Kansas Proclaims right to nullify Federal law
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 2 of 2
Message
re: Kansas Proclaims right to nullify Federal law
Posted by PaddlingTiger on 4/10 at 3:53 pm to GumboPot
quote:

If it's SCOTUS then this law is useless.


That is the basic reasoning of the cases finding nullification invalid. The states argued that they get to decide whether something is constitutional and the SCOTUS said no way the Constitution says we do that, so states can't decide for themselves what is constitutional.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Godfather1 on 4/10 at 3:55 pm to 50Mullets
quote:

I'm pretty sure this whole thing was settled when Virginia tried it about 200 years ago.


Pretty sure you're thinking about South Carolina, closer to 175 years ago.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by detmut on 4/10 at 4:04 pm to Godfather1
quote:

quote:
I'm pretty sure this whole thing was settled when Virginia tried it about 200 years ago.


Pretty sure you're thinking about South Carolina, closer to 175 years ago.


In 1813, the Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Virginia Court of Appeals, basing its decision on the terms of a federal treaty.[46] The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision, stating that under the Constitution, the Supreme Court did not have authority over state courts. The Virginia court held that as a matter of state sovereignty, its decisions were final and could not be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Virginia court found unconstitutional the federal statute providing for Supreme Court review of state court judgments. This decision would have allowed each state's courts to decide for themselves whether federal actions were unconstitutional, effectively giving state courts the right to nullify federal law. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), the Supreme Court rejected this view. The Supreme Court held that Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution or federal law, and gives the Supreme Court final authority in such cases. The Supreme Court stated that the people, by providing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has final authority in such cases, had chosen to limit the sovereignty of the states. The Supreme Court therefore found that the federal courts, not the states, have the final power to interpret the Constitution.

The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 in the case of United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809).[39] The Court rejected the idea of nullification. The Pennsylvania legislature had passed an act purporting to nullify a federal court's decision. The Pennsylvania statute stated that the federal court had acted unconstitutionally because it did not have jurisdiction, and that the federal court's judgment "was null and void." The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania legislature did not have the power to nullify the federal court's judgment, stating: "If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals."

In response, the Governor of Pennsylvania called out the state militia to prevent enforcement of the Supreme Court's judgment. However, the U.S. Marshal summoned a posse, carried out the Supreme Court's order, and arrested the leaders of the state militia. The Pennsylvania legislature passed a resolution declaring the action of the Supreme Court unconstitutional, invoking states' rights, and appealing to the other states for support.[40] Eleven states responded by disapproving Pennsylvania's attempted nullification. No state supported Pennsylvania.[41] The Governor of Pennsylvania made a plea to President James Madison to intervene, but Madison affirmed the authority of the Supreme Court. The Pennsylvania legislature backed down and withdrew the militia.[42] Thus, Pennsylvania's attempt to nullify the federal court judgment failed.[43]


This post was edited on 4/10 at 4:06 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by AlaTiger on 4/10 at 11:46 pm to detmut
quote:

If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals."


Fair enough, but the Constitution is the Law of the Land, not the judgment of the Courts in specific instances. The 2nd Amendment is clear despite what the Federal Government tries to do. We have the Bill of Rights for a reason - to protect us from the over reach of the Federal Government. We expect the Federal Government to try and grab full power, but the Bill of Rights exists to protect individuals and the states as well.

The Courts are supposed to represent that view, but have been so politicized and activist that they no longer do their job either. Very sad.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Fox Mulder on 4/10 at 11:53 pm to AlaTiger
I'm pro second amendment but Jesus listen to yourself.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Roaad on 4/11 at 12:06 am to PaddlingTiger
quote:

The Supreme Court rejected nullification in 1816
This isn't nullification.

This is declaring an intent to not enforce laws that violate the Constitution from which the authority to make laws is derived.

This isn't state nullification. A fed law that violates the US Constitution nullifies itself.

Seems like Kansas is just pointing out that they aren't down with violating the US Constitution. Seems pretty noble and patriotic.

If the US government passes a law saying everyone must murder their first born, do you kill now. . .or do you ignore such an unconstitutional law despite no ruling from the fed courts?


This post was edited on 4/11 at 12:11 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SevenLinesofPine on 4/11 at 2:21 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:

For example, let's say a law was being considered that banned Catholicism.


There's no pretend about it there are laws trying to ban Christianity being introduced every day their just worded so they can sneak them in slowly one by one, what do you think the current "civil rights movement" is really about it's about destroying the ACTUAL oppressed population of America and moral integrity that come with it



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by bgator85 on 4/11 at 7:39 am to Roaad
quote:

This isn't nullification. This is declaring an intent to not enforce laws that violate the Constitution from which the authority to make laws is derived. This isn't state nullification. A fed law that violates the US Constitution nullifies itself.


Except that requires the state to make a determination on what does or does not violate the Constitution. Even straight forward infringements require interpretation and application, powers they do not have.


This post was edited on 4/11 at 7:43 am

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX on 4/11 at 7:41 am to bgator85
So if the Supreme Court decides that gun laws are illegal, then NY or Conn can choose to not enforce them and make everyone conform to what ever they come with?

and if the Court bans abortion can the states ignore their ruling and keep abortion legal?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 4/11 at 8:14 am to detmut
So basically the Feds usurped power through brute force?


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by RCDfan1950 on 4/11 at 8:48 am to ponger3d
quote:

If I remember right this has happened before and the last time it didn't end to well for the southern states. Does Kansas have the right to do this?


So, wouldn't the more pertinent question be 'what if they don't'? What is more threatenting to personal Liberty...Kansas, or the Federal Government?

Can the USSC (9 ideologue lawyers) *reinterpret* the Constitution and the Federal Government then enact contra-Constitutional Law and impose such AGAINST and without the 'consent of the governed'? THAT should be the real question. Because if they can...you can kiss your money, your personal freedom to speak, act, belive even live...GOODBYE....IF a mob-rule electorate votes in USSC lawyers that act toward their own tyrannical interest!

Kansas...my ass.

Stock the pantry...for what it's worth; if this stuff goes "Forward".




Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 2 of 2           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.