Replies

The state legislators have been taking the usual abuse in the press, etc., because all the “authorities” claim that nullification is unconstitutional, obstructive, idiotic, moot.

I believe the SCOTUS has ruled that Federal Law supersedes states rights.

However, even if this is true a couple things come into play. How do the Feds force a State to implement the law, especially if numerous States start passing the same nullification. Also, it opens the door for the threat of secession if the Fed pushes too hard disregarding the limitations on it in the Constitution.

Yes, the Court has ruled against virtually every nullification attempt, at least so the law profs claim.

I still think the nullification stance is worthwhile, for the reasons you mention.

If states say no and the feds try to force the issue, by withholding highway funds for instance (they’ve threatened that before), the Obamabot authoritarians in D.C. are just going to keep losing elections.

Just this afternoon the governor of Montana has announced that Montana will no longer abide by federal endangered species protection for the Canadian wolves that have been introduced into the state by the eco-maniac U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Governor Schweitzer announced that wolves that “feed on wild game herds”-—i.e. ALL wolves-—can now be killed without the shooter having to fear any state investigation or prosecution.

This is another instance, and a big one, of rejecting and in fact nullifying-by-decree of a federal reg. Schweitzer’s announcement echoes that of Idaho Governor Butch Otter a few months back. If the feds catch you shooting an elk, you are in trouble (this isn’t highly likely just because there aren’t that many USFWS enforcement types out in the hills). If the state officials see you or hear about it-—nada.

The story is front page at billingsgazette.com....I would post it but am clueless about the HTML process....