Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

PROVEN: the constitutionality of "nullification" - (States rights)
Von Mises Institute ^ | Thomas E Woods

Posted on 03/26/2010 4:22:32 AM PDT by mitch77

The top video file on the page below proves the constitutionality of "nullification". IE, That any state can 'opt-out" of any federal law they disagree with.

The report is very well researched. Libs rage against it but they have no grounds.

It is taught by Thomas E Woods and would make an excellent show subject: DOWNLOAD LINK: http://mises.org/multimedia/video/Woods/Woods1.wmv


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; constitution; healthcare; obamacare; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 03/26/2010 4:22:32 AM PDT by mitch77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mitch77

Let’s remember this when California legalizes pot.


2 posted on 03/26/2010 4:32:05 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mitch77
Here in Ohio we have started the process of collecting signed petitions so that on the November 4th ballot it states that no Ohio citizen can be forced into the Federal system know as...Commiecare.

There are two drives, one petition so we can have the real petition, go figure.

If the initial petition drive is any indication Ohio will vote to exempt itself from Commiecare come November.

For all Ohio Freepers I will be posting the petition when I receive it for you to fillout and get others to.

3 posted on 03/26/2010 4:32:58 AM PDT by Recon Dad ( USMC SSgt Patrick O - 3rd Afghanistan Deployment - Day 157)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Every state should take every opportunity to challenge the unconstitutional laws that the federal government imposes on us.

If and when one has the balls to take on the IRS, they’ll experience an influx of productive people.


4 posted on 03/26/2010 4:44:37 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad
Im in.
5 posted on 03/26/2010 4:47:24 AM PDT by suijuris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mitch77

This is perhaps our last best hope to reign in Washington DC


6 posted on 03/26/2010 5:02:02 AM PDT by mek1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: suijuris

I’ll send it out to all those on the Ohio Ping list. You all will have to figure how to turn them in where you live.


7 posted on 03/26/2010 5:24:59 AM PDT by Recon Dad ( USMC SSgt Patrick O - 3rd Afghanistan Deployment - Day 157)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mitch77

A critical detail about nullification is an odd one. The Supreme Court has long held that the courts, and congress, are superior to State courts and State legislatures, respectively. But the SCOTUS has *never* held that the US president is superior to State governors.

This has historically meant that when the president wanted something, and the State or States refused to comply, the president had to use force, or the threat of force.

This began with George Washington. From the very start, the federal government took from the citizenry, then imprisoned them when they were impoverished, which led to the “Shays’ Rebellion.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays_Rebellion

The rebellion was put down, but persuaded the federal government that it needed more power over the citizenry.

So it was followed up by George Washington, who imposed an unconstitutional tax on whiskey. And no mistake, this was about power as much as tax revenue. Although Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton’s principal reason for the tax was raising money to service the national debt, he also justified the tax “more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue.” Most importantly, however, Hamilton “wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government.”

When people refused to pay the tax, starting what was called the Whiskey Rebellion, and the proud American tradition of moonshine whiskey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion

Years later, nullification again came to the fore, supported by both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, writing in support of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The popularity of nullification was such that it resulted in the creation of an opposition political party, which was swept into power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

But much later, the federal government struck back. When South Carolina rejected a federal tariff, Andrew Jackson offered to take the army to South Carolina and “hang everyone who voted for nullification.” (Theoretically he might have done so, because at the time there was no secret ballot. And Jackson liked to hang people.) So South Carolina backed down.

By the time of Abraham Lincoln, the federal government was seen as so powerful and stubborn, that nullification was almost not an option. But it was by the northern States nullifying the Fugitive Slave Acts, by passing State laws that declared it unconstitutional, that proved that nullification could work, that slavery would not be enforced where the people would not enforce it.

This pushed the southern States to secession.

But in 1913, with the 17th Amendment, the direct election of senators, the States were stripped of their power to directly influence the federal government through normal legislative means, no longer having senators that represented their interests.

Which means that States became victims of oppressive federal laws, and federal judges to force their compliance.

After the Civil War, during reconstruction and through the first half of the 20th Century, efforts at nullification were mostly done by the southern States, to keep the racial status quo. This has put something of a taint on States rights and nullification. Dwight Eisenhower put down States rights by using force, and sending in the US Army to force segregation in Little Rock.

George W. Bush refused to force the federal will over Louisiana after hurricane Katrina, and was sneered at for not doing so, but make no mistake, when Obama orders federal power grabs over the States, he will feel little or no problem with trying to use force to assert federal power.

This means that the decision of the SCOTUS over the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the efforts of the States to nullify it, might result in Obama trying to order the military to enforce his whim. And that will prove problematic.


8 posted on 03/26/2010 5:26:39 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
This means that the decision of the SCOTUS over the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the efforts of the States to nullify it, might result in Obama trying to order the military to enforce his whim. And that will prove problematic.

So basically, you're saying you'd be a total kook to buy as much ammo and food as you can charge on your VISA card, right? Ears would never do us harm.

9 posted on 03/26/2010 5:38:53 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mitch77; All

Every state must organize a militia. Not a National Guard. And there should be an immediate action to arm all citizens and have free state sponsored training in gun safety.

Israel type of rules here and all citizens must serve some time in a state militia and all homes are required to have at least one certified weapon with a trained user.

Time served is nothing much more demanding on how to be available, how to interpret callups, where to organize at.

Alaska had its Alaska Scouts, these Scouts were trappers and hunters that were working with the military in WW2 when Japan invaded Alaska.

We are still here, I am ready.


10 posted on 03/26/2010 5:45:09 AM PDT by Eye of Unk ("In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" G.Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

A very thoughtful analysis. Thanks, for taking the time to write and post it.


11 posted on 03/26/2010 5:46:43 AM PDT by rgboomers (This space purposely left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mitch77
This is the correct way to resist though nullification.. Resist strongly with sharp teeth..coming from each State..It only takes a few men to nullify a law yet when done the whole state will back it up..
It has been proven before and will work. The feds would have you believe otherwise..

In other words........MAKE them come to us (you)..on our OWN (your state) grounds and terms..
which are defendable by law first..
DO NOT invade, that is a mistake made in the past and, that's what they want... Picking your battles wisely..can give you a win every time..

12 posted on 03/26/2010 5:52:30 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

So South Carolina backed down??

You better reread history.
Find out what S.C.’s Gov. did and told that jack a@s jackson..


13 posted on 03/26/2010 5:56:52 AM PDT by triSranch (Live from the Birthplace and Deathbed of the Confederacy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

So if SCOTUS shoots down the states claims of obamacare being unconstitutional, we’re pretty much screwed.

However, if there is a state with the stones to nullify this unconstitutional power grab regardless of the court’s ruling ....I’m moving there.


14 posted on 03/26/2010 6:05:27 AM PDT by Electric Graffiti (If the constitutional eligibility of the president is not a "winning issue," then our nation is lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative
Every state should take every opportunity to challenge the unconstitutional laws that the federal government imposes on us.

I wish. Oregon's AG is filing a Amicus brief [friend of the court] in support of the Constitutionality of Obamacare. We have more communists here than in D.C.
15 posted on 03/26/2010 6:12:02 AM PDT by Electric Graffiti (If the constitutional eligibility of the president is not a "winning issue," then our nation is lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

Well, in that the US military is about 80% Republican, with an over 95% Republican officer corps, Obama ordering them to attack Americans might be, as I said, “problematic”. Their oath is to the constitution, not to some guy in the oval office.


16 posted on 03/26/2010 6:16:02 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Have you heard that there a “health corps” in the health care takeover law?

They are meant to be called on in times of “emergency”. I bet it would be an emergency if Ears the Destroyer ordered the regular military to fire on civilians and they refused.


17 posted on 03/26/2010 6:22:59 AM PDT by MichiganConservative (A government big enough to do unto the people you don't like will get to doing unto you soon enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: triSranch

I think it was far less the governor than Henry Clay, who worked overtime for the Compromise Tariff as the final measure to restore balance, promote the rule of law, and avoid the “sacked cities”, “desolated fields”, and “smoking ruins” that he said would be the product of the failure to reach a final accord.

This in no way speaks ill of the South Carolinians, but instead of the vicious brutality of Andrew Jackson. For while the former would have tried valiantly to defend their lives, State and property, I have no doubt that Jackson would have had no problem at all slaughtering Americans.

Remember as well that Jackson had already committed a horrific act of ethnic cleansing of Indian tribes, solely to facilitate a massive land grab.

But it goes back to my original point, that while the SCOTUS has determined judicial and legislative supremacy of the federal government over the State courts and legislatures, it has never resolved one way or another, that the president is supreme over the governors.

Which means that in such a fight, unless the SCOTUS intervenes, it is a situation of “might makes right”. And I have no doubt that Obama, if he thought he could muster enough armed forces to his side, would have no hesitation in using them against Americans.


18 posted on 03/26/2010 6:37:37 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MichiganConservative

I rather like the odds in that fight. Because issuing a bunch of Obama followers uniforms and rifles would still not make them capable, and a goodly number would probably end up decorating light poles.


19 posted on 03/26/2010 6:40:54 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Recon Dad

Recon - add me to your list and let me know what I can do here in the Hamilton, Clermont, Butler and Warren County area.


20 posted on 03/26/2010 7:03:22 AM PDT by Buckeye Battle Cry (Enjoy nature - eat meat, wear fur and drive your car!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson