Nullification. Right to disregard unconstitutional laws.

I see. So if the federal government passed a piece of legislation stating that all Jews must be thrown into ovens, no state government would have any legal basis on which to resist because, according to your simplistic reasoning, the supremacy clause always trumps state nullification.

 

Colorado and Washington state already proved that the argument is far from over.

 

The (social) Power to Prohibit forms of Commerce among the several States was repealed as a bad idea in modern times. Why should the People have to repeat historical mistakes and claim they are not really like that afterward, like many elected representatives.

 

If you mean the drug wars, that's not making it over, that's the Federal government saying who is in charge.

 

Odd argument. I could ask a similar question:

So if a state passed a piece of legislation stating that all Jews must be thrown into ovens, the federal government would not have any legal basis on which to resist because, according to your simplistic reasoning.... etc.

 

Huh???

A blatant dodge. I knew you couldn't defend your position.

 

When the law - the law which people have theoretically created and have agreed to follow - is so convoluted that it is beyond the understanding of the people and requires a special class of person to translate the laws into "common language", then the system by definition is not representative, is not equal, and should be abolished.

 

The Supreme Court has already ruled on the Supremacy Clause, so there's not need. What I was wondering was why you think that the federal government is out to commit genocide, and how absurd hypothetical situations can be an reason to change the law.

 

I have a right to vote, a right to a jury of my peers, a right to be an American citizen if born within the borders of this country, and a right to a free Hungry Burger with every 8th purchase of one at full price. God provided these?

By definition a right is something that is due or owed. There is nothing supernatural in the meaning of this word.




​

 

Wouldn't need one. That would start a war. Winning a war trumps both.




​

 

The first is a grant from the People of your state, the next two are a grant from the People of the United States, and the last, an exercise of your right to contract with a private party, is indeed God-given. You're welcome.

So as far as you're concerned, the Jews under Hitler were not "due or owed" the right to breathe anything but Zyklon B. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

State or federal law does indeed grant us the right to vote and our right to a Hungry Burger is granted us by Hungry Burger R Us (tm). Rights come from many places.

If you believe you're owed something, you may have to fight to secure it. We fought a war for that last one. God didn't settle the debt, the big red one did.




​

 

So if you don't fight for a right, you don't have it - which means infants don't have the right to life, as far as you're concerned. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

There are many rights that people agree on without fighting about. You probably feel you're due the freedom to speak your mind, my plumber feels entitled to be paid for the work he did for me. I happen to agree with both of you. No fight necessary. Hopefully we all agree that a 5 year old has a right to not be killed. If not, a conflict may be inevitable.





​

 

You are just making appeals to authority and legality, which is no kind of argument. All manner of atrocities were committed with the official sanction of state institutions and courts. You have asserted that the supremacy clause trumps state nullification every time, but that is obviously not true, otherwise the founders would have never included the tenth amendment in the bill of rights or made reference to a prior set of moral values upon which the federal government's very existence would be predicated. Do you think they're there for our amusement or something?

 

So if I disagree and I prevail in the conflict, I've just proven that the 5 year old has no right to life. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

I'm just trying to demonstrate the illogic of saying that the supremacy clause trumps state nullification every time. Perhaps this is true if you totally divorce your position from morality and take a purely positivist view of things where legality automatically denotes righteousness, but that argument is a rudimentary logical fallacy.

 

You wouldn't proven anything (except that you shouldn't be trusted around children). Rights aren't "provable" they just exist or not. Apparently your rule would deny that five year old something I think he's due — the right to not be killed. Just like under Iranian law you would be denied the right to free speech.

But the good news is you probably wouldn't win. In this country, I have an army at my back sworn to secure the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and our 5 year olds.




(... to a limited extent. We do have the death penalty.)



​

 

I think he's talking about a point of law. If you want to counter that point by suggesting a law that no one would stand for, the right response is "screw the law, I'm getting my gun."






​

 

The Framers created the Supremacy Clause for a reason. It clearly states that federal law is the supreme law of the land. This cannot be debated.

 

So if I win the conflict, does that child's right to life exist or not?

The problem being, of course, that nobody would have any reason to give a damn what you think.

Actually, winning wouldn't be anywhere near as difficult as you think - especially if the country is run by people who think like you, and who are blissfully ignorant of where those rights come from.

 

And they created the tenth amendment for no reason at all? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

 

His point of law is legally and morally fallacious. The supremacy clause was never meant to abrogate or diminish the sovereignty of the states. They always retain the right to nullify unconstitutional laws. That was the point I was making earlier.

 

A right is just something you think you are owed or due. A debt exist as long as someone thinks it does, regardless of whether they can collect.





​

 

If anyone doubts the right or ability of states to nullify federal laws, simply look at Colorado and Washington.