Bio not provided
There are just so many ways to nullify federal acts that don't require direct confrontation. I personally hate affirmative action. Why not make it possible that an employer can be sued when utilize it? How can the feds interfere with that when civil disputes are always reserved for state courts? The federal government can't do anything about such a law and employers will cease to utilize the tax credits they get for affirmative action for fear of being sued for discrimination...etc...etc.
This brings me to another point which is states can use their exclusive domain of civil courts to interfere with federal law. Why not make it so that federal employees can be sued? Or citizens who assist federal employees enforce nullification laws can also be sued.
1 year, 10 months ago on State Non-Compliance is Its Own Penalty
I think states should penalize its citizens when they help to enforce such laws. A neighbor who calls the feds because you have an 'illegal' firearm should face some kind of penalty. The toughest would be jailtime but that might be to hard to pass. The next can be a fine but then we may run into the argument that such laws interfere with federal laws (which is not really an issue for any nullifier). I think a novel solution would be to allow the person who is prosecuted by such a federal law to sue the person or persons who assisted in his prosecution. The neighbor who called the feds for illegal drugs, guns, bibles (obama is working on that), and etc would then face litigation and can lose his or her life savings. when you couple this with the state not complying with the federal law you create an even bigger field for them to cover.
"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is,
in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to
decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the
last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the
government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the
constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other
departments hold their delegated trusts."
Is this saying that SCOTUS's final authority on deciding what the constitution means only exist for the departments of the federal government while allowing states to reject its final authority? That is what it says to me. My understanding from this paragraph is that SCOTUS can't tell states what to do and its decisions over states are voluntary at best but SCOTUS can tell the different departments of the federal what to do.
A state may not have to comply with a federal court when its decisions are in violation of their rights.
1 year, 10 months ago on MaddowBlog Smackdown Revisited
"not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional
compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold
their delegated trusts."
Doesn't this imply that the judiciary branch of the federal government can't decide what are the 'rights' of each state? It seems to imply that the power of judicial review should only extend to the different departments of the federal
@anarchobuddy I agree with what you said but people repeat that constantly to the point where you are forced to use the same phrase. The term 'we' often refers to our immediate association like 'we' in the church or 'we' in the family etc. "We" in a political sense should refer to society as a whole without its government since government is nothing but politicians. They say "we" in this legislature are creating laws for the people. They never say we are passing laws for ourselves. Clearly they see a line between their organization (the government) and the society that it governs.
The advantage of seeing the seperation is that our associations remain a-political. They are truly private in that sense because our family may be a part of the social fabric but that social fabric is completely disconnected from government. The result is that our non-political lives become truly private but the minute you include government as a part of society then it seems that our private lives become a part of the state's machinary. The result is the over politicalization of everything because everything is political and that is exactly what we have today. If we say someone is conservative we then make assumptions that they are pro-family. How is that our decision to value family is political in the first place. It is completely unnatural to make such a connection between politics and family in the first place!
1 year, 10 months ago on Why We Should Mistrust the Government
@theendisfar @onetenther isn't that what I said?
I always thought 'self-rule' was more about an individual having the freedom to guide themselves throughout life. Establishing their own direction and being able to execute their own will over their own lives. Government is not 'self-rule' by that definition.
A more important ( and something that infuriates me) the most about this argument is that it is often used to trick people into accepting whatever government wants to do. I would think that if I wanted absolute freedom to do whatever I want to the population I would want one that does not question me whatsoever. That is exactly what this and arguments like it are intended to do. Government can not do any harm to you simply because its will is the people's will. How can it hurt you then?
I would like to point out that the courts can not enforce 'executive orders' simply because the fifth amendment states that life, liberty, and property can not be taken away without the due process of law. There is no way that a court can use its power to enforce an executive order even when they are properly executing a law. An executive order simply gets the machinaray of the state moving to enforce the law. that is all.
Also, I believe the departments under the president can issue orders to move their departments to enforce the laws. They may be acting at the presidents command or they can do so independently but those orders can't be enforced in a court since courts only can enforce the law not 'orders' from other human beings.
This actually made me think of another reason why states can nullify federal attempts to enforce a law. The supremacy clause says 'laws' are supreme to state laws but it does not say executive orders are. Could a state prohibit the federal from taking action within their borders to enforce a federal law since those actions were initiated by an executive order somewhere? In essence, you would be nullifying, not the law itself, but the orders that move the machinary of the federal government thus prevent them from acting within the state itself.
An executive order and all federal actions that enforces gun laws because of them could be blocked in a state simply because the supremacy clause does not mention 'executive orders'. The law would still be in affect and it would be the state's responsibility at that point to enforce that law itself.
1 year, 10 months ago on Executive Orders: The Constitution Doesn’t Authorize Legislation by Executive
A balance budget amendment will not fix the problem simply because of the fact the government can ignore the constitution anytime it likes. Who would have thought that can happen? Anyways...the line item veto would be a better tool since the president can veto parts of any bill that he feels would put us in the red. The problem is not normal legislation but addons that congress attaches to it and a line item veto would stop that immediatly.
1 year, 10 months ago on Compact for America: Saving the Republic by Fixing the Debt? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
They keep telling us nullification is a no-go yet they keep attacking it. Now if it was as truly worthless as they say it is why are they attacking it. I suspect that nullification must, at least, slow down the enforcement of federal laws and, in some cases, completely shuts them down.
1 year, 10 months ago on South Carolina: Following James Madison’s Advice to Nullify Obamacare
The court rejected nullification because states were trying to decide for themselves what is constitutional BUT THAT WAS OVER THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF NOT ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION!
1 year, 10 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
@mrducksmrnot I would like to point out that when they say the courts have rejected nullificaton they are usually pointing to civil rights cases during the 60s. The court rejected nullification because states were trying to decide for themselves what is constitutional and what is not BUT THAT WAS OVER THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF NOT ANY PARTICULAR PIECE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION! Its a huge difference. I'm OK with courts striking down state laws that plainly violate the constitution (most of the time) but the kind of nullification that this site, as well as other nullifiers, promote is states nullifying federal laws that violate the constitution. It is not a question about the acts of a state in regards to the constitution but a question of the acts of the federal in regards to the constitution. States should be able to declare federal laws unconstitutional and prohibit them from being enforced.
"According to the letter, Wilson may be in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (the release of blueprints qualifies as exporting), and his site may have released technical information that is controlled by International Traffic in Arms Regulations."
This is precisely why some of us are concerned about so called arms agreements....
1 year, 10 months ago on Access denied | FP Passport
As for Pew research on medical marijuana laws...Why wouldn't a cunning republican politician use that to split the democratic party in half. Wait...got to make sure everyone is morally pure which means drugs are out of the question.
@tnmilfman even if the federal govt did have the proper authority to do some things in a state a state could still interfere with the enforcement of those laws and even prevent it from being enforced all together. There is no reason why nullification can't both nullify unconstitutional as well as constitutional acts. One would wonder what would prevent a state from doing that? The answer is simple, Self-interest of the state! States need the federal to do some things for their own interest in dealing with foreign affairs, hunting down terrorist, engaging in war, etc, etc, and etc. Not one state has a military that can compete with the one the federal government gots which is why the federal becomes a benefit to the states themselves. Why would any state reject whatever authority is needed in order to provide protection from foreign invasion? It is like parties of contract. each side fears losing the obligation from the other so they mutual provide what the other wants. In this case it would be protection from federal and the federal would recieve the right to have some authority. Of course, but only power hungry people would see that as a benefit to themselves but that is the way it works.
I got a feeling that nullification will split the democratic/liberal (they are not liberal but we call them that anyways) party in half. As nullification becomes a solution for leftish causes such as medical marijuana, gay marriage, etc, etc, that the left will drop them in a minute. Why? A great deal of leftist are autocratic authoritarians who have managed to conceal that thinking from everyone and nullification destroys all central planning which makes me think they will drop democrats who support nullification.
@going insane You are exactly right about that. A big problem is that so much of the press here is 'liberal' which means stuff like this ain't going to get any coverage in the media. The public will never know unless you mention it to someone else privately at a lunch counter.
1 year, 10 months ago on Jan Brewer, You’re Fired! – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
I life in Arizona and I could have told you who this woman really is. I knew she was going to veto the gold and silver bill. I wish somene would start a recall for this woman. She can go down with Mecham.
@jimwalsh59 I agree. It is the smoothest way to nullify because the feds don't have enough time and money to enforce such laws without the state's cooperation. It is just to hard and may not even be worth it to them. Just look at marijuana nullification. They had a rally of pot smokers in broad daylight in CO without a single federal arrest.
On this topic, I would like to say that the federal can regulate the flow of drugs into a country since that is INTER-state trade but once it is within a state or Indian tribe then the responsibility becomes up to the state or tribal governments. That is if they want to....
1 year, 10 months ago on Personal Liberty Laws: A Nullification History Lesson
@RayJ It will. It will get ridiculed in the liberal media but he who laughs last laughs best.
The best thing about this kind of law is that it creates an underground economy that isn't affected by the monitary policies of the federal reserve. It will still have an affect even if just 1% of all transactions are done with gold or silver coin because that is 1% less of the economy that is affected by the federal reserve. It may not sound like a lot but it may provide competition which ultimately forces the fiat currency to improve itself over time.
It would be interesting if someone could find a study to see the affect it had in Utah. I've traveled through there and noticed that things were a few cents less than what it is in other states. I don't know if that is because of the recent gold legislation but someone should do a study to see if there has been any affect whatsoever.
1 year, 10 months ago on Nullify the Fed! Arizona Constitutional Tender Bill on the Governor’s Desk for a Signature
@tsarbomba I left a message but I'm assuming you got to talk to someone direclty. They are going to give you the run around because that is there job. I think it is better to leave a message so that, at the end of the day, they tally the yes votes and no votes for whatever bill you are referencing. Talking to them directly just confuses them.
remove from office!
1 year, 10 months ago on BREAKING: Docs Show Janet Napolitano Thanked Missouri Governor For Breaking State Law – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@tsarbomba U have to leave a comment on the voicemail....it is the very last in the message cycle...press 3 then press 1...then....
There are many good articles on this website but is there a way that someone can catalog them so we can look up past articles? I wanted to look up some info on this site but I found there was very little in means of a way to find older articles. The wealth of information on this website about the constitution is invaluable and I think it should be more easily accessable.
1 year, 11 months ago on Just Blame James
I'm a huge supporter of nullification. I just see it as a way out of this mess and, quite frankly, don't care what other states do but I do think we are making progress. He said 'duly enacted laws are the supreme law of the land'...gee thanks for repeating the supremacy clause to us. Anyways, notice the term 'duly'. It is similar to 'pursuance of' which, as we all know, means only a handful to enacted laws are the superior to state laws. Those laws are those those that are in 'pursuance of' or 'duly enacted' but what about laws that are not 'duly enacted'? Where do those laws rank? Clearly they can not be superior to state laws since only laws that are 'duly enacted' are a part of the supreme law of the land as they like to say over and over again. I think we are making progress because we use to hear every law is the supreme law of the land but this change in their rhetoric shows that we are working them over. It is only going to be a matter of time.
I would like to add that nullification has to be unlimited because this is a confederation of state which means each state has sovreignty over their own borders just like any nation does. States are different than provinces in that they posses quasi nation status and if it wasn't for the constitution each state would be free to conduct their affairs as they wish with other countries. We can't say the same for 'provinces' can we?
Of course, there are going to be those that say this is a silly idea but don't waste time with them! I have a saying which is no individual has to negotiate with other individuals over what are their rights. Doing so jeapordizes that right since if you lose the argument you lose the right. Think about this for a moment! A person who is determined to not allow you to have your rights will always reject your argument even if its logic is sound. They do so because, on some level, they want control. They want power to deny you a freedom and we all know what power does. Just say NO to those who demand your rights. No negotiation, no arguments, no need to agree. Just say NO to them.
States, like individuals, should do the same thing. Don't enter into negotiations. Don't subject yourself to a court that seems inclined to interject itself in a state's internal affairs. Just say NO! Think of abortion. How many people honestly believe the courts are going to undo RoeVwade? Abortion, like so many other issues, are a state's business and if 50 states want to ban it then let them. IF they want to allow it then let them but the point is is that states (and the constitution) will decide what they are to do not the federal government.
Federal courts are for federal laws and they should stick to their own business. On this subject, I believe the jurisdiction of the federal courts does not include all cases involving the constitution. It states a list of types of contraversies that they can settle when their is a question about federal law or the constitution. Notice it says contraversies between the federal and any citizen of any state or of foreign state (roughly). This does not include contraversies between a citizen and his state. That is left as an internal matter for the state to settle for itself. It seems that there is some kind of state power to settle internal matters regarding questions about the constitution. That sounds like nullification.
1 year, 11 months ago on Meet an Enforcer of Approved Opinion
@TaskForce16 @JohnBanks That would make it even harder to ban a weapon....
1 year, 11 months ago on The Founders and the 2nd Amendment
@JohnBanks I don't know if you are replying to me but I said that such weapons are permissable under the 2nd amendment. It is a 'loop hole' but one that exist and can't be undone until they change the constitution. I have no problem with limiting such weapons by that means only since it is exceptable but the idea that the federal government can do so by itself violates the 2nd and 10th amendment. I don't think that any kind of 'common sense' gun restrictions are possible under the 2nd amendment. I agree that terms like 'common sense' or 'reasonable' are nothing but phrases gun control politicians use to water down the 2nd amendment. It is kind of like saying reasonable restrictions on the first amendment. However, restrictions can be put into the constitution itself if people wanted to. Such an amendment was attempted many years ago by Bush I that attempted to deny people the freedom to burn the American flag. If it passed, it would have infringed on people's freedom of speech but it would have been legal to do so.
I think that, as a strategy to thwart gun grabbers, we should give them a legal path to getting what they want which is amending the constitution. It may seem like surrendering but in reality passing an amendment is so hard that they will quit attempting to do so. Can you imagine getting 2/3 of all states to agree to that? It won't happen but it will be fun to watch the gun grabbers proverbially ice skate uphill. LOL
You are trying to make a case that his was unconstitutional but there is an exception located within the constitution itself for civil unrest and foreign invasions. I don't know off hand if it is just for search warrants but it does exist and it exist for good reason because when there is an immediate public danger such as foreign invasion the government has to have some power to deal with it affectively.
1 year, 11 months ago on Totalitarian – Tenth Amendment Center
@WilliamSchooler I don't understand your point. Do you agree or disagree. I just said that illegals are a problem that is in proportion to the number of illegals. A few people jumping over the border isn't a problem but when it is a lot and you start to notice quite a few foreiners in your neighborhoods then it becomes a problem. Individual states should be able to decide who can enter their states. The exception is US citizens since that would violate the 14th amendment. I may not agree with California's open border policy but it will never affect me so I shouldn't care what they do and quite frankly allowing different states to have different policies simply checks any kind of bigotry that might be behind these anti-immigrant movements.
1 year, 11 months ago on Nullification and Amnesty – Tenth Amendment Center
@MikeJones4 The amnesty bill should be killed because it violates the tenth amendment.
I actually think that states should not allow unlimited immigration into their state because I live on a border state with Mexico and I can tell you the negative affects of open borders. However, I do agree with this article that immigration -- the movement of foreigners into a country-- is up to each state. It would be better that way because if a state was very bigoted then their bigotry can be checked by another state. It would also keep the hands of grimy politicians out of immigration because the only reason they care is that they see a way they can subvert the vote of the people. Think of it this way. If 51% of the people wanted something done that the politicians didn't want to do then they can allow a certain number of people into the country to weaken that 51% down to 49%. The politicians are just using immigration as a tool against the people.
@Camestrop All citizens of the United States (as well as citizens of the several states) are entitled to the immunities and priviliges of each state. The 14th amendment wouldn't come into affect.
@Lonny Eachus You sarcasm serves you no point. Nullification is not self-declaring someone a king simply because one state is not claiming any authority over another. They are simply asserting their authority over themselves which is the very idea behind individual liberty. What we are doing is not declaring anyone a king of the entire universe but more declaring an individual a king of their own selves only which shouldn't really bother anyone at all.
1 year, 11 months ago on Obama Drug Czar Says States Can’t Nullify Federal Drug Laws – Tenth Amendment Center
@MalcolmKyle1 I don't think that we will see the full legalization of drugs but I don't see what is wrong with delegating them to misdemeanor offenses where someone only has to pay a fine. It just seems that when we do that all the problems you mentioned (and ones I agree occur because of harsh drug laws) will evaporate. The thing I've noticed is the fact that ever since LBJ announced a war on drugs in the 60s the arguments as to why we should remove our procedurial rights have been eaten away. The war on terror is much worse. I'm all for prosecuting terrorist and criminals but why should I lose a single right because of that and why should I be subject to overly harsh laws?
@Lonny Eachus In further news: Obama announces he was king of America and a willing population nods their heads in agreement.
The best argument to decriminalize drugs on the state level is simply to eliminate every law against drugs within a state but then allow the federal government to come in and police it. It seems that if we want to eliminate the income tax in the states that we have to cut spending somewhere. How much do states spend on enforcing drug laws? Combine arrest, police patrols, judicial procedures, and incarceration and I bet we get a number that equals what we take in for income taxes.
I can just hear Charlsten Heston saying "You can take my medical marijuana from my cold dead hand!"
@Monorprise They take an oath to uphold the constitution as well as federal laws. What happens when one directly contradicts the other? They would have to sacrifice one oath in order to uphold the other. This invites several questions. The first is why would you uphold the oath to enforce federal laws that sit below the constitution? The second is why would you throw away the oath to uphold the supreme law and only law of the land which is the constitution? The only way you can uphold both oaths is to uphold laws that are in pursuant of the constitution itself.
I got one thing to say "FUCK YOU" federal government!
@TaskForce16 @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark The federalist papers never advocated for giving the federal government unlimited power. Just a few in order for it to carry out its purpose which was to deal with foreign affairs. It could not do those things unless it ws granted some powers. The federalist arguments that are used in courts are simply a way of helping us understand what the constitution means. It is not the same as other attempts to use foreign documents to expand the powers of the constitution.
1 year, 11 months ago on Privileges and Immunities: An Overview of the 14th
@TaskForce16 @DwayneStovall @OnTheMark I hate to jump in but the supposed incorporation doctrine is actual has not been used to restrain the federal government but to unfairly restrain the state governments. It has been used to tell states things they can't do but the same courts that use the same BOR to tell states what to do rarely apply the same standard to the federal government. The courts have told the states that they can't infringe on the 2nd amendent but there is no corresponding ruling against the federal. By applying the BOR to the states the courts have used it as an excuse to strip states of their own right to pass laws that they deem is appropriate.
@tsarbomba On one level calling the police is a good thing such as calling the police when your neighbor's house is being robbed. However, there is an important difference between this act and what seems to happen now. The government creates a total compliance standard with the law but it knows it can't do that with the police alone so it get citizens to turn in other citizens for offenses that other citizens may not care about. Now we are being turned in for every little thing in the world and that is a police state because citizens are afraid to walk outside and be turned in by our neighbor for an innocent offense.
1 year, 11 months ago on A Message for Trying Times – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
@tsarbomba Many conservatives are glad to help the government turn people in with the belief that they are being good citizens.
I find most conservatives have sucked in the collectivism philosophy wholeheartily. I expect someone on the left to turn me in for tax evasion because that is what we do in police states. We turn people in who don't comply with the law. Its the only way to achieve 100% compliance with the state (think about that for a moment). Conservatives act in the same way but will always complain about high taxes. What is it about us that will follow authority when that authority doesn't even benefit our own personal gain in life?
The left has to use arguments that appeal to righties in order to push their socialist agenda...
1 year, 11 months ago on N.C. Religion Resolution: A Poorly Worded Distraction – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Has anyone ever considered existing international treaties that bar WMD from civilian hands? That could be a useful talking point to counter the silly argument of 'what about nukes'?
I really do believe the 2nd amendment protects the right to have personal nukes. The writers of the 2nd amendment couldn't imagine people would have weapons that destructive so they didn't think their was a need to place any limits on it. I'm sure if they were writing the 2nd amendment today they would have carved out a few exceptions in order to accomodate those kind of weapons but that isn't so. Call it it fluke or a technicality but the fact their are no limits to what we can have in the 2nd amendment means we can have those weapons until someone puts something in the constitution that says we can't have those.
I would like to say that I am not thrilled with undoing drug laws but I do see where many of our drug enforcement laws are blatently unconstitutional. The first is the fact the federal government is limited in on what commercial transactions it can restrict. The feds can stop the sale of drugs when they cross state, national, or indian tribes but within these entities they can not. This mean payote is quite legal as long as it is grown, sold, and consumed within a tribal territory. The same thing would go for an entire state so as long as it is produced and sold within a state then the feds can't stop it. They can stop drugs from pouring into this country if they wanted to but that is as far as the DEA should go.
1 year, 12 months ago on Nullify the War on Drugs – Tenth Amendment Center
This is the best argument as to why the federal government shouldn't be able to check its own powers. It, by an act of congress, could take away the supreme courts appellete jurisdiction which would allow the lower courts (which are more controlled by congress) the final say. What would stop congress from doing such a thing and if it did who would be able declare a law unconstitutional? Geee....who can that be...um...
1 year, 12 months ago on A Professor’s Defense of Nullification – Tenth Amendment Center Blog
As someone who has been accused of being one of those anti-government types I favor this simply because the war on drugs has been used to destroy every single civil liberty protection we have. The next time a cop wants to unilateraly search your car just ask yourself what is he searching for. It can't be for stolen goods or to look for evidence of murder since he STILL needs a search warrant for those. Here comes the war on drugs and now cops can practically do body cavity searches on you whenever he wants.
2 years ago on Nullify the War on Drugs – Tenth Amendment Center