Joined
·
3,209 Posts
The unconstitutionality of "nullification laws" is questionable. Those who support them cite Article VI of the Constitution: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
I agree also.Taken in total, the article gets the nullification issue right and states the perceived case against the federal government accurately IMO.
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.a federal law is presumed to be constitutional and enforceable until a successful challenge in a federal court.
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.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.
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.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.
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...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.
Thank you for clearing that up. I do wonder if the OP here also misinterpreted it as I suspectHop,
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.
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 advocateI 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...
.
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.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.
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.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 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.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.
I agree.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.
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.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.