Don't let anyone tell you state nullification of unconstitutional laws is unconstitutional. It is supported by the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Sec 2) and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
At some point soon, state legislators need to roll up their sleeves and begin working on the unconstitutionality of
1) The Incorporation Doctrine of the 14A (nullification reestablishes state supremacy to bring back, at the state's discretion, prayer and Bible in state schools, freedom to choose, anti-abortion laws, gun protection, and anti-gay marriage laws among other things).
2) The expansion of the Commerce Clause (nullification invalidates things like Obamacare and millions of unconstitutional, useless business regulations)
3) The nullification of the Necessary and Proper Clause (proper restoration destroys unconstitutional multi-trillion dollar Administrative State).
Followed closely by a review of whether the 16th Amendment was actually constitutionally ratified. If not nuke the income tax and the states (the people of the state) pay tax to the feds per capita as the Constitution instructs.
If the 17th Amendment was properly ratified, then have it repealed at an Article V Convention of States.
Hark! Did I hear somebody mention Obamacare and federal business regulations in the context of the Commerce Clause? In case you have not seen the following information, you may find it interesting.
I stumbled over the Supreme Court case of Paul v. Virginia the other day. Here’s a very interesting excerpt from that case.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Viirginia, 1869.
It has been pointed out concerning the excerpt above that the Supremes had essentially clarified that the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3) doesn’t give the feds the power to regulate insurance. So I’m adding the excerpt to the list of excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions which indicate that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes.
Note that the 1st and 4th points in the following list address unconstitutional federal healthcare and the unconstitutional federal healthcare insurance mandate in the context of the Commerce Clause.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
The 14th A, Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause are clauses in the Constitution. The very fact they are in there means they are Constitutional. I agree the feds have become reckless and decadent. But so much of what you said isn’t legally correct.
The Supremacy Clause says federal law and court decisions override state laws, mainly if there is a conflict between the two. So, a state cannot be a party to the Constitution and agree that federal law is supreme, then say it is not.
The 9th Amendment essentially prohibits the federal government from creating additional powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. So, Congress cannot add enumerated powers to Art I, sec 8 at will. But it does not limit the growth and application of those already enumerated powers.
The 10th Amendment preserves the right of the states to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals. It also reserves the right to retain their own legal jurisdiction and laws, i.e., contract, property, tort, and probate law. For example, federal courts will not touch a probate case unless there is some constitutional implication. And then would only dispose of the constitutional question. Otherwise, it is pure state law. Regarding these laws, they are still subject to the Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection clauses.
None of the above allow for nullification.
As for disposing of the incorporation doctrine, the 2nd A is binding on the states through the 14th A. Before incorporation the 2nd A exclusively prohibited Congress from infringing on gun rights. Undo that and you undo Heller, etc. Your state would then have the right to ban all guns. Your right to a jury trial for serious crimes, against self incrimination, assistance of counsel are all binding through the 14th A. Before incorporation, you did not have the absolute right to remain silent, be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, or have a jury trial. If the state provided those rights, great. But they could take them away and there is nothing you or anyone else could do about it.
As for the N&P Clause, unless you add a provision that gives Congress a broad power to create various military branches, then the Air Force would have to disband immediately since the Constitution only provides for the Army, Navy, and (after a fashion) the Coast Guard. Heck, event the Corps may have to disband the way it has developed. Remember, at first US naval vessels had compliments of marines, not Marines as we know them, at ratification.
The 16th A was properly ratified. Arguments like Ohio wasn’t a state is inane and makes tax opponents look kooky. Also, the individual income tax was perfectly legal before the 16th A. Multiple SCOTUS cases affirmed income taxes are indirect, thus not requiring apportionment. The 16th A was ratified to circumvent the Pollard case, which was based on rather strange legal reasoning that was expressed neither before or after in other cases. Even if the 16th A were repealed, your interest on bank accounts and bonds, stock dividends, and income from rental property will be taxable subject to apportionment. That is until a case comes before SCOTUS that will overturn Pollard in an instant since it was based on some pretty flimsy legal reasoning.
Finally, this big push for nullification is a double edged sword. If as conservatives we can nullify laws we don’t like, then leftists will claim a right to use it to ignore laws that conservatives support. For example, if a conservative Congress and president enact a law banning all abortions in the US, regardless of reason, Maryland, New York, California, etc., will say “F-you. Nullification.” Then proceed to hand out 2-for-1 coupons to abortion clinics. The 14th A, Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause are clauses in the Constitution. The very fact they are in there means they are Constitutional. I agree the feds have become reckless and decadent. But so much of what you said isn’t legally correct.
The Supremacy Clause says federal law and court decisions override state laws, mainly if there is a conflict between the two. So, a state cannot be a party to the Constitution and agree that federal law is supreme, then say it is not.
The 9th Amendment essentially prohibits the federal government from creating additional powers beyond those reserved in the Constitution. So, Congress cannot add enumerated powers to Art I, sec 8 at will. But it does not limit the growth and application of those already enumerated powers.
The 10th Amendment preserves the right of the states to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals. It also reserves the right to retain their own legal jurisdiction and laws, i.e., contract, property, tort, and probate law. For example, federal courts will not touch a probate case unless there is some constitutional implication. And then would only dispose of the constitutional question. Otherwise, it is pure state law.
None of these allow for nullification.
As for disposing of the incorporation doctrine, the 2nd A is binding on the states through the 14th A. Before incorporation the 2nd A exclusively prohibited Congress from infringing on gun rights. Undo that and you undo Heller, etc. Your state would then have the right to ban all guns. Your right to a jury trial for serious crimes, against self incrimination, assistance of counsel are all binding through the 14th A. Before incorporation, you did not have the absolute right to remain silent, be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, or have a jury trial. If the state provided those rights, great. But they could take them away and there is nothing you or anyone else could do about it.
As for the N&P Clause, unless you add a provision that gives Congress a broad power to provide for various military branches, then the Air Force would have to disband immediately since the Constitution only provides for the Army, Navy, and (after a fashion) the Coast Guard. Heck, event the Corps may have to disband as Congress created it as a separate entity in 1789. Not an Army, not a Navy.
The 16th A was properly ratified. Arguments like Ohio wasn’t a state are inane and makes tax opponents look like uneducated Neanderthals, or at best churlish. Also, the individual income tax was perfectly legal before the 16th A. Multiple SCOTUS cases affirmed income taxes are indirect, thus not requiring apportionment. The 16th A was ratified to circumvent the Pollard case, which was based on rather strange legal reasoning that was expressed neither before or after in other cases. Even if the 16th A were repealed, your interest on bank accounts and bonds, stock dividends, and income from rental property will be taxable subject to apportionment. That is until a case comes before SCOTUS that will overturn Pollard in an instant since it was based on some pretty flimsy legal reasoning.
Finally, this big push for nullification is a double edged sword. If as conservatives we can nullify laws we don’t like, then leftists will claim a right to use it to ignore laws that conservatives support. For example, if a conservative Congress and president enact a law banning all abortions in the US, regardless of reason, Maryland, New York, California, etc., will say “F-you. Nullification.” Then proceed to hand out 2-for-1 coupons to abortion clinics. Be careful what you wish for. If we are to make substantial changes in the way government operates, we must adhere as closely as possible to the law. We must think of how future generations will look back on this time. Will they see an ordered society that disagreed with the status quo with civility and proceeded to change them according to the Constitution? I hope they will see that, rather than arbitrary actions and seemingly petty squabbling amongst ourselves.