Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

people go to prison all the time.

if you commit murder, you're going to prison

 

Your example is actually one of the powers granted to the federal courts to decide on. They ar very few though.
"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"
What you are failing to see though is that rights aren't granted by the government.
The Constitution is about the Powers which We the People delegated to the 3 Branches of the Federal Government. It is NOT about Our Rights, which come from God, are unalienable, & predate the Constitution! We created the Constitution & the federal government! Why would the Creator (that’s us) grant to our “creature” (the federal courts), the power to determine & define OUR Rights?

 

Why are you talking about rights when the OP is about nullification over unconstitutional legislation?

And by the way, rights are not inherent, they are given to the people by the society at large, usually through the process of a government body.

 

What is your opinion of our Ninth and Tenth Amendments whenever we should have to quibble with the Judicature?

 

“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…”

 

our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
•Military defense, international commerce & relations;
•Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
•Domestically, to create 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, secure certain civil rights.

Basically, that’s it. As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States or The People.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/10th-amendment/

 

The ninth amendment was put in there by the guys who were against the Bill of Rights, such as Madison, in the first place because they felt that enumerating rights may lead to the belief that no other rights were guaranteed. As such, it gives no definition to what rights are granted so it is fairly irrelevant outside of a context setting.

The tenth amendment was a feel good measure that was clearly trumped by things such as the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. The courts have also affirmed that basically anything the Federal Government wants to control they will. That being said, the biggest advantage of both of these amendments is that they, without a doubt, show that the Framers put in implied powers as well as just enumerated powers. Because of that the courts will always have to factor in the actions of either the state or the people when deciding the constitutionality of any issue. So both amendments are good, not for what they say, but what they ultimately imply instead.

 

Are you trying to make a point about something?

 

Try to keep up. You said rights come from society. That is incorrect.
" endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

 

And who wrote that down?

Oh yea, the guys forming the government put there by society. Unless you know of a writing, that everyone knows is true, where the creator tells us which rights we have, it is given by society.

If you and I were the only two people on the planet and I wanted to kill you and you said I can't because you have a right to life, and I asked you to prove it, what would you say?

Unless you and I were to come to an understanding that we wouldn't kill each other, there is no right to life, or anything, that exists by itself. It is not written in the Cosmos somewhere, there is no heavenly angel telling us what is right or wrong, there is only the agreements that society makes amongst itself which is put into law and enforced by the government body.

 

Our Ninth and Tenth Amendments apply to the federal government, specifically.

 

It's only a crime if your dumb neighbors convict you. People create the oppressive system they whine about because they are too stupid to stand up for freedom and liberty. They take great delight in punishing other people while they expect mercy for themselves if they were in the same boat. They want someone else to save them but they are too stupid to save themselves. So they support oppressive laws.

 

I would rewrite that slightly...Congress shed responsibility long ago for writing actual laws. They shoved that on unelected bureaucrats and it is those bureaucrats, with Congress turning a blind eye, who have crated today's system of universal abuse. Without accountability, there can be no liberty

 

We have a Commerce Clause; why not enjoin it on our federal Congress?

 

As I said, I don't think the constitutional case is particularly strong, but I think a decentralized confederation with states' nullification is desirable, and it's a massive disappointment that the constitution was ratified in the first place.

Modern America = Alexander Hamilton, and that sucks. Pretty much any other direction would have been preferable. Jefferson's Presidency didn't live up to his life before that point, so I'm not saying he's always right or anything - but he definitely realized the mistake after they made it. He realized that America would have to confront this dichotomy between decentralized, representative government and centralized, more broadly Democratic government.

Again, it's pretty clear which side won out. It's obvious just by looking at the Federal legislature's effective powers. They have more or less absolute rather than enumerated power, the only powers they don't have are those actually authorized in Article I S8 - like the power to declare war I'm being somewhat tongue in cheek, but yeah - pretty much you've got the Bill of Rights as hilariously interpreted by the SCOTUS. Britain under King George looks preferable.

 

Jefferson was an idiot and our nations first flip flopper. He went from a strong advocate for the legislative branch to a very strong advocate for the executive once he became president. In fact, it was his meddling in the Supreme Court, trying to strip out their power, that led to judicial review which is at the heart of most of the problems many have described here today. Jefferson thought he could outthink Marshall and he got his butt handed to him so I would never hold Jefferson as an expert on anything, the man was an idiot.

That being said, that very same case had Founding Fathers (many of whom were lawyers) arguing on both sides of the case about what the Constitution actually meant and they were the very men who wrote it. That tells us that the Framers of the Constitution were not nearly as sure of what they were passing as we give them credit for today. I have read every single note taken during the convention and it is hilarious to see some of the shenanigans, especially from Franklin, in regards to how stupid some of these people were being.

Considering all that however, you have to give them credit for doing an herculean task for what it was back then and they should be lauded for creating a document that still remains in tact for the most part, today.

 

No doubt. As I said, Jefferson is no saint. His Presidency was mediocre at best.

 

There is no such thing as nullification. It has been routinely rejected by the Supreme Court.

 

And every law they come up with is valid unless ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

- - - Updated - - -

Amending the constitution still renders the US constitution supreme. And the second amendment is not a means to overthrow the government. That is moronic right wing lunacy.

I'm a huge supporter of the 2nd amendment by the way. I'm just no delusional.

 

Actually it makes them perfectly legal.

 

You do understand that the declaration has absolutely no legal standing at all right?

 

Me and my sawed-off nullify unconstitutional almond laws all the time.

 

Sounds like you want to do away with the Constitution and re-instate the Articles of Confederation.

 

It's sounds nothing like that at all. Why did you edit out my screen name? Did you not want me to see your post?

 

So if SCOTUS decides the due process clauses don't apply to Jews or homosexuals or whatever, what's the check on SCOTUS?

Can you imagine the mess if SCOTUS could effectively amend the Constitution on its own authority?

Doesn't really matter if you can or not, because that possibility crossed the border into reality decades ago.

That is only impressive to people who don't understand the Constitution.

Really, this pronouncement is irredeemably idiotic. Makes about as much sense as saying the equal protection clause is trumped by 10A.

You are perhaps under the impression that gravity behaved differently before Newton wrote down his law of gravitation than it did afterwards?

Everyone knows humans have unalienable rights, whether they admit it or not.

So as far as you're concerned the only thing Hitler did wrong was lose. I've got that about right, haven't I?

I wouldn't say anything. I'd kill you first, in self-defense.