Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

But you aren't, as,I have to keep correcting you.

Again, that isn't talking about jury nullification.

- - - Updated - - -

Proven false with Supreme Court precedent.

 

Our Tenth Amendment is part of our supreme law of the land.

 

If it were settled, we would not be discussing it.

I never claimed it "alters" it, but it most certainly qualifies it, by reserving powers not delegated to the states and people, respectively.

In other words, the states and the people have every right under the constitution to nullify or otherwise resist federal statutes, executive orders, codes, administrative regulations, etc. that usurp the constitutionally protected sovereignty of the states and the people.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Except the will of the people and their state government. Must really chap your ass to see federal law being so brazenly nullified by democracy.

Or so you say.

You mean you're glad that the federal government is allowing two states to openly defy and effectively nullify federal statutes on marijuana prohibition? Do tell.

And the legislature appropriates funds, and the executive branch enforces the law. So if the legislature defunds a court decision or the executive branch refuses to enforce it, much like they are doing in Colorado and Washington, how does that run afoul of the constitution?

 

Your argument was "because I said so". I don't say so, the Supreme Court does.

- - - Updated - - -

No relevance.

 

... a substantial difference is you are admitting those intentions. Asking me if I'm daft, dismissing me with comments about not pandering to the stupid, labeling me an unworthy person. Well, I guess there's not much ambiguity in your intent to focus on me rather than my comments. And your intent to insult by way of your prejudgements.

And no, I wouldn't accuse you of being hateful. I have no idea what's going on in your heart. I can only take exceptions with your words and actions. And the pattern of them. Insulting, discourteous, disrespectful... those might be fair complaints about what you've said.






​

 

There was nothing to correct besides your own erroneous assertions. Why don't you get started on them and then you can give correcting me a shot.

It is unless you ignore the plain meaning of the words "people", "nullify", and "jury", not to mention the OP's own admission.

It takes a special kind of arrogance to ignore facts the way you have throughout this thread.

 

People discuss whether or not we ever landed on the moon. Doesn't make that issue any less settled.

.
Which has nothing to do with nullifying a federal law.

Nope. Every time the argument has been tried it's been rejected by the Supreme Court.


:

[

And?

No federal laws are nullified. There is nothing stopping the federal government from prosecuting.

I don't say. I prove.

No such thing as nullification I'm glad the Feds aren't prosecuting. I think drug laws are dumb. But republicans won't ever repeal them, so the democratic administration is choosing not to prosecute.

Have you ever read it? Lol

 

A disgusting lie, but hardly surprising given your malicious and baseless insinuations throughout the thread.

If you truly believe that I harbor an obsession or some kind of desire to see Jews thrown into ovens, then you would have to be daft or stupid, especially since I'm partially German-Jewish on my father's side. I suppose you think I want to throw myself into an oven?

 

I'm not making assertions. Everything I've stated is settled US law.

I can't help that neither you nor the OP understand the failed legal theory of nullification.

Incorrect statements aren't facts they're incorrect statement.

 

The argument is no less fallacious than your original one. The Supreme Court is fallible and temporal, and nowhere in the constitution are they classified or labeled as the final or definitive arbitrator of the constitution. Indeed, the constitution provides a legal process by which the states can dissolve the Supreme Court along with the federal government entirely. Kind of hard to be the final arbiter of a document that provides a legal path for your own dissolution without your input or consent.

 

Of course they are.

Lol, the only way that they can be dissolved is by amending the constitution. Until such an amendment is ratified, they are the final arbiter of constitutionality.

 

Considering the number of posts in this thread where you talk about burning Jews, it does seem like you have a preoccupation with the topic. I'm not really interested in hearing about your German family history or how your partial belief in the Jewish faith (on your father's side) might explain that fixation.

TMI.





​

 

Epistemologically speaking, nothing is ever technically settled, especially on subforum labeled BELIEFS AND OPINIONS. But you seem to be operating under the delusion that your beliefs and opinions are true by mere virtue of them having been asserted. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not the case, and the issue will continue to be discussed and debated no matter how many times you try to "close" the thread.

It has everything to do with it.

Wouldn't be the first time they were wrong.

Just educating you on the nature of our democracy.

Federal law clearly prohibits the manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana.

State law in Colorado and Washington legalizes all of these things.

NULLIFIED.

Except the will American people.

In other words, they are letting two states openly defy the explicit federal prohibition on the manufacture, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana.

Maybe when a Republican becomes President, they will let Texas legalize income tax evasion. That should be a hoot!

Your evasion is noted.

 

"
Originally Posted by freemarket View Post

Yes jury nullification is one way to uphold the constitution...
It takes a special kind of arrogance to ignore facts the way you have throughout this thread. "

How so?

 

More "because I say so" nonsense.

How can they be the final arbiter of the constitution when the constitution allows for their dissolution absent their consent or input? Try explaining that one, mister legal expert.

 

I have to agree with Ethreal on this one. SCOTUS is not the final word and are only granded limited power. They vow to uphold the constitution and there fore are bound by it.
"The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts.

By Publius Huldah.

1. “Judicial Power” refers to a court’s power to hear and decide cases. Art. III §2, U.S. Constitution, lists the cases which federal courts are permitted to hear. They may hear only cases:

a) Arising under the Constitution, or the Laws of the United States, or Treaties made under the Authority of the United States [1] [“federal question” jurisdiction];

b) Affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers & Consuls; cases of admiralty & maritime Jurisdiction; or cases in which the U.S. is a Party [“status of the parties” jurisdiction];

c) Between two or more States; between a State & Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States;[2] or between a State (or Citizens thereof) & foreign States, Citizens or Subjects[3] [“diversity” jurisdiction].

These are the ONLY cases which federal courts have constitutional authority to hear! Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, 8th para:


…the judicial authority of the federal judicatures is declared by the Constitution to comprehend certain cases particularly specified. The expression of those cases marks the precise limits beyond which the federal courts cannot extend their jurisdiction, because the objects of their cognizance being enumerated, the specification would be nugatory if it did not exclude all ideas of more extensive authority."
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/enumerated-powers-of-federal-courts/

 

I'm talking to the other poster! They keep claiming that your opening post about nullification did not include jury nullification. The way I interpreted your opening post was that it included multiple forms of nullification, to include jury nullification. Get it?

 

Meanwhile, the theory of nullification remains rejected by US law and Supreme Court precedent. Settled law

.
Nothing to do with it

.

And you are free to think they are wrong. Doesn't somehow alter reality though. Nullification is invalid.

.
How can you educate anyone when you have no idea what you're talking about?

Nope. It remains just as illegal as it was prior to,the states legalizing it. The Feds simply are not prosecuting. There is nothing stopping them from doing so.

Only an act of congress decriminalizing it or an amendment to the constitution can stop them. The will of the people is irrelevant.

:

I accept your concession.

Now you're getting it. The states can't nullify federal law.

They can try.

No evasion. It's a serious question. You keep demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the constitution and US law.

 

Those insinuations (those insults about me being daft, stupid and unworthy) that you are asserting you never intended... the ones you repeatedly confirmed and reinforced... you claim you had a solid basis for making them? The ones you never intended?




​

 

I don't say so. US law and 200+ years of legal precedent says so.

Answered in the post you quoted but ignored.

- - - Updated - - -

The constitution, US law and over 200 years of court precedent proves you wrong.

 

Why do you have to add your interpretation to get the constitution to where it appears to support your position?

Why not say the the constitution gives congress the power to regulate commerce between the states?
There is nothing in the constitution beyond that....the next part is your own opinion...which you add because you don't like what the constitution says, but just because you don't like it, doesn't change what the constitution says.

 

Of course it must be as relevant as our supreme law of the land.

 

No,relevance

 

I have the utmost respect for Attorney Huldah and her life long study of the constitution. In my opinion she is the most knowledgable expert I have ever read. She spells it out really plainly I believe.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification-of-unconstitutional-acts/

 

Why don't you skip my posts if you feel the need to censor them. Thanks. Have a nice day.