stuckinchico
Regular Member
I wouldnt be so sure about that. He s going behind Congresses back on a lot of things, Healthcare and you remember UN and firearms right. Obama doesnt appear to be that bright
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Nullification by states of federal laws
- Thread starter SouthernBoy
- Start date
I wouldnt be so sure about that. He s going behind Congresses back on a lot of things, Healthcare and you remember UN and firearms right. Obama doesnt appear to be that bright
rushcreek2
Regular Member
When laws clearly violate the constitution, be it state or federal - those laws are invalid.
The PEOPLE need not wait for the courts, the legislatures, or the executives to remedy the violation.
The body politic-the people - will eventually ,as will any intelligent organism , respond to a given threat against their liberty by either avoiding, or confronting that threat. The FOURTH BRANCH of our government is THE PEOPLE. When they determine that certain laws lack constitutional validity they will begin a de facto nullification process that will take the form of conscious, and deliberate disobedience, invocation of their collective power through jury nullification, and the ballot box.
The PEOPLE need not wait for the courts, the legislatures, or the executives to remedy the violation.
The body politic-the people - will eventually ,as will any intelligent organism , respond to a given threat against their liberty by either avoiding, or confronting that threat. The FOURTH BRANCH of our government is THE PEOPLE. When they determine that certain laws lack constitutional validity they will begin a de facto nullification process that will take the form of conscious, and deliberate disobedience, invocation of their collective power through jury nullification, and the ballot box.
PT111
Regular Member
You are correct that Congress can technically overrule the SC by impeachment so it does create a balance of power between the three branches. I have no argument there. As for your example it would be one heck of a mess if this actually were attempted. I think you are correct that Obama is not that dumb or at least his advisers are not but sometimes I wonder about some of them.
When we talk about not having to obey unconstituional laws and being able to ignore them we need to look at the actual cases such as Heller. For years people were charged, arrested, and punished for violating the gun laws of DC. When the Heller case finally made it to the SCOTUS it was found that the law was uncontitutional. Yes and unconstitutional law was on the books and we should not have had to obey it but what happened if we did not? We can run around here proclaiming that we do not have to obey unconstitutional laws all we want to but until they are declared that way by someone besides ourselves then we can expect it to be treated as constitutional. Then we need to ask what about all the people who were found guilty of violating the uconstitutional laws of DC before Heller? Finally what happens if the law (or order) you are refusing to obey is found to be legit? Lots of questions but not a lot of answers at least from me but I do have one piece of advice. Be sure you know what you are doing before you start challenging a law or an order.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Additionally, SCOTUS also rules on the legality of cases based on Congressional law. If Congress intended the law to mean one thing, and SCOTUS rules otherwise, on a non-Constitutional basis, Congress can simply revise the law. If SCOTUS rules against Congress' intent on the basis of Constitutionality, Congress can change, delete, or add amendments as required to change the Constitution itself.
In a perfect world, they would be released. I'm not certain of the process, here, but from what I understand, it's not automatic. That is, their attorney would have to request a special appeal on the grounds of a SCOTUS ruling the law un-Constitutional. From what I understand, they go pretty quickly, with the attorney simply stating, "Jones was convicted of violating Law X, and on 1/1/01, SCOTUS rules Law X un-Constitutional, and therefore request the court exonorate my client of any wrongdoing." It's a bit more involved than that, with the expungement of records, possible reimbursement of legal fees payment for time while wrongfully imprisoned, etc., but you get the idea.
Ooops...
Outstanding advice. Here's another: Err on the side of caution i.e. avoid both the gray areas as well as any area about which you're not 100% certain.
Here's some of the history that puts you on target.
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2008/12/122908-historical-badges-tell-story.html
DevinWKuska
Regular Member
I Have seen many good and valid points posted so far. My only concern is is that States such as CA, WA,ect are being overrun with antigun- constituants and anti 2A politicians. It would seem that some states simply wont fight back(in regards to say OC being banned). In that lies the dilemma I face. I agree that alot of states are starting to stand up to unconstitutional laws, however states like CA with their ridiculous gun laws seem to have no issue laying down and even outdoing the brady bunch.
In a state that seems so anti 2A such as (western) Washington, or California how does one protect their rights when the state and general populace is all too willing to give up the 2A. The sheeple have spoken(so to speak) and the 2A is on the chopping block.
In a state that seems so anti 2A such as (western) Washington, or California how does one protect their rights when the state and general populace is all too willing to give up the 2A. The sheeple have spoken(so to speak) and the 2A is on the chopping block.
since9
Campaign Veteran
If necessary, by seceding from the state and applying for separate statehood in the Union.
When I lived in Spokane, there was ever-present talk of both Western Washington and Northern Idaho seceding from their respective states and forming their own state. It probably would not have been called the Inland Northwest, but that region is still referred to as the Inland Northwest, as it has been for decades.
Freedom First
Regular Member
Cascadia!
I love the idea but the Constitution clearly prohibits creating a state from land of other states unless the "representative" bodies of the involved States and the US Congress all agree. I, for one, cannot see Olympia agreeing to the tax base loss of creating Cascadia. Plus they would have to install two more chairs in the US Senate...
Article IV - Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
That's all predicated on using the system as designed. In the case of willful disregard of the Constitution's rules by the People based on a completely unresponsive and tyrannical Federal and State government, who knows...
Damn, is that sedition? :shocker: Nah.
Could we get there in my lifetime? Now that's the interesting question.
I love the idea but the Constitution clearly prohibits creating a state from land of other states unless the "representative" bodies of the involved States and the US Congress all agree. I, for one, cannot see Olympia agreeing to the tax base loss of creating Cascadia. Plus they would have to install two more chairs in the US Senate...
Article IV - Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
That's all predicated on using the system as designed. In the case of willful disregard of the Constitution's rules by the People based on a completely unresponsive and tyrannical Federal and State government, who knows...
Damn, is that sedition? :shocker: Nah.
Could we get there in my lifetime? Now that's the interesting question.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
This about sums up most of the issues that states run into. Dependency on federal money forces the state to comply with the 'whims' of the Federal Government. They aren't string attached, they are chains, IMO.
Also, each state should change their state Constitution, and its affirmation that the Constitution of the United States is the 'supreme law of the land'.
If you have one or two states attempt to break the ties of the Federal Government, they will not have much success. There is going to have to be a large number of states essentially breaking away from the United States...I don't see that happening--Civil War II?
Last edited:
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Excellent post!
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
Actually I think he is very intelligent but he has an agenda and through this agenda, an idea of how our nation should be governed (read that as controlled). I view his ideas and those who think as him to be sinister at best. Socialism and traditional Americanism cannot exist in the same place and time continuum. The socialist concept is anathema to everything American.
Last edited:
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
The Virginia delegates so mistrusted a centralized government that they added a little caveat to their ratification of the U.S. Constitution which reserved to Virginia her right to effectively secede under certain circumstances:
"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States."
Just as a little side note, the first one was not actually a "Civil War" in its true definition. Civil wars are found between people within the same country. The War Between the States was found between two separate nations.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Good point. Then it would not have been a Civil War as (S)tates. A war between the (s)tates is a war amongst the 'people' of the United States. The United States is a nation of (s)tates. Who are we first, a member of the (s)tate in which we live, or a member of the United States? It seems that we are a member of the (s)tate we are born within (birth certificate), but once we are assigned a social security number we are a member of the United States (Federal).
So, would a modern day battle be considered a Civil War? Is each state a (S)tate or (s)tate? It's the latter, IMO.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I recently came across the best "name" for that war.
"The War to Prevent Southern Independence."
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
Or, "Southerners Against Free Negros." There are tens of millions of Negro Americans, and 'Others' who are happy as hell that the so-called "Southerners" had their asses handed to them; I am one of those happy people.
I have been thinking about this and YES, it is a Civil War. Southern (s)tates seceded. The Southern (s)tates were (and are) part of the United States.
Last edited:
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I used to be glad the Union was preserved, slaves freed, etc. But, over time, the more I've learned, the more my thinking has shifted. I'll probably shift s'more as time goes on, but for the moment I'm pretty convinced the North invaded for much more than just freeing the slaves and maintaining the Union.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Yet many black folk volunteered and fought for the Confederacy? And the north were much more antagonistic against folk of color than the south before the war.
Each State was a sovereign country. Think of the EU (European Union) If France and UK were to start a war with each other it would not be considered a civil war.
OldCurlyWolf
Regular Member
You have one fallacy in your thought process.
Once they seceded, the Confederate states were NOT part of the U.S.. Ergo, the War of Northern Aggression is actually much more accurate than calling it the civil war.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
Had they known how it finally turned out... damn few of those Yankee soldiers would have actually shown up.
Hunterdave
Regular Member
"asses handed to them" Ha !! The South whipped the North ass for 2 1/2 yrs with 1/3rd of the men and 1/30th of
the supplies. Just ran out of men and supplies, that simple.
Also the Confederate Constitution was more restrictive on slavery than the US Constitution.