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. "
Abel Upshur, Secretary of the Navy, 1841-43
Excellent sendoff to the arrogant one. FR has become infested with feral government shills and bootlickers.
Their [the states] submission to its [the federal government's] operation is voluntary: its councils, its engagements, its authority are theirs, modified, and united. Its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent."
Both excerpted from:
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. IN FIVE VOLUMES. WITH AN APPENDIX TO EACH VOLUME, CONTAINING SHORT TRACTS UPON SUCH SUBJECTS AS APPEARED NECESSARY TO FORM A CONNECTED VIEW OF THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, AS A MEMBER OF THE FEDERAL UNION. BY ST. GEORGE TUCKER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WILLIAM AND MARY, AND ONE OF THE JUDGES OF THE GENERAL COURT IN VIRGINIA. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM YOUNG BIRCH, AND ABRAHAM SMALL, NO. 17, SOUTH SECOND-STREET. ROBERT CARR, PRINTER. 1803.
No argument is being made by me that the ultimate authority on what our government can do rests with the People. However, it has been provided with constitutional means to have that influence exercised. Originally our government was established so that the state legislatures were actually represented in the Senate. However, the People were convinced that this was not democratic enough, amended the Constitution and now our Senators are elected like Reps. This was a big mistake.
Unfortunately, there is no credible belief that our government and People will not make mistakes, mistakes which could last for decades. Look at Dred Scott.
Many of us share your belief that the fedgov has become too powerful in too many areas. However, trying to negate it by an appeal to “Natural Law” is a fruitless endeavor since there is considerable dispute about what that means. Some claim we have a “right” to free health care. Some claimed we had a “right” to slavery.
Even the greatest advocates of Enumerated powers do not dispute that there are certain unenumerated powers associated with the sheer sovereignty of the nation. Hamilton’s magnificent Essay on the Constitutionality of the National Bank most clearly expostulates this concept.
Nor is there any realistic dispute that the history of this century shows that an extremely powerful national government is critical to our very survival. One with less powers would likely have succumbed to either Nazism or Communism. Nor should there be much dispute that it has taken to far more involvement in other areas than should be the case.
However, most of this I blame on the People for continuing to elect Democrats and falling for every sweet-talking scam artist who decides to enter politics. Or they just don’t pay any attention to significant issues until they are huge problems. Or they just don’t give a crap and don’t even vote.
The federal constitution is the creature of the People not the states. It was deliberately set up to be voted on by the People in convention in the states rather than state legislatures exactly so that it could not be truthfully claimed to be the “creature of the states”. If a state legislature were allowed to ratify then it could at a later date vote to de-ratify.
Back when Madison was more Hamiltonian than Hamilton he even proposed that the states be abolished and made into administrative units created by the general government. He also wrote to H during the NY ratification convention that once ratifying the states could not withdraw. Nor could they ratify “conditionally”.
Nullification is a bird of the same feather. Could Idaho have said “No, we are nullifying the Draft Law. Our boys are not going to fight Hitler”? Of course not.
Our government was set up with DIVIDED powers not as a monolith. So far it has worked pretty well in spite of various mistakes and problems. Court rulings have overturned legislative and executive decisions and they have generally been accepted and followed. Jefferson tried to make the Court subordinate to his ideology and failed. It is designed not to be political. But it requires people of integrity to make it so. If it ever gets to the point of being totally political then something will happen to our nation and it won’t be good.