Nullification Laws

This is a discussion on Nullification Laws within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification - Washington Times...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31
Like Tree21Likes

Thread: Nullification Laws

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array ExactlyMyPoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,949
    Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or Rapture....whichever comes first.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    As with many articles, these newsy guys and commentators often get their facts wrong.

    1) "Nullification laws are a legal device used by states to “nullify” federal laws deemed unconstitutional by that state’s legislature and governor." NOPE-- They are an illegal and unconstitutional act not usable for this purpose.

    2) "They stem from a proclamation that Andrew Jackson issued in 1832, but in reality have little if any actual authority in overriding federal law." NOPE- Andrew Jackson strongly opposed nullification and denied that states had any such right or authority. He was more than willing to back his opinion with the threat of not only Federal force, but personal force administered
    directly by himself. As hero of the Battle of New Orleans, well know brawler, Indian fighter, no one doubted he meant what he said.

    Read more: SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification - Washington Times

    For mods-- This subject is running elsewhere.
    Last edited by Hopyard; May 13th, 2013 at 09:44 AM. Reason: removed redundant citations to Washington Post story
    keboostman likes this.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,816
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    As with many articles, these newsy guys and commentators often get their facts wrong.

    1) "Nullification laws are a legal device used by states to “nullify” federal laws deemed unconstitutional by that state’s legislature and governor." NOPE-- They are an illegal and unconstitutional act not usable for this purpose.

    2) "They stem from a proclamation that Andrew Jackson issued in 1832, but in reality have little if any actual authority in overriding federal law." NOPE- Andrew Jackson strongly opposed nullification and denied that states had any such right or authority. He was more than willing to back his opinion with the threat of not only Federal force, but personal force administered
    directly by himself. As hero of the Battle of New Orleans, well know brawler, Indian fighter, no one doubt he meant what he said.

    Read more: SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification - Washington Times

    For mods-- This subject is running elsewhere.
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


    Read more: SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification - Washington Times
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
    The unconstitutionality of "nullification laws" is questionable. Those who support them cite Article VI of the Constitution:

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." - emphasis mine

    The issue is, if there are laws made that the government does not have the authority to make, are they made, "in pursuance of" of the Constitution?

    You still have the seeming contradiction, though, of why you have to pass a law to nullify a law that is by definition null and void (since it is made without the authority to do so), but I won't get into that.
    Tzadik likes this.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  5. #4
    Member Array nathanjns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Behind the Sights
    Posts
    306
    Hop,

    I believe you may be misinterpreting Mr. Shapiro ( easy enough to do in this instance ). I think he uses the term "legal device" so as to make clear that it is not "the law". In fact, he makes that clear in paragraph six. The part about about Andrew Jackson is poorly written, but again I think he intends to state that an attempt at nullification was connected to Jackson's proclamation. Taken in total, the article gets the nullification issue right and states the perceived case against the federal government accurately IMO.
    Hopyard likes this.

  6. #5
    Member Array keboostman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fairfax Station Virginia
    Posts
    264
    The constitutionality of nullification laws is clear. They are not constitutional. A federal law is unconstitutional if, and only if, a federal court (up to the Supreme Court) says it is. No matter what any person, state or local entity thinks, a federal law is presumed to be constitutional and enforceable until a successful challenge in a federal court. Federal laws are overturned through federal courts, not nullification. That is our process.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanjns View Post
    Taken in total, the article gets the nullification issue right and states the perceived case against the federal government accurately IMO.
    I agree also.

    I think he states pretty clearly that nullification laws are not constitutional because of article VI. The rest of what he says about how the feds are also treading on constitutional thin ice with proposed gun control, and how they should stand up and take notice of what the states are saying, sums up my view on this matter quite satisfactorily.

    I think that based on the actions of both sides of this issue, seeking further clarification of both of the cited cases is a necessary evolution that will hopefully take place sooner rather than later.
    "Freedom and discipline have come to be regarded as mutually exclusive, when in fact freedom is not at all the opposite, but the final reward of discipline" - Elisabeth Elliot

    "While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly" 1Thess 5:3

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by keboostman View Post
    a federal law is presumed to be constitutional and enforceable until a successful challenge in a federal court.
    You could also make a similar statement for state laws. I don't recommend treating the MO nullification law as if it will stand, but it will be law until invalidated in federal court.
    Hopyard and Sig 210 like this.
    "Freedom and discipline have come to be regarded as mutually exclusive, when in fact freedom is not at all the opposite, but the final reward of discipline" - Elisabeth Elliot

    "While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly" 1Thess 5:3

  9. #8
    Member Array JasonJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    256
    keep in mind what a lot of states are doing is nullifying the federal laws on firearms that are made in, sold in, and never leave teh state in question.. thus becoming intrastate commerce, of which the federal govt has little say. The federal govts jurisdiction and intended power was and is to be over INTERstate commerce.

    Take the recently passed law in Kansas.. if its made in Kansas, labeled as such, is otherwise legal to own and never leaves the state.. it is a commerce that is under the jurisdiction of Kansas alone.
    nathanjns and Ghost1958 like this.

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,816
    Quote Originally Posted by keboostman View Post
    The constitutionality of nullification laws is clear. They are not constitutional. A federal law is unconstitutional if, and only if, a federal court (up to the Supreme Court) says it is. No matter what any person, state or local entity thinks, a federal law is presumed to be constitutional and enforceable until a successful challenge in a federal court. Federal laws are overturned through federal courts, not nullification. That is our process.
    Actually, that process is not outlined in the Constitution, but was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison... so Judicial Review may itself be unconstitutional.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  11. #10
    Senior Member
    Array GraySkies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Washington
    Posts
    547
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    Actually, that process is not outlined in the Constitution, but was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison... so Judicial Review may itself be unconstitutional.
    It is true that judicial review is not spelled out in the constitution, but if it were gone what would we replace it with? Without the court's portion of the balance of power in the three branches of government, I think our rights would have been completely eroded away along time ago. I think I'd rather keep this one.
    "Freedom and discipline have come to be regarded as mutually exclusive, when in fact freedom is not at all the opposite, but the final reward of discipline" - Elisabeth Elliot

    "While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then destruction will come upon them suddenly" 1Thess 5:3

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,816
    Quote Originally Posted by GraySkies View Post
    It is true that judicial review is not spelled out in the constitution, but if it were gone what would we replace it with? Without the court's portion of the balance of power in the three branches of government, I think our rights would have been completely eroded away along time ago. I think I'd rather keep this one.
    I would tend to agree with you. I was just pointing out to the poster that if we are talking about things being constitutional or unconstitutional, we need to understand that the courts doing the deciding on constitutionality is not in the Constitution...
    "My problem with life is not that it is rational nor that it is irrational, but that it is almost rational." - G.K. Chesterton

  13. #12
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanjns View Post
    Hop,

    I believe you may be misinterpreting Mr. Shapiro ( easy enough to do in this instance ). I think he uses the term "legal device" so as to make clear that it is not "the law". In fact, he makes that clear in paragraph six. The part about about Andrew Jackson is poorly written, but again I think he intends to state that an attempt at nullification was connected to Jackson's proclamation. Taken in total, the article gets the nullification issue right and states the perceived case against the federal government accurately IMO.
    Thank you for clearing that up. I do wonder if the OP here also misinterpreted it as I suspect
    Mr. Exactly probably supports nullification. (Could be wrong of course.)

    If you are correct, it is unfortunate that Mr. Shapiro did not make his point clearly and is now
    probably being viewed by many as I viewed him.

    Again, thanks for pointing this matter out.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    I would tend to agree with you. I was just pointing out to the poster that if we are talking about things being constitutional or unconstitutional, we need to understand that the courts doing the deciding on constitutionality is not in the Constitution...
    What do you think the phrase, "The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, " meant? I think it was well understood at the time. It certainly was well understood by Hamilton and Adams, who was the principle advocate
    for a strong and independent judiciary. He had btw been the author of the MA Constitution and had written a very strong
    judiciary into that constitution as well. When there are disputes, a third party has to settle them. When you have a dispute
    between a State and Congress over whether or not a law is constitutional, who is the third party decider to be other than
    The Supremes. To structure it any other way would bring about chaos in the law and destruction of the union.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  15. #14
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,816
    If the Federal Government disregards the US Constitution and passes law that is contrary to it, then it is the duty of the states to NULLIFY said law.
    It is the "last check and balance" to be used before outright rebellion that ends people getting killed. No one wants that.

    It would behoove the socialists that are running this country to start paying attention to WHY the states are attempting to nullify the laws they are passing rather than wasting time arguing about Nullification itself.
    Will they do that? No. All they want is control. More control. More than they already have. Until they have total control of your life they will never stop.



    The White House and Democratic Senate simply needs to comply with the court and the Constitution of the United States of America
    .

    No kidding.
    I'll believe it when I see it.
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #15
    Member Array linuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    1) "Nullification laws are a legal device used by states to “nullify” federal laws deemed unconstitutional by that state’s legislature and governor." NOPE-- They are an illegal and unconstitutional act not usable for this purpose.
    The thing you, and most democrats, fail to understand Hopyard, is that no state is compelled to enforce a federal law. If a state wants to make a law saying NONE of the state or local LE can enforce a federal law, that is in no way unconstitutional. You just don't like it. Just replace "guns" with "marijuana" and you have the exact same argument but for something YOU support.


    Liberals. Pissed when stated want to enforce federal law (Arizona and immigration), pissed when stated don't want to enforce federal law (guns), and joyful when states say a big nasty to federal law (illegal sanctuaries and marijuana legalization).
    Last edited by HotGuns; May 13th, 2013 at 01:34 PM. Reason: deleted workaround.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

andrew jackson nullification issues

,

az gun laws

,

connections between nullification issue of 1830s and actions of arizona

Click on a term to search for related topics.