If a state were free to nullify federal laws within its borders, or, by logical extension, to secede from the union altogether, that would pretty much spell the end of federalism in favor of a loose, and not very durable, confederation of states. Is that really what we want? A lot of blood was shed 1861-65 to determine whether this would be the choice. The outcome seems to have been that federal problems need to be resolved at the federal level.
This is an entirely different situation, involving a law that the Federal government does not seem, in any way, shape or form, to have the authority to impose on the states. This is a reassertion of the Constitution, not a violation of it; the Constitution provided for federalism, not a unitary state.
“..in favor of a loose, and not very durable, confederation of states. Is that really what we want? “
Count me as a YES on that.
I’ll take a loose federation. The alternative isn’t working.
The very heart of American Federalism consists in the ongoing observation of, and reverence for, Constitutional limits binding upon the Federal power THIS is what the American Civil War established, and it carved this concept in blood deep into our National heart. But that was more than 150 years ago, and most now living have no grasp of that, anymore.
The States are bound, under this Federalism, to exert themselves in just such cases as this to bestir The Supreme Court to check excesses of the Federal power. The observation that the practical implications of a given Law will carry the exercise of Federal power and authority beyond its Constitutional confines is the signal to the States to take action to resist, and to excite The Court to uphold the limits of the enumerated powers, and bring the Federal power to heel. That is the mechanism under operation, here.
State legal actions whereby they seek to insist that the Federal power remain within Constitutional limits do not in any way constitute said States being “free to nullify federal laws.” That being the case, secession is not a “logical extension” of the States’ present activities. The move to secession does not arise from a single transgression of Constitutional limits by the Federal power, but from repeated, injurious transgressions in which the Federal power remains steadfastly unrepentant in a posture of ritual abuse beyond the bounds of the enumerated powers, and wherein The Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to check such injuries by adequate exercise of its own constitutional powers.
In this present case, not only are the several States NEITHER attempting to “deny access” to a Federal Law, NOR moving to secede, they are seeking to PROTECT citizens from being savaged by a Federal Law that illegitimately, and illegally (yet again) expands the Federal power beyond all Constitutional limits under the fraudulent veneer of “rights”.
This is decidedly NOT the Federalism for which we sacrificed precious blood and treasure at Gettysburg, Antietam, Manassas, and elsewhere. Those honored dead gave their last and best for a Federal power that would remain CONFINED within its Constitutional limits. We have no such thing; the Federal Government of the United States of America long ago tore asunder the Constitutional bonds designed to restrain it from raping, pillaging and plundering the lives of “We, The People, and The Supreme Court has abdicated its own authority at critical junctures.
Today, those shattered restraints are regularly scorned, if not simply ignored; the populace is generally ignorant of them, as they are of The Constitution, itself; and unless the States begin to vociferously assert otherwise in such cases as this one, there is little hope for any mitigation of increasing Federal excess short of an all-consuming, bloody Second Civil War.
That lop-eared Kenyan interloper and his kneepad-bedecked sycophants in Congress had best pray to God the States prevail in The Supreme Court, for of they do not — if the Court abdicates yet again — there WILL be RIVERS of blood, and it is only a self-blinded fool who can’t see it coming.
I fear for my country, and for my children.
Yes, that is what we want.
You don’t seem to get it too well, so let me enlighten you just a bit. The Constitution is/was a CONTRACT between We, the People, and the Several States, which authorizes the creation of a federal Government to do certain things in our names and on our behalf. FedGov is a CREATION of the States and is most assuredly NOT sovereign over them. ONLY in certain areas where specific authority has been granted to FedGov, such as handling foreign affairs or coining money, does the “Supremacy” clause apply. IN ALL OTHER MATTERS, either the Several States or We, the People, reign supreme. Which includes slapping down FedGov when needed OR seceding from the Union, if we feel the necessity. In the present instance, FedGov has pretty much VOIDED its contract with us by its own dastardly deeds.
30 states seem to think so, these days.
"A lot of blood was shed 1861-65 to determine whether this would be the choice. The outcome seems to have been that federal problems need to be resolved at the federal level."
Actually, more pragmatically, the outcome seems to have been that any effect the 10th amendment might have originally had has been entirely superseded by whoever has the best ability to force their viewpoint on the group that differs. That means that, very likely, even though 3/5ths of the states may have legislatively disagreed, it doesn't make any real difference to a "federal" government gone wild.
If the 2010 elections do not stop the feds then the federal problem needs to be resolved by the States — by nullification and interposition first and if that and 2012 does not stop the federal incroachment, then the last resort is secession.
Remember that nearly all US military installations and training faciilities are in red states or red portions of blue states.
“If a state were free to nullify federal laws within its borders, or, by logical extension, to secede from the union altogether, that would pretty much spell the end of federalism in favor of a loose, and not very durable, confederation of states. Is that really what we want?”
Yes.