Madison’s understanding of the Constitution went off the tracks when he fell under the influence of Jefferson who didn’t seem to understand it at all. He returned to his glory later when he called “foul” on secessionist talk which his earlier nullification theories helped generate.
Constitutionality of laws is finally determined in the Supreme Court and that concept was established even before the constitution. The Hylton case settled it after the constitution. Legislatures have no say on the constitutionality of federal legislation. Nor is it decided by your opinion nor mine that is the way the system is set up.
Should the Court decide a law is unconstitutional and the administration decides to implement it anyway then state legislatures can be the arm of the people’s discontent. That is a different matter from nullification of laws prior to a final court decision.
Since I haven't seen your name on these “statesrights” threads before I can only assume you are new to the discussion. What you are parroting is useless tripe that has been sliced and diced on these threads for at least two years. Based on what I've seen so far I seriously doubt you could anything to the discussion that hasn't been covered many times already. You're arguments are old hat and take on the tenor of a troll. JMO of course.schwingdoc can stop scratching your head now. Once again, sorry.
I will first say, you should thank your maker (whomever that may be,) I'm not on the high Court or the only justice sitting on the it. In my opinion, the federal government has been operating outside the Constitution for a great many years. I would therefore make an "activist ruling" that they, themselves, are unconstitutional.
My ruling would be as follows: All laws found within United States code that violate the Natural rights of man are hereby unconstitutional. These God Given rights can located in what is known as the Bill of Rights; or as I refer to it as, the list of Shall not. This list of "shall not" was a permanent restriction upon the general government placed on them by the people acting threw their respective States.
Furthermore, the general government is one of enumerated authority. This authority that they so carelessly toss around is one by gift, it is in trust. The collective governments (Federal, State, local) are all subordinate to the people. Please see (Amendment IX):The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Hasn't the general government catered to their lust for power by blatantly ignoring the fact they are a mere agent. Their authority is in trust and sworn duty is to defend the Constitution. This would also be applicable to their own colleagues. By choosing to turn a blind eye to their own ignorance, the people have allowed the general government to turn Amendment IX on it's head. Not to mention the whole Constitution itself.
What is to transpire when the greatest threat to American freedoms is the United States Government? You say the Courts will defend our rights. I disagree. If the last two nominees are any judge, the only object they intend on protecting is in fact one of the courts biggest goofs; Roe v. Wade. When someone makes such a statement like "the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of Constitution issues," which is a direct result of being blinded by years of propaganda. Moreover, when four justices fall all over themselves twisting "shall not be infringed" into "whatever is reasonable," you place your God Given Rights in their hands. I, therefore, must question your love for Freedom.
We here in Idaho can't force our way of life on the people of Massachusetts, but we sure can defend what we understand to be truth for our way of life. You say "we can't nullify federal law" I say it and it's supporters have nullified the Constitution for far to long and it's time that someone nullifies them!
Abel Upshur said it best in his book, The Federal government: Its true nature and character :
"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge the extent of its own powers, without reference to his constituent? To a certain extent, he is compelled to do this, in the very act of exercising them, but always in subordination to the authority by whom his powers were conferred. If this were not so, the result would be, that the agent would possess every power which the agent could confer, notwithstanding the plainest and most express terms of the grant. This would be against all principle and all reason. If such a rule would prevail in regard to government, a written constitution would be the idlest thing imaginable. It would afford no barrier against the usurpations of the government, and no security for the rights and liberties of the people. If then the Federal Government has no authority to judge, in the last resort, of the extent of its own powers, with what propriety can it be said that a single department of that government may do so? Nay. It is said that this department may not only judge for itself, but for the other departments also. This is an absurdity as pernicious as it is gross and palpable. If the judiciary may determine the powers of the Federal Government, it may pronounce them either less or more than they really are. "