Every ancestor of mine that fought in the unpleasantness of 1861-65 fought for the South, so no, I am going to say it is not the job of a state government to enforce an unpopular national law in that state.
Get over it, that one was fought and lost.
What you have to say about it is of little import on such issues, what the Constitution has to say about it however is of great matter.
Nullification is a valid constitutional principle, and it's a shame Jackson and Lincoln made us get away from that.
Nullification is for jurys of one's peers in court proceedings, not government officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, and Laws of the Land.
It is not right that the federal government can go in and micromanage the affairs of a state.
Strange I don't see collecting a national tax as micromanaging anything. It is however a very definite authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes and make the laws necessary and proper to the execution of that authority.
There's also no guarantee that the state militia will comply. The state's have allowed the government to get away with abuses like these for more than 150 years but eventually, a breaking point is going to come.
Give you a clue, federal government doesn't use the militias of the state in default to correct such controversies.
And how popular do you think it would be for the federal government to come into say, the Southern or Western states and say, you're not doing what we want, so were in charge now.
Where there is an agreement by the state to act as an agent, with a full option to not do so? LOL. Get real.
Granted, this is all a hypothetical,
Indeed it is, and has little to do with the specific legislation of discussion. As the NRST agreement is bilateral with the state able to pull out anytime it wishes turning administration over to either a third party, or to the U.S. Treasury.
but people are really getting sick and tired of federal courts saying, you've got to do this, do that, etc etc.
I suppose that people violating laws would be sick and tired of the courts telling them they must abide by the law. So? We are talking here about clear authority under the Constitution not some pre-numbra or inferred magic right that never existed.
And telling state governments that they are going to have to do the bidding of the national Treasury Department
Nice hyperbole, but not on point as the states enter into voluntary agreements with the Treasury to administer a clearly constitutional national tax law. Sorry, just doesn't fly for the situation.
(presumably so people deflect their anger away from the DOT),
I would suggest you get rid of what ever it is you are smoking, fantasy is creeping in.
you really think they are going to be thrilled to go along with something like that.
State's option as to whether they, another state, or the U.S. Treasury administers the NRST in that state. Sorry thrilled or not people pay taxes, the choice is only in who administers the national tax system in the specific instance.
But, to reiterate, I do believe in nullification
So do I, in a court room by jury of peers.
What issue destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. State's Rights.
All a solution like this does is keep a bloated federal government, it keeps the judges that rule to increase federal power, it increases pork projects, etc.
I hate sales taxes right now, but I am willing to deal with it because I know my money goes to help my own people, my state, my city.
I am not crazy about having to pay a 25 percent surcharge on an item just so a majority of that money can go to people in a state that I will never live in, people in a state I may never visit.
Now granted, it is amazing irony that income taxes from New York and all those Northeastern states are used to subsidize social services here in the South, but I don't believe that is right either.
Why do we need a bloated government, why do we need a Department of Education, or a Department of Agriculture, or the million departments we have right now.
Today, as we speak, the federal government will pay farmers not to grow crops, but they pay them what they would have gotten had they grown crops, to me, that is absolutely ridiculous.
I will admit, it was ridiculous for the federal government to pay 3 mil to restore a historic train station.
Now, had it been state money spent on an in-state project, a different situation.
What is so wrong with the concept of reducing the federal government to just the military (and law enforcement), and letting each state kick in revenue, however it wants to get it, to pay for national defense.
Why is it that we should substitute one system of financing a bloated government with another system of financing a bloated government.
Why should I have to pay a surcharge on every item I buy, see that surcharge and seethe at it, just so we can fund a school lunch program in a blue state.
Instead of finding new ways to fund big government, we should be trying to eliminate big government all together.