable that your (one of the few) members left on FR still spouting liberal diatribe. At least - your a true believer.
ROTFLMAO!!!! I've lost count of the number of emails I've gotten from the Lost Cause brigade ove the years calling me every name in the book. Things that would have gotten them banned if they'd posted it in the open forum. You all are nothing if not predictable. Sorry, I'll stick to the forum.
It's admirable that your (one of the few) members left on FR still spouting liberal diatribe. At least - your a true believer.
And it's also refreshing to see that you're as wrong as ever in your analysis of my political leanings.
Fine - let's look at your comment:
Quite frequently in Civil War threads some U.S. supporter will make the claim that the Southern actions were illegal because Article I, Section 10 says that states cannot enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation. The response from the Lost Causers is always that Article I, Section 10 did not apply because the seceding states were no longer in the Union and not under the Constitution.
That much is true. But then you claim:
And that same argument invalidates your position as well. If a state is expelled then it is not under the Constitution. As a result, it has no Article V guarantees and it is not entitled to representation. So what prevents a state from being expelled against its will?
It's a non sequitur - your conclusion does not logically follow from your premise. According to your rational, if it's legal for a citizen to voluntarily leave a State, then it's also legal for them to be kidnapped and forcibly removed, because the State's laws would not (according to you) apply to the kidnapping once the victim & perpetrator had crossed the State line. In short, "you can twist things in more bizarre ways than any other person I've met on this forum."
;>)
Oh, and I deleted your message without reading it. If you want to take shots at me tehn [sic] be man enough to do it on the open form [sic] instead of by private Freepmail.
Ouch - now you've hurt my feelings! But never fear - the Freepmail was just a repeat of my Post #608 (which I did post "on the open form [sic]," and which I guess you missed)...
;>)
Ouch!!! Gosh, N-S, I did post the apology "in the open forum" (please see my Post #608), and repeated it by Freepmail - and I don't think either would have gotten me "banned." But if you think differently, have at it...
;>)
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.