Kansas Proclaims right to nullify Federal law
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 1 of 2  
Message
Kansas Proclaims right to nullify Federal law
Posted by ponger3d on 4/10 at 12:12 pm
Just read this article about some bill passed in Kansas:


LINK



The important quote


quote:

the bill declare that “any act, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment of the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas,” it bases its legality on the Second, Ninth, and 10th Amendments:




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?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Springfield XD on 4/10 at 12:17 pm to ponger3d
The USSC has been clear on this.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by GumboPot on 4/10 at 12:18 pm to ponger3d
quote:


the bill declare that “any act, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment of the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas,” it bases its legality on the Second, Ninth, and 10th Amendments:


Yeah and KS will rely on the SCOTUS to make the determination if a law pertaining to the 2nd is constitutional or not.

Seriously, who will make the determination if a law passed pertaining to the 2nd is constitutional or not? If it's SCOTUS, this law has no teeth and is just a move to pander to a certain uninformed electorate.




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by lsuroadie on 4/10 at 12:21 pm to ponger3d
Colorado can sell pot.

CA ignores immigration laws.



KS can sell guns.

No problem.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ponger3d on 4/10 at 12:23 pm to GumboPot
Yeah, it would have no teeth if that happened but if enough states made the same bills, passed them, and then united with one another, it would give it a lot more legitimacy.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX on 4/10 at 12:37 pm to ponger3d
Thats crazy. Back at the states rights we don't need to integrate days. One country one Federal Law

Same holds true if Supreme Court holds no Gun laws. Would vacate Chicago Dc or NY laws. Same with Abortion laws.


This post was edited on 4/10 at 12:39 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin on 4/10 at 1:09 pm to ponger3d
quote:

Does Kansas have the right to do this?


I tend to think that isn't the right question.

At a certain point, a populace is "supposed" to overthrow an oppressive government. At what point that occurs is academic (What is or isn't oppressive?), since rebellions tend to happen organically, and you can't just go, "THAT did it."

For example, let's say a law was being considered that banned Catholicism. Clearly 1st Amendment unconstutional to most Kansans and probably most everybody else, but this is a thought exercise. Kansas passes this type of nullity bill. Federal Catholicism ban then passes, and Supreme's say its Constitutional. Well, that would make the religion ban nationwide OK since the Supreme's have final say. However, many people would vehemently disagree. Kansas would be supporting the constitutional right of its citizens, yet at the same time, the Supreme's are saying it can't legally do that. Kansas wouldn't have the "right" to protect its citizens against ban according to the Supreme court. However, "Kansas" is really the people who live there, so obviously they would not ban their own religion.

There wouldn't be a legal means or "right" for Kansas to null the law, so that usually leaves one alternative. Violence.


This post was edited on 4/10 at 1:14 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by AlaTiger on 4/10 at 1:10 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
Kansas is right. NY, Connecticut, Chicago are wrong.

The 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the States. So, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. You cannot on the one hand force gay marriage down everyone's throats on the basis of the 4th amendment and at the same time ignore the 2nd amendment. It is one or the other. Liberals are trying to have it both ways. Now, I don't think that gay marriage is protected under the Constitution, but the right to bear arms surely is. And, those are the rights of the people and they apply to the states, as well.

Federal Law should have no bearing here and Kansas is right to ignore it.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by 50Mullets on 4/10 at 1:13 pm to ponger3d
I'm pretty sure this whole thing was settled when Virginia tried it about 200 years ago.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ljhog on 4/10 at 1:18 pm to 50Mullets
quote:

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

Wasn't settled at all and a temporary cessation of hostilities does not alter that fact.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by PaddlingTiger on 4/10 at 1:59 pm to ljhog
quote:

temporary cessation of hostilities
What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

The Supreme Court rejected nullification in 1816 and has done so in several cases since the initial rejection of the theory. I am not quite sure how these "temporarily ceased hostilities" have anything to do with it.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Turbeauxdog on 4/10 at 2:03 pm to PaddlingTiger
The supreme court is wrong almost every time a justice puts pen to paper. It's just a matter of how much wrong people will tolerate.


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by ljhog on 4/10 at 3:03 pm to PaddlingTiger
quote:

What on Earth is that supposed to mean?

It means now is the time to see if Obama has the stones.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX on 4/10 at 3:04 pm to ljhog
and we know he doesn't


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by GumboPot on 4/10 at 3:20 pm to ponger3d
quote:

Does Kansas have the right to do this?


Again from the article:

quote:

Indeed. Not only does the bill declare that “any act, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment of the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas,” it bases its legality on the Second, Ninth, and 10th Amendments.


quote:

The bill has real teeth, as it expands on its declarations that any of these federal government intrusions is null and void. It prohibits any employee of Kansas from helping the federal government to enforce these intrusions and declares as unlawful any attempts by any federal government employee to enforce such intrusions, making such efforts a felony in the state.



In the bill, what legal body will make the determination that the 2nd amendment has been violated? If it's the SCOTUS, this bill has no teeth. If it's the KS legislature and governor, then we can talk about teeth.

For example, if the KS Governor orders gun retail outlets to ignore the federal requirements for background checks (being drafted in congress now), then I'll believe the sincerity of the bill. As it stands now the KS legislature looks like a bunch of chicken hawks. There is no doubt that KS will back down to the federal government if forced to. State legislatures always do. Historically speaking state legislatures are a bunch of pussies.

I'm surprised that this question was not answered in the article. Usually Lew Rockwell is better than this.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by JEAUXBLEAUX on 4/10 at 3:25 pm to GumboPot
So if New York or Conn passes some wild law severely limiting guns they can use this to say their state law supersedes the 2nd Amendment? Damn why didn't I think of this. No way


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by manwich on 4/10 at 3:27 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
i like seeing a little push back from the states


Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Jbird on 4/10 at 3:30 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:

So if New York or Conn passes some wild law severely limiting guns they can use this to say their state law supersedes the 2nd Amendment?


Seems like you missed the part about violating the second as the basis for not enforcing a new fed law. Kinda like Odrama picking and choosing said enforcement of laws, they are learning from the Savior himself.

quote:

Not only does the bill declare that “any act, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment of the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas,” it bases its legality on the Second, Ninth, and 10th Amendments


This post was edited on 4/10 at 3:32 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by GumboPot on 4/10 at 3:32 pm to JEAUXBLEAUX
quote:

So if New York or Conn passes some wild law severely limiting guns they can use this to say their state law supersedes the 2nd Amendment? Damn why didn't I think of this. No way


The KS law has nothing to do with other state laws. The way I read it, the KS law only nullifies federal law that violates the 2nd. But again, who makes the determination that the 2nd has been violated? If it's SCOTUS then this law is useless.




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Bucktown Tigah on 4/10 at 3:34 pm 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.


Nullification had nothing to do with the war between the states, but nice try though.

Also, it was the northern states that originally enacted nullification for the fugitive slave act.



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

           Page 1 of 2           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Score Board
 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
 

 News
 LSU
 More Sports
 Sports Lite
 

 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
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.