Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Struggling With Nullification
Our American Constitution ^ | February 3rd, 2014 | Rob Natelson

Posted on 02/08/2014 4:37:09 AM PST by Jacquerie

Does a state have the right to nullify federal statutes the state considers unconstitutional? This depends largely on how you define “nullification.” It also depends on what you mean by “right” and what kind of document you understand the Constitution to be. IOW, it depends on your premises.

Unfortunately, people often discuss/debate, and attack each other over—the merits or demerits of nullification without making their premises clear. The result is quarreling among people who are fundamentally on the same side.

The Constitution has been characterized as:

* A compact (i.e., contract) to which only the states are parties, by which the states granted power to federal officials. This is the pure interstate compact theory, expressed in Jefferson’s 1798 Kentucky Resolutions.

* A “compound” compact, created by the people but to which the states are parties. This was apparently Madison’s post-ratification view (see, for example, the equivocal wording about the nature of the Constitution in his Notes on Nullification), and may have underlain his 1798 Virginia Resolution.

* A popular grant: that is, a grant of power from the people—mostly to federal legislators and officials, but in some cases to state legislative authorities (as in the Time, Places, and Manner Clause) or to state legislators (as in Article V). This view was expressed by some of the seven state legislatures that formally repudiated the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. It also was Chief Justice John Marshall’s conclusion in the famous case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

You can make the best case for narrow-definition nullification as a constitutional prerogative if you adopt the first of the three alternatives. The basic idea is that if other states have broken the compact by letting their agent (the federal government) run amok, then aggrieved states (compacting parties) have the right to protect themselves.

(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.i2i.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; articlev; constitution; g42; nullification; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last
To: Political Junkie Too

A typo, but it sings! That is what it has devolved into.


It wasn’t a typo...


61 posted on 02/08/2014 12:47:23 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie; All
What is amazing is not that we have an Obama, but rather that it took so long.

I basically agree. But I wonder if the pirates who have now taken over DC had to wait for the modernization of broadcast electronic communications with its vast viewership before they could deceive low-information voters in volume.

62 posted on 02/08/2014 12:51:25 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Publius

If we ever get that Amendments Convention, this is the kind of amendment I would like to see proposed.


Exactly..


63 posted on 02/08/2014 12:51:32 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
The United States is merely a legal construct.. a corporation.. with partners.. and equal shares..

Equal shares in the Senate, but proportional shares in the House and the Executive.

Given that, the states have sold their equal shares to the national parties. The national parties are unequally voting those shares, because the Democrats are ruthless and the Republicans are feckless.

Following the metaphore of shares, the Democrats are risk-taking and the Republicans are risk-averse. Can you guess who is profiting the most from that investment?

-PJ

64 posted on 02/08/2014 12:57:48 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Some of us just don’t like considering fantasy machinations from fringe kooks.

Boot licker. My ancestors were not "fringe kooks". So < expletive deleted > you.

65 posted on 02/08/2014 1:42:28 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
How to design a government strong enough to meet its objects, yet structured such that it didn't violate our natural rights?

Exactly. The Founders original design was brilliant. They limited the administrative powers to be exercised by the federal organ outside its physical area of jurisdiction via enumeration while simultaneously giving it full, local, municipal authority over the area inside it.

Unfortunately, the prevalent idea today is that everyone in the nation is subject to everything any branch federal government does.

66 posted on 02/08/2014 2:01:45 PM PST by MamaTexan (Due to the newly adopted policy at FR, every post I make may be my last.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Yes IMO. But I’m a big states righter. There was a bill in Congress fairly recently to uniformly insititute reciprocal CC in all states. My US Rep Rob Woodall voted again’st it and I agreed with him. He says its better for the individual states to handle their own reciprocity or else they are ceding power to the Feds that they cannot get back. GA has reciprocal agreements with 26 states and working with others to add to the list. I’m OK with that. Others may disagree.


67 posted on 02/08/2014 2:14:37 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
the prevalent idea today is that everyone in the nation is subject to everything any branch federal government does.

Many people point to the over-reach of the Commerce Clause as the cause for this, but I think that today, it is the over-reach of the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause that is the culprit.

The federal government is using "equal protection" to make the states irrelevant, citing the "unfairness" of people in one state being subjected to more restrictive laws than people in another state.

This naturally leads to the choices made in the most liberal states being forced onto the citizens of all the other states. Couple this with the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV, and you have a bludgeon that the liberals wield to force the whole nation to comply with gay marriage, abortion, gun control, education policy, and any other Leftist agenda item that liberals can think of.

-PJ

68 posted on 02/08/2014 2:16:55 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
but I think that today, it is the over-reach of the 14th amendment "equal protection" clause that is the culprit.

Agreed. The most disturbing thing to me, however, is that I've found no Constitutional basis for the existence of a '14th Amendment citizen' as contemporary government erroneously applies the concept today.

Only in the time frame of it's writing and for the explicit purpose of engendering the freed slaves with citizenship, (because at that point, they had none) is the 14th Amendment remotely Constitutional.

IMO, the deconstruction of our country is based on the legal fallacy that the 14th operates in perpetuity...something it could no more do than the grandfather clause could be applicable today.

69 posted on 02/08/2014 3:23:00 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a citizen of the United States, but a Citizen of some one of them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Nothing will make a judge angrier than talk of nullification. The black robed god will not be mocked.


70 posted on 02/08/2014 3:30:47 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Listen speed bump, you are a fringe kook. There is no such thing as nullification. Try it with your next run-in with the law. Tell they judge you nullified the law. See what happens, speed bump.


71 posted on 02/08/2014 3:47:12 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
I am a nobody. I am not important, influential nor affluent. Heck, I’ve been told I’m not even likable.

Just change it to "I am a boot licking Federal butt boy" and be done with it.

72 posted on 02/08/2014 3:50:07 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I was just observing historical precedent, not indulging my own opinion.
If we’re gonna do it, have no delusions about it being easy or respected.


73 posted on 02/08/2014 4:20:26 PM PST by ctdonath2 (Making good people helpless doesn't make bad people harmless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo; central_va
Nullification language does exist in the Constitution.


...being necessary to the security of a free State...

The logic flows from the Preamble.


We the People of the United States, in Order to... secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...
Note that it is the People's liberty that is being secured. Also note that the only places where "secure" and "security" are mentioned are the Preamble, the 2nd amendment, and the 4th amendment protection of being secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects.

The 9th and 10th amendments reiterated the point, and the 2nd amendment backs it up with the method of enforcement.

Note that the 1st amendment contains the desired approach "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Today, the government has found a way to deny anyone who wishes to petition for redress. It's called "standing," and apparently, nobody has it anymore. And being secure in one's person, houses, papers, and effects, has also recently fallen by the wayside.

If this keeps up, the only method left to the People to maintain "the security of a free state" for "Ourselves and our Posterity" will be the 2nd amendment way.

-PJ

74 posted on 02/08/2014 4:26:54 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

I already pointed that out in first post. Winner goes to the most murderous.


75 posted on 02/08/2014 5:02:30 PM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo
Rereading it in your post 50, I see that your point is true that "No state has the right of nullification."

But the People do.

"Winner goes to the most murderous" is true if nobody blinks in the game of brinksmanship that Hamilton wrote of in Federalist 46. It happened in the civil war when it was the states that seceded. It didn't happen in the Cuban Missile Crisis when Dean Acheson famously said "By that time, we hope that cooler heads will prevail."

But we know that Obama does not back down. He doesn't have the ego for it. His first and only inclination is to double-down when backed into a corner.

And as I wrote above in my deconstruction of Hamilton's Federalist 46, Obama is itching to incite rebellion. I do believe that the win will go to Obama the Nobel Peace Prize winner, which is why I support the Article V convention approach to sidestep the federal government.

-PJ

76 posted on 02/08/2014 5:30:41 PM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Can you guess who is profiting the most from that investment?


We don’t need a third party...

What we need is a Second Party..


77 posted on 02/08/2014 6:19:49 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

I agree with Judge Andrew Napalitano. The states formed the federal government not the other way around. If the states want to nullify a federal law that is not enshrined in the Constitution, they can. And it doesn’t require a revolution to do it.


78 posted on 02/08/2014 7:21:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

No. “shall not be infringed” means that the states don’t have the right to infringe (i.e. limit or restrict in any way whatsoever).


79 posted on 02/08/2014 7:30:52 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Madison wrote Federalist #46, not Hamilton.


80 posted on 02/08/2014 7:33:15 PM PST by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson