SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification

washingtontimes.com ^ | 13 May, 2013 | Jeffrey Scott Shapiro

[marktwain]

“Nullification” laws have been introduced in 37 states that technically make it a felony for law enforcement agents to enforce federal restrictions banning firearms, and a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 38 percent support such state laws.

Nullification laws are a legal device used by states to “nullify” federal laws deemed unconstitutional by that state’s legislature and governor. They stem from a proclamation that Andrew Jackson issued in 1832, but in reality have little if any actual authority in overriding federal law. In fact, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” and in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins out.

However, Washington should take notice that 37 states in the union passing such laws is a clear sign that the majority of the country disapproves of federal gun laws that may be unconstitutional and that states are becoming bolder about rebelling.

As a former Washington, D.C., prosecutor who has just about always sided with the United States in circumstances in which the states have tried to pre-empt the federal government, I can only hope that President Obama and the Democratic Senate finally realize their anti-Second Amendment views are unconstitutional and alarming state governments and their citizens.

[marktwain]

I disagree with the author. I think he has some of his facts wrong. Many, if not most of the state laws proposed do not make it a felony for federal officers, but simply make it illegal for state officials to enforce or aid in the enforcement of the federal law. This is well established precident.

Second, the Supremacy clause does not apply to violations of the Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights was passed after the Supremacy clause, rendering the Bill of Rights supreme over the rest of the Constitution.

Public officials have every right to nullify unconstitutional law by refusing to enforce it. In fact, they took an oath to do so. Private individuals have the power to do the same in juries: see jury nullification.

[tet68]

Obama nullified DOMA, so where does he get off?

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

marktwain (from the article) “In fact, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” and in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins out.”

When the application of new federal law / legislation violates the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights
the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain supreme !
Eazy-Peazey !

[marktwain]

Obama nullified DOMA, so where does he get off?

I think I remember a Mel Brooks film where it was stated:
“It is good to be king.”

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

tet68 ~:” Obama nullified DOMA, so where does he get off?”

Violation of the Constitution is violation of the oath of office,
so impeachment or removal from office is called for.
Also ,violation of southern border violates national soverignty
Also , arming and aiding known enemies of the State is called treason
Also, giving foreigners the right to vote, demeans my citizenship and my rights,
and impeachment is the proper response
to violating the oath of office.

[deoetdoctrinae]

[tet68]

Oh, I’m with you there.

[Amendment10]

In fact, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” and in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins out.

Where did Mr. Shapiro go to school?

As evidenced by the 10th Amendment, only federal laws based on the limited powers which the states have expressly delegated to Congress via the Constitution, most of these powers listed in the Constitution's Section 8 of Article I, win out over state laws.

Otherwise, any state law which not only respects all personal rights expressly protected by the Constituition, but is also based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constituiton, necessarily trump federal laws which attempt to regulate the same issue. This is because such federal laws shouldn't exist in the first place. Examples of federal laws which shouldn't exist are public healthcare laws (Obamacare), public schooling laws, immigration laws, etc..

[longtermmemmory]

include it in JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

jury instructions are standardized. By including the state law so to speak in jury instructions and prohibiting statements to the contrary it neuters prosecutions and binds any left wing judges.

[arthurus]

Precedent.

[arthurus]

Unconstitutional acts of the Congres and/or of the President are NOT the “supreme law of the land” by the very wordomg pf that clause in the COnstitution-”...made in pursuance of” the Constitution.

[marktwain]

include it in JURY INSTRUCTIONS.

jury instructions are standardized. By including the state law so to speak in jury instructions and prohibiting statements to the contrary it neuters prosecutions and binds any left wing judges.

I think that is an excellent idea. It should be taught in all high school civics classes as well.

[marktwain]

Thanks.

[Pollster1]

In fact, under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” and in a conflict between state and federal law, federal law wins out.

This moron "forgot" the rest of the supremacy clause: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land

Federal laws that violate the Second Amendment are not made in pursuance of the Constitution, violate the supreme law of the land, and must be nullified.