Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

SFJEFF · Sep 2, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

The rights given by the Creator can not be taken away by the creation of the people. It is unconstitutional and should be ignored.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is incapable of being unconstitutional.

And who exactly is the 'Creator'?

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

domer76 said: ↑

No you didn't JIMV. I responded to the wrong post. My apologies
Click to expand...

No problem...we have all done it

danielpalos · Sep 2, 2014

KeepingOn said: ↑

My point was that the op heavily quotes the federalists papers to explain the intent of the founding fathers that there exists some right to nullify laws one unilaterally thinks are unconstitutional. My point was that when the founding fathers were presented with such a situation, they did not believe such a right existed and instead used military might to enforce the law (as is the government's right as you pointed out).

In terms of the ninth and tenth of amendments, I, as many others, are of the camp that they do not grant states or citizens substantive rights.
Click to expand...

Inciting rebellion or insurrection is not covered under our First Amendment.

Spooky · Sep 2, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

Madison stated:
It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared. [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; 10 and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.

Shame on you nullification deniers who misrepresent what Madison said, or ignorantly insist that Madison said the Judicial Branch is the Final Authority!
Click to expand...

I was not aware that Madison was made King and decided for the entire nation, what the rules were. In your own words, Madison said something so that makes it correct.

I am afraid he is no more qualified to say nullification trumps the Constitution than you or I would be.

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

I was not aware that Madison was made King and decided for the entire nation, what the rules were. In your own words, Madison said something so that makes it correct.

I am afraid he is no more qualified to say nullification trumps the Constitution than you or I would be.
Click to expand...

He, uh,,,wrote the Constitution....

Spooky · Sep 2, 2014

JIMV said: ↑

He, uh,,,wrote the Constitution....
Click to expand...

All by himself did he?

I was not aware of that.

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

All by himself did he?

I was not aware of that.
Click to expand...

Actually, almost yes...you are free to read the notes from the convention that others wrote but none conflict with Madison's....What the poster asked was what made Madison special...I figure the fellow who writes something has a bit of insight as to what it means.

Spooky · Sep 2, 2014

JIMV said: ↑

Actually, almost yes...you are free to read the notes from the convention that others wrote but none conflict with Madison's....What the poster asked was what made Madison special...I figure the fellow who writes something has a bit of insight as to what it means.
Click to expand...

I have read every single note of the convention and nothing from him says the Federalist Papers trump the Constitution. In fact, if you want to use Madison as your source for what is constitutional then you better be prepared to throw out the entire Bill of Rights because he was adamantly opposed to that and thought it had no place in the Constitution. He later only gave in due to political pressure.

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

I have read every single note of the convention and nothing from him says the Federalist Papers trump the Constitution. In fact, if you want to use Madison as your source for what is constitutional then you better be prepared to throw out the entire Bill of Rights because he was adamantly opposed to that and thought it had no place in the Constitution. He later only gave in due to political pressure.
Click to expand...

That is a strawman...As far as I can tell the only person claiming that is you. What folk are saying is that the papers clarify intent, what the drafters intended.

Spooky · Sep 2, 2014

JIMV said: ↑

That is a strawman...As far as I can tell the only person claiming that is you. What folk are saying is that the papers clarify intent, what the drafters intended.
Click to expand...

The larger point here is that there is nothing to clarify. The Supremacy Clause which reads; This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. is not up for debate and clearly makes nullification unconstitutional.

Remember also, that this clause was put in by the guy you are claiming wrote the entire Constitution, which of course is not true but for expediency purposes we will go with that.

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

There is a universe of difference between every whim of Congress being Constitutional and binding and the laws that are constitutional are binding...

Spooky · Sep 2, 2014

JIMV said: ↑

There is a universe of difference between every whim of Congress being Constitutional and binding and the laws that are constitutional are binding...
Click to expand...

And that difference would be the Supreme Court, not the States simply choosing not to follow a law which they are required to do by the very words of Madison himself.

You will notice that he did put the Supremacy Clause into the Constitution but he added nothing about nullification so that should tell you what his intent was.

JIMV · Sep 2, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

And that difference would be the Supreme Court, not the States simply choosing not to follow a law which they are required to do by the very words of Madison himself.

You will notice that he did put the Supremacy Clause into the Constitution but he added nothing about nullification so that should tell you what his intent was.
Click to expand...

The 9th and 10th amendments sort of exist for nullification...

3link · Sep 2, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?

The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important you will see why!:

♦ The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and

♦ The act must be something The States or The People can nullify- i.e., refuse to obey (the act must order them to do something or not do something), or otherwise thwart, impede, or hinder.

What is Interposition and What is Nullification?

A State interposes when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition takes various forms, depending on the circumstances. Hamilton refers to interposition in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. [emphasis mine]

Nullification is merely one form of interposition.

Here are three highly relevant illustrations:

♠ When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional and orders The States or The People to do or not do something, nullification by direct disobedience is the proper form of interposition.

♠ When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional, but doesnt order The States or The People to do or not do something (the alien & sedition acts), The States may take various measures to thwart, impede, or hinder implementation of the federal act in order to protect The Member States, The People, and The Constitution from federal tyranny. (See the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.)

♠ When the act of the federal government is constitutional, but unjust (the Tariff Act of 182, the States may not nullify it; but may interpose by objecting and trying to get the Tariff Act changed.

Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell

In order to understand The Right of Nullification, one must also learn the Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence (2nd para). Then one can see that when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act 1 is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression. 2 These Principles are:

1. Rights come from God;

2. People create governments;

3. The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and

4. When a government We created seeks to take away our God given rights, We have the Right We have the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.

Let us look briefly at these Principles:

1. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that God is the grantor of Rights. So Rights dont come from the Constitution, the supreme Court or the federal government.

2. The Preamble to our Constitution shows that WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government. It is our creature. Alexander Hamilton says this in Federalist Paper No. 33 (5th para); and Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution). As our creature, it may lawfully do only what WE authorized it to do in our Constitution.

We created a federal government: An alliance of Sovereign States 3 associated in a federation with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in few and defined areas only. James Madison says in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only few and defined powers to the federal government. These are the enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. 4

These enumerated powers concern:

♦ Military defense, international commerce & relations;

♦ Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;

♦ Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and

♦ With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights.

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large!!! All other powers are reserved to the several States and The People.

3. Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure our God-given Rights in the following ways: 5

It is to secure our rights to life and liberty by:

♦ Military defense (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16);

♦ Laws against piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10);

♦ Protecting us from invasion (Art IV, Sec. 4);

♦ Prosecuting traitors (Art III, Sec. 3); and

♦ Restrictive immigration policies (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1).

It is to secure our property rights by:

♦ Regulating trade & commerce so we can produce, sell & prosper (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.3). The original intent of the interstate commerce clause is to prohibit States from levying tolls & taxes on articles of commerce as they are transported thru the States for buying & selling.

♦ Establishing uniform weights & measures and a money system based on gold & silver (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 5) inflation via paper currency & fractional reserve lending is theft!

♦ Punishing counterfeiters (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 6);

♦ Making bankruptcy laws to permit the orderly dissolution or reorganization of debtors estates with fair treatment of creditors (Art I, Sec 8, cl. 4); and

♦ Issuing patents & copyrights to protect ownership of intellectual labors (Art I, Sec 8, cl .

It is to secure our right to liberty by:

♦ Laws against slavery (13th Amendment);

♦ Providing fair trials in federal courts (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments); and

♦ Obeying the Constitution!

This is how our federal Constitution implements The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us!

4. The fourth Founding Principle in our Declaration is this: When government takes away our God given rights, We have the Right & the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government. Nullification is thus a natural right of self-defense:

Thomas Jefferson said:

but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them 6 [boldface mine]

James Madison commented on the above:

the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression 7

Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 28 (5th para from end):

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success [boldface mine]

Hamilton then shows how The States can rein in a usurping federal government:

the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/nullification-of-unconstitutional-acts/
Click to expand...

Delicious irony. Nullification, something not provided for in the constitution, """"exists"""" to allow states to void laws not authorized by the constitution.

domer76 · Sep 2, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

Here are express references to God in our Declaration of Independence:
The Laws of Nature and of Natures God
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions
with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence

Our Constitution at Art. VII, last clause:
in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven
The Declaration of Independence sets forth the Principles which were fleshed out more or less perfectly in Our Constitution.

The key is the 2nd paragraph, which begins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [emphasis added]

The Bible shows that God gave us a great many rights such as to earn, keep, and inherit private property; to defend ourselves; to worship God; and to live our lives free from meddling and interference as long as we observe the God-given Rights of others.
Click to expand...

You missed the mark again, so I'll repeat. Nowhere does the CONSTITUTION mention god given rights.

danielpalos · Sep 2, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

The larger point here is that there is nothing to clarify. The Supremacy Clause which reads; This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. is not up for debate and clearly makes nullification unconstitutional.

Remember also, that this clause was put in by the guy you are claiming wrote the entire Constitution, which of course is not true but for expediency purposes we will go with that.
Click to expand...

Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply to the general government of the Union in its federal capacity.

freemarket · Sep 3, 2014

"they are endowed by their Creator " Perhaps you should start with a Connect the Dots work book first.

domer76 said: ↑

You missed the mark again, so I'll repeat. Nowhere does the CONSTITUTION mention god given rights.
Click to expand...

freemarket · Sep 3, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

And that difference would be the Supreme Court, not the States simply choosing not to follow a law which they are required to do by the very words of Madison himself.

You will notice that he did put the Supremacy Clause into the Constitution but he added nothing about nullification so that should tell you what his intent was.
Click to expand...

In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton says:

…the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS… [capitals are Hamilton's; other emphasis mine]

And in Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]

Do you see? Federalist No. 33, 27, & 78 are clear: Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the Constitution are “void” – they are “mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such”. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have “supremacy” over nothing.

freemarket · Sep 3, 2014

I thought Oregon didn't but it appears all 50 states do.
America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation of God and
state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their
state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following
Constitution ..

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ..

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with
gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature,
the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the
dictates
of
their consciences .

Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this
Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection
and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ..

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath
so
long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our
endeavors
.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to
Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of
government
..

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the
Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence
on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God
for our civil and religious privileges . establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to
Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy ..

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful
hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us
an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful
to Almighty God or our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of
the
Universe...in the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly
imploring His
direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to
perpetuate
its
blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention
assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ..
establish this Constitution ..

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God
for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our
freedom .. establish this Constitution

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution ..

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural
and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own
conscience .

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so
long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our
endeavors
.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina,
grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil,
political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon
Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our
common
..

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to
secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure
in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their consciences .

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly
invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island
grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath
so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of South
Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this
Constitution

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to
Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible
right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their
conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging,
with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we
establish this Constitution .

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe
our Creator . can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual
duty
of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each
other
...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain
this
Constitution .

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the
blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God .

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty
God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to
God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this
Constitution .

TRFjr said: ↑

the right to vote is granted by the states all the 15th amendment establishes those rights that are granted by the states race and sex cant be used as a disqualifier or qualifier
so as I stated the feral constitution doesn't give the right to vote there for a state can pass a law stating no left handed people can vote and it would be constitutional

also would like to add 30 state constitutions mention god
Click to expand...

freemarket · Sep 3, 2014

The beast we created is lawless and doesn't believe laws apply to them. It is therefore our right to disregard the laws set up by them. It is like trying to deal with a liar. You cant win on their terms. The LAW can not be disregarded because someone makes a new law to revoke the original LAW.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

KeepingOn said: ↑

Are we going to ignore the whiskey rebellion then?
When a law proposed by the man you keep quoting (Hamilton) was thought to be unconstitutional by citizens and they tried to ignore it.

The result is another founding father (Washington) sent troops to quash the rebellion and make them pay the whiskey tax.

The federalist papers are used to help clarify the intent of the Constitution, they hold no real authority. Not to mention not everyone who signed the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) wrote the federalist papers.

Your right as citizens is to lobby or elect new officials, not take your ball and go home (while still gaining all the other benefits of the US) when the political system does not go your way.

That why election reform is of the utmost importance.
Click to expand...

Steady Pie · Sep 3, 2014

Spooky said: ↑

*cough*......the supremacy clause.....*cough*
Click to expand...

The Supremacy clause was quite obviously supposed to only apply to constitutional powers the Federal government had in the first place. It cannot, for instance, write a law demanding the freedom of speech be suppressed. The states would be justified in resisting such a law. As the argument goes - the same is true for other unconstitutional laws.

That said, I don't really buy the constitutionality of nullification, at least - not as part of the legal process. No system of higher law can restrain a truly tyrannical government, therefore, more representative bodies should always reserve their right to secede (as the US did from Britain, even though this was illegal).

I see nullification as Jefferson and Madison's realization that the revised system of government under the constitution was too centralized. But by that point it was too far-gone to change. In relation to the Articles which it replaced, the Constitution is quite a centralized, totalitarian document. In its current form, after 2 centuries of amendment by the Supreme Court, it bares practically no resemblance to the philosophy it was founded on. The central government has broad power, Congress' limitations in Article I, S8 are almost never referred to or bothered with, and the whole nation would look far more disagreeable to the founders than Britain did, that is without doubt.

The ship has sailed on limited government. Humanity had its chance; with the emergence of instant global communications, and the ability to be anywhere on the planet in under a day - small, representative government has become forever impossible. Or at least so until we convincingly colonize space as private citizens rather than state agents.

danielpalos · Sep 3, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

"they are endowed by their Creator " Perhaps you should start with a Connect the Dots work book first.
Click to expand...

that isn't in our Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Steady Pie said: ↑

The Supremacy clause was quite obviously supposed to only apply to constitutional powers the Federal government had in the first place. It cannot, for instance, write a law demanding the freedom of speech be suppressed. The states would be justified in resisting such a law. As the argument goes - the same is true for other unconstitutional laws.

That said, I don't really buy the constitutionality of nullification, at least - not as part of the legal process. No system of higher law can restrain a truly tyrannical government, therefore, more representative bodies should always reserve their right to secede (as the US did from Britain, even though this was illegal).

I see nullification as Jefferson and Madison's realization that the revised system of government under the constitution was too centralized. But by that point it was too far-gone to change. In relation to the Articles which it replaced, the Constitution is quite a centralized, totalitarian document. In its current form, after 2 centuries of amendment by the Supreme Court, it bares practically no resemblance to the philosophy it was founded on. The central government has broad power, Congress' limitations in Article I, S8 are almost never referred to or bothered with, and the whole nation would look far more disagreeable to the founders than Britain did, that is without doubt.

The ship has sailed on limited government. Humanity had its chance; with the emergence of instant global communications, and the ability to be anywhere on the planet in under a day - small, representative government has become forever impossible. Or at least so until we convincingly colonize space as private citizens rather than state agents.
Click to expand...

I believe our Ninth and Tenth Amendments and their State equivalents apply, whenever we have to quibble; if it isn't in our Constitutions, it doesn't exist if we have to quibble.

Ronstar · Sep 3, 2014

freemarket said: ↑

"they are endowed by their Creator " Perhaps you should start with a Connect the Dots work book first.
Click to expand...

The Declaration of Independence is not in any way, Federal law.

- - - Updated - - -

freemarket said: ↑

The beast we created is lawless and doesn't believe laws apply to them. It is therefore our right to disregard the laws set up by them...
Click to expand...

sure, but if you disregard our laws you may go to prison.

Spooky · Sep 3, 2014

Steady Pie said: ↑

The Supremacy clause was quite obviously supposed to only apply to constitutional powers the Federal government had in the first place. It cannot, for instance, write a law demanding the freedom of speech be suppressed. The states would be justified in resisting such a law. As the argument goes - the same is true for other unconstitutional laws.

That said, I don't really buy the constitutionality of nullification, at least - not as part of the legal process. No system of higher law can restrain a truly tyrannical government, therefore, more representative bodies should always reserve their right to secede (as the US did from Britain, even though this was illegal).

I see nullification as Jefferson and Madison's realization that the revised system of government under the constitution was too centralized. But by that point it was too far-gone to change. In relation to the Articles which it replaced, the Constitution is quite a centralized, totalitarian document. In its current form, after 2 centuries of amendment by the Supreme Court, it bares practically no resemblance to the philosophy it was founded on. The central government has broad power, Congress' limitations in Article I, S8 are almost never referred to or bothered with, and the whole nation would look far more disagreeable to the founders than Britain did, that is without doubt.

The ship has sailed on limited government. Humanity had its chance; with the emergence of instant global communications, and the ability to be anywhere on the planet in under a day - small, representative government has become forever impossible. Or at least so until we convincingly colonize space as private citizens rather than state agents.
Click to expand...

But here is the catch that the nullification crowd does not understand.

It is not up to the States to decide what is unconstitutional, that is for the Courts. It is part of the checks and balances that are built-in to the Constitution to prevent unconstitutional laws from happening. Can you imagine the mess if any state could simply ignore any law they wanted? What if there is a commerce law that one State does not like but another does so one state decides it is unconstitutional and ignores it yet the other State does not.

How do you have a decision to solve this with nullification?

You don't.

Given that reasoning we can and do assume that every law passed by Congress is constitutional until we are told otherwise through the legal process.

- - - Updated - - -

The Declaration of Independence is not in any way, Federal law.
Click to expand...

It is funny, I see that the OP actually quoted the preamble as part of his reasoning yet that is the only part of the Constitution that the Supreme Court has refused to ever use as a basis for deciding the constitutionality of something. Every single Court has dismissed it as evidence of anything.

freemarket · Sep 3, 2014

Could be but chances are slim. Thanks for your concern but people with money usually don't go to jail. Remember it is a lawless system.

Ronstar said: ↑

The Declaration of Independence is not in any way, Federal law.

- - - Updated - - -

sure, but if you disregard our laws you may go to prison.

Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

SFJEFF New Member

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

domer76 New Member

danielpalos Banned

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

SFJEFF New Member

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

3link Well-Known Member Past Donor

domer76 New Member

danielpalos Banned

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

danielpalos Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

freemarket New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches