CAOC Advocate
New member
Dear Governor Brown (and to all citizens concerned about Constitutional Rights),
I have a question for you. Prior to enacting AB144 and AB1527 as CA State Law, did you file a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of the Second Amendment of the Constitution? If your answer is "no", then your new CA State laws are null and void as you clearly went about the process wrong and against Federal statutes dealing with challenges against Constitutional law.
In order to understand this, here is some education about "Nullification of the U.S. Constitution", Sir:
(Exerpts taken from Wikipedia on "Nullification and U.S. Constitution"- all rights reserved).
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.
The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent desegregation of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Nullification vs. Interposition -
In theory, nullification differs from interposition in several respects. Nullification is usually considered to be an act by a state finding a federal law unconstitutional, and declaring it void and unenforceable in that state. A nullification act often makes it illegal to enforce the federal law in question. Nullification arguably may be undertaken by a single state.[63]
Interposition also involves a declaration that a federal law is unconstitutional. There are various actions that a state might take to "interpose" once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Madison did not describe the form or effect of interposition. But two years later in the Report of 1800, Madison described a variety of actions that states might take to "interpose": communicating with other states about the unconstitutional federal law, attempting to enlist the support of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a constitutional convention. Madison did not argue that a state could "interpose" by legally nullifying a federal law and declaring it unenforceable. Madison contemplated that interposition would be a joint action by a number of states, not an action by a single state. Interposition is considered to be less extreme than nullification because it does not involve a state's unilateral decision to prevent enforcement of federal law.
In practice, nullification and interposition often have been confused, and sometimes have been used indistinguishably. John C. Calhoun indicated that these terms were interchangeable, stating: "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system."[64] During the fight over desegregation of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states passed so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually had the effect of nullification.[65]
As noted above, the courts have rejected both nullification and interposition.
Nullification vs. Constitutional Challenge -
Nullification should be distinguished from the situation in which a state brings a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. A state may challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute by filing a lawsuit in federal court seeking to declare the federal law unconstitutional. Such a lawsuit is decided by the federal courts, with the Supreme Court having final jurisdiction. This is the accepted method of challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute. This is not nullification, even if the federal courts uphold the state's position and declare the federal statute unconstitutional. The theory of nullification is that the states have the unilateral power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws, and that a state's determination of unconstitutionality cannot be reviewed or reversed by the federal courts. Thus, nullification involves a declaration by a state legislature (or a state court) that a federal statute is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced within the state. Under the theory of nullification, such a declaration by a state is final and binding, and cannot be overruled by the federal courts. On the other hand, when a state files a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute, the ultimate decision on constitutionality is made by the federal courts, not by the state legislature or state courts. Because such a lawsuit recognizes the authority of the federal courts to make the ultimate decision on constitutionality, it is not a use of nullification.
It should be clear at this point that the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right, "written by the People for the People" over 200 years ago, not a current law written by Federal law-makers. In that respect, you should have challenged the Second Amendment in Federal Superior Court to make sure you could nullify it prior to enacting your own law, which by all Federal and Constitutional standards can not, nor will not be a law that can be upheld in Federal Superior Court.
Please note and remember this- "Nullification" and "Interposition" are only "THEORIES" and neither have ever been upheld by Federal Superior Court in U.S. History.
To all other OC Advocates and attorneys. Please use this information in order to combat these new laws by Governor Jerry Brown and let's us as a "People" nullify and eradicate this enactment as unconstitutional.
If you want to read more information about this, please follow this link at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
I have a question for you. Prior to enacting AB144 and AB1527 as CA State Law, did you file a lawsuit in Federal Court challenging the constitutionality of the Second Amendment of the Constitution? If your answer is "no", then your new CA State laws are null and void as you clearly went about the process wrong and against Federal statutes dealing with challenges against Constitutional law.
In order to understand this, here is some education about "Nullification of the U.S. Constitution", Sir:
(Exerpts taken from Wikipedia on "Nullification and U.S. Constitution"- all rights reserved).
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld; rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.
The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent desegregation of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Nullification vs. Interposition -
In theory, nullification differs from interposition in several respects. Nullification is usually considered to be an act by a state finding a federal law unconstitutional, and declaring it void and unenforceable in that state. A nullification act often makes it illegal to enforce the federal law in question. Nullification arguably may be undertaken by a single state.[63]
Interposition also involves a declaration that a federal law is unconstitutional. There are various actions that a state might take to "interpose" once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, Madison did not describe the form or effect of interposition. But two years later in the Report of 1800, Madison described a variety of actions that states might take to "interpose": communicating with other states about the unconstitutional federal law, attempting to enlist the support of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a constitutional convention. Madison did not argue that a state could "interpose" by legally nullifying a federal law and declaring it unenforceable. Madison contemplated that interposition would be a joint action by a number of states, not an action by a single state. Interposition is considered to be less extreme than nullification because it does not involve a state's unilateral decision to prevent enforcement of federal law.
In practice, nullification and interposition often have been confused, and sometimes have been used indistinguishably. John C. Calhoun indicated that these terms were interchangeable, stating: "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system."[64] During the fight over desegregation of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states passed so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually had the effect of nullification.[65]
As noted above, the courts have rejected both nullification and interposition.
Nullification vs. Constitutional Challenge -
Nullification should be distinguished from the situation in which a state brings a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law. A state may challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute by filing a lawsuit in federal court seeking to declare the federal law unconstitutional. Such a lawsuit is decided by the federal courts, with the Supreme Court having final jurisdiction. This is the accepted method of challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute. This is not nullification, even if the federal courts uphold the state's position and declare the federal statute unconstitutional. The theory of nullification is that the states have the unilateral power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws, and that a state's determination of unconstitutionality cannot be reviewed or reversed by the federal courts. Thus, nullification involves a declaration by a state legislature (or a state court) that a federal statute is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced within the state. Under the theory of nullification, such a declaration by a state is final and binding, and cannot be overruled by the federal courts. On the other hand, when a state files a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of a federal statute, the ultimate decision on constitutionality is made by the federal courts, not by the state legislature or state courts. Because such a lawsuit recognizes the authority of the federal courts to make the ultimate decision on constitutionality, it is not a use of nullification.
It should be clear at this point that the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right, "written by the People for the People" over 200 years ago, not a current law written by Federal law-makers. In that respect, you should have challenged the Second Amendment in Federal Superior Court to make sure you could nullify it prior to enacting your own law, which by all Federal and Constitutional standards can not, nor will not be a law that can be upheld in Federal Superior Court.
Please note and remember this- "Nullification" and "Interposition" are only "THEORIES" and neither have ever been upheld by Federal Superior Court in U.S. History.
To all other OC Advocates and attorneys. Please use this information in order to combat these new laws by Governor Jerry Brown and let's us as a "People" nullify and eradicate this enactment as unconstitutional.
If you want to read more information about this, please follow this link at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)
