SouthernBoy
Regular Member
I ran across something I thought was very interesting. Over the past several years during the current administration, we have seen a number of states pass legislative resolutions, laws, and enter into lawsuits regarding the federal government overstepping its bounds and going beyond the confines of the Constitution. While this is not something new with the federal government, I can't remember in my lifetime when I have seen so many states up in arms about the feds going too far. I saw this little quite this morning and thought it was most interesting;
"Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government."
I have argued a few times that military personnel are not under any obligation to follow orders issued by a superior which are in clear violation of the Constitution, up to and including the president, because such orders would be illegal and therefore non-orders. I have spoken to several military officers about this very thing and they have agreed with my assessment. In fact, they would be violating their military oath were they to carry out such an order.
The same logic could therefore be applied to states. If the federal government passes a law or imposes a regulation which is in clear violation of the federal or a state constitution, then the states are not obligated to abide by this law or regulation.
What say you folks to this? How do you see this? May I implore you to keep this civil and respectful.
"Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: If a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it. It would be foolish and vain to wait for the federal government or a branch thereof to condemn its own law. Nullification provides a shield between the people of a state and an unconstitutional law from the federal government."
I have argued a few times that military personnel are not under any obligation to follow orders issued by a superior which are in clear violation of the Constitution, up to and including the president, because such orders would be illegal and therefore non-orders. I have spoken to several military officers about this very thing and they have agreed with my assessment. In fact, they would be violating their military oath were they to carry out such an order.
The same logic could therefore be applied to states. If the federal government passes a law or imposes a regulation which is in clear violation of the federal or a state constitution, then the states are not obligated to abide by this law or regulation.
What say you folks to this? How do you see this? May I implore you to keep this civil and respectful.