[ExactlyMyPoint]

SHAPIRO: Another attempt at nullification - Washington Times

 

[Hopyard]

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.

 

[Badey]

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.

 

[nathanjns]

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.

 

[keboostman]

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.

 

[GraySkies]

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.

 

[GraySkies]

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.

 

[JasonJ]

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.

 

[Badey]

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.

 

[GraySkies]

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.

 

[Badey]

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...

 

[Hopyard]

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.

 

[Hopyard]

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.

 

[HotGuns]

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.

 

[linuss]

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).

 

[Warmon]

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.

This is yet another reason why the 17th Amendment should be repealed. If your US Senators were beholding to the state legislatures instead of the people / parties as intended, states would be better represented and perhaps wouldn't have to resort to this. The progressives brought many bad things in 1913 - the 17th, federal income tax and the federal reserve.

 

[peckman28]

This is yet another reason why the 17th Amendment should be repealed. If your US Senators were beholding to the state legislatures instead of the people / parties as intended, states would be better represented and perhaps wouldn't have to resort to this. The progressives brought many bad things in 1913 - the 17th, federal income tax and the federal reserve.

This is spot on. The disastrous reforms of the early 20th century set the stage for the vast majority of our problems, and our only hope of really fixing it is to repeal such stupid ideas from our Constitution. As far as the Fed goes, well, I see no authority for something like that in Article 1, Section 8 in the first place. Abolish it. Those who foolishly prance around on this forum running their mouths about how bad nullification is completely ignore all that has set the stage for this crisis in the first place. If they don't like it they should've been speaking up as the federal government ran amok with all kinds of powers not granted by the Constitution in the first place.

 

[Patti]

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.



.

No kidding.
I'll believe it when I see it.

I agree.

According to Hopyard, nullification is illegal. However, that is completely false.

The general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.

 

[Hopyard]

I agree.

According to Hopyard, nullification is illegal. However, that is completely false.

The general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.

Patti-- I assume you have quoted something Jefferson wrote or uttered at some point (a citation would be helpful), but there is a lot more to our history, and thus to our law, than his utterances. You are stating one opinion from an important founder, but it is only one opinion. It isn't consistent with the Supremacy clause of our Constitution, with the history of the nullification resolutions at the start of the 19th century, or of the resolution of the nullification crisis during the Jackson administration. IT doesn't take into account the Civil War, the 14th Amendment, and a variety of Supreme Court rulings through time, up to and including the modern era.

"No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 - Supreme Court 1958

 

[Ghost1958]

The only time the Constitution isnt plain in what is says even to folks with limited educations like myself is when some local, state or Federal agency violates it and needs a court to "interpret" it into saying something it plainly doesnt then ruling that it does using powers of judicial review no court was ever granted in the Constitution in the first place.

Thats the bottom line of why we are where we are. And probably why we will wind up in flames one day to finally get back to where we were and should be. I hope not but other than more depending on courts using powers they do not have in reality to right all the wrongs the states telling the Feds and SCOTUS to go pound sand and simply abiding the constitution is about all that left short of i dont even want to say it:blink: