Eric Holder Threatens Kansas

I'll start from the top to make sure you can follow.

You say people should have the right to rise up against the government when it violates the constitution.
I ask you who determines when the government is violating the constitution? Without someone with final word as to when the government is violating its constraints, there will be no way to tell the people with legitimate grievances against the government from the whiners.
You answer "the people."
lol. Great answer. What a joke.

So you would argue that the reason the southern states didn't rise up against the government after Brown was because those states didn't feel strongly that the government's action was egregious overreaching? And it had nothing to do with the fact that the states don't have the last say as to what is and is not constitutional? Because in your opinion, they do?

Except you're the one saying the states retain the power to disobey laws it deems unconstitutional.

 

Maybe you're not understanding. Do you honestly think society could function if every time the government passed a law that one or two people didn't like, those people could simply choose to disobey it?

Are you kidding? What's the point of the election if a majority win isn't sufficient?

 

Actually the answer is the states. In matters of federal authority, the people of the states act through their state governments. Each state is a party to the compact and each has the right to decide for itself (there being no higher earthly power) whether their agent, created by the compact, is acting according to the rules that created it. Each state retains the rights of nullification and secession.

It is ridiculous on its face to say that the states are not the ultimate authority on the constitution. They are the parties to it, the federal government is not.

 

The states are sovereign. They may have established a compact between themselves, but that doesn't mean that they have relinquished their sovereignty. Ultimately, they must decide if their agent is acting according to their best interest.

No, I don't think I would argue that.

Yes, that is my contention. An unconstitutional act is not law.

 

This is the heart of the issue. This is the question you keep dodging. Who gets to decide when a law is unconstitutional? Because clearly it isn't obvious to everyone when a law is unconstitutional. So who gets to decide? "The people" is not an answer.

If every state were at liberty to disobey federal laws it deemed unconstitutional, we'd still have segregated schools. That's all there is to it. The states don't have that authority under our government. If they start disobeying federal laws, they're cheating the system.

 

This is where you're confusing the issue. I'm saying under our form of government, the states have no say as to what is and is not constitutional. You're trying to tell me they do, but what you're really telling me is that the states have the right to rebel. Whatever right to rebel they might have, it doesn't come from the constitution.

 

I'm not confused. The constitution came from the states. Secession is not rebellion. It's just leaving the compact.

 

Lots of people can decide that a law is unconstitutional. A judge could. A state governor could. A sheriff could. A juror could. You could. Anyone can decide that a law is unconstitutional.

The states are sovereign. They created the federal government. Ultimately they must decide whether the agent they created is serving them properly or not.

Frankly, I want to hear many more states saying, "No, we don't think we're going to do that" to the government in Washington. What's the president going to do, send in tanks? That's would go over great.

 

Upon what do you base this statement?

Using the term rebel implies a master/slave relationship, which is incorrect. The correct relationship is principal/agent. The sovereign states are the principals, and the federal government is their agent.

 

Did I say that statement? My statement was in regards to my point, not yours.

I'd say what's the point of elections when it doesn't really matter who you vote on, you get the same regurgitated garbage as we have been. Until every American understands American history and why this country was founded, I have little faith in the current system you seem to believe in.

 

And the loony parade marches on...

 

Such an intelligent and well-argued point... I hardly know where to begin. How about we start with you naming the higher earthly power that has authority over a US State?

Or is it the nod to people who believe in God that gets your troll on?

 

Sounds like you're just mad that the government doesn't work the way you want it to.

Let's assume for a moment that the government worked exactly as you thought it should, but there was some guy out there who thought it didn't work out so well. Would you say that person has the right to disobey the laws ordained by your ideal vision of governance?

 

I believe any Tenth Amendment issues may need to be resolved, first.

 

What basis can I provide to prove a negative? There's nothing in the constitution giving the state's this power. It has never been recognized that states do in fact have this power. States have tried to exercise this power and lost. See desegregation for a good example.

Fine. If we're going to come up with overly simplistic analogies for the relationship of the federal government to the states, let's at least use a good one. The constitution is an agreement between the states to surrender some of their sovereignty to an entity that will speak for their collective voices. That is the purpose of the federal government. It doesn't have a will of its own. It has the will of the majority.

When one state decides it doesn't like the way things are going and decides to disobey federal law - law derived from the collective of states - that state is in breach of its contract with the rest of the states.

 

Maybe you're not grasping the question. Maybe you are. Are you telling me that when ANYONE decides that a law is unconstitutional, that person's belief creates a legitimate foundation for any person to disobey the law in question?

Are you an anarchist?

Tanks? How about cut off federal funding for programs like medicaid?

The federal government can bring Kansas and Missouri to their knees without mobilizing a single troop.

 

The same earthly power which is authorized under the Constitution to enforce, inter alia, the provisions of A1S10: the federal government, acting according to the expressed will of the People who empower it.

You're welcome.

 

That's a limited authority that was expressly agreed to by the states. It does not preclude nullification in other matters or secession in general. It has no bearing on the Holder vs. Kansas issue.

 

Nor is this power prohibited. What is not prohibited to the states is allowed.

I find it to be no surprise that federal officials claim to be the sole judges of the extent of federal powers.

Unless it is the federal government that has breached the contract.

 

I don't regard the federal government to be the ruler of the sovereign states.

Then federal officials clearly have nothing to worry about from Kansas.

 

There are a lot of things that I get mad at, having the same government through out time, no point in getting mad at them when it is the cause of others that it becomes such a way. You don't get mad at the issue, you get mad at the reason.

I've already, indirectly, answered your hypothetical question. However, I have some ideas where you are trying to take this. In light that I love chess, I'm willing to play along to see how you wish to move your pieces on the board.

Disobeying laws is one thing, disobeying laws that infringe on the rights of others is another. Your general question is not an easy one to answer, because you're not giving a baseline. If I chose a baseline, for you, disobeying laws that state it's illegal to steal, they wouldn't have a right to do such a thing. However, disobeying laws that state the banning of guns, they have a right to disobey that law. Again, does it make it justifiable? Of course not, but when you infringe on the rights of others, there is only two ways to break the mold, in my eyes. Either fight back forcefully or through politics. I chose the latter.

Your move.

 

Actually it's not even a limited authority. It's no authority at all. It's an express prohibition on the states, but does not grant any federal authority over them at all.

 

Insofar as these are deemed by the state to be sovereign acts it most certainly does, because states are not sovereigns under the Constitution, any more than they were under the Articles of Confederation.

So as far as you're concerned, A1S10 might as well not be there at all. I've got that about right, haven't I?

 

Every law infringes on the rights of others. There's a law against insider trading. Who is to say that a law prohibiting insider trading does or does not impermissibly infringe on the rights of others? Are you seeing the problem with your logic now? There are too many people out there with different opinions as to which rights one may permissibly infringe upon.

You might say "Yeah, but there's no constitutional right to insider trading." Okay. How about free speech. There are laws prohibiting libel and slander. Who is to say that these laws do not impermissibly infringe upon the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech? By your logic, anyone can commit libel if they interpret laws prohibiting libel to infringe upon their rights.

What comes first? The right to not have things stolen from you? Or the law prohibiting people from stealing things from you? When you go to court to sue someone for stealing your property, wouldn't you sue under the law prohibiting theft?

I'm getting at this - You're saying people don't have the right to steal things. But the fact that they don't have that right is entirely because of the law.

So you translate ANY law that infringes upon the right to bear arms to be a violation of the second amendment. What about any law that infringes upon one's right to freedom of speech?

Another problem with your reasoning is that someone has to decide when laws violate legitimate rights (as you would say, the right to bear arms) and when laws violate rights we never had (the right to commit theft).

 

Your interpretation of the 10th would render the rest of the constitution null and void. It would mean the states could disregard federal laws whenever it felt like interpreting them to be unconstitutional. Thus, your opinion must be rejected.

Why do you think the articles of confederation failed?

It's the common sense answer since the alternative would be anarchy. But you don't seem to have a problem with that.

The thing is that parties to a contract don't get to decide when the other party has broken its terms. There's generally a law suit to determine who broke what. That's why states have the power to challenge government action in the courts. But your interpretation of the constitution allows states to avoid that so they don't have to risk being proven wrong.