- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are your opinions on nullification?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:35 pm
Would you be in favor of states exercising nullification in an effort to decentralize power?
8
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:40 pm to RollTide1987
Yes. Madison & Jefferson adequately explained the basis for it in the 1790s.
I am also in favor of (and believe in the legality of) secession.
I am also in favor of (and believe in the legality of) secession.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:40 pm to RollTide1987
Certainly
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:41 pm to RollTide1987
Absolutely.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:42 pm to udtiger
quote:
I am also in favor of (and believe in the legality of) secession.
Right. You can't be free if you are not allowed to leave.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:43 pm to udtiger
quote:
I am also in favor of (and believe in the legality of) secession.
The union set forth in the Articles of Confederation was in perpetuity, and the union set forth by the Constitution is a "more perfect" union than that. Its pretty clear the union under the Constitution was meant to be in perpetuity, they wouldn't have called it a "more perfect union" if they had actually mean it should be less of a union than the one set forth under the Articles.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:46 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:omg
The union set forth in the Articles of Confederation was in perpetuity, and the union set forth by the Constitution is a "more perfect" union than that. Its pretty clear the union under the Constitution was meant to be in perpetuity, they wouldn't have called it a "more perfect union" if they had actually mean it should be less of a union than the one set forth under the Articles.
Anyway... I disagree with nullification and agree with secession.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:49 pm to FT
Sorry, I didn't use the full name of the Articles of Confederation.
"The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"
"The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union"
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:52 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The union set forth in the Articles of Confederation was in perpetuity, and the union set forth by the Constitution is a "more perfect" union than that. Its pretty clear the union under the Constitution was meant to be in perpetuity, they wouldn't have called it a "more perfect union" if they had actually mean it should be less of a union than the one set forth under the Articles.
Wow...
In addition to the complete absence of any mention of (or prohibition to) secession in the Constitution, check the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Also, it defies logic to believe that men who had only recently seceded from Britain would actually seek to completely prevent it in the future for the new nation.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:55 pm to SpidermanTUba
A more perfect marriage is not one from which you can never be divorced.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:58 pm to udtiger
quote:
In addition to the complete absence of any mention of (or prohibition to) secession in the Constitution,
In the preamble the union is called "more perfect".
More perfect than what? The existing union, obviously.
quote:
In addition to the complete absence of any mention of (or prohibition to) secession in the Constitution, check the 9th and 10th Amendments.
None of which allow for secession. On the other hand, you might want to take a look at the Supremacy Clause, which establishes the Constitution as the the Supreme Law of the land. How can a law be the Supreme Law of the Land if it is purely voluntary?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 2:59 pm to FT
quote:
A more perfect marriage is not one from which you can never be divorced.
Its not a marriage. A marriage is an equal partnership. The Constitution is explicitly established as the Supreme Law.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:00 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:I didn't say it was a marriage, idiot. I was explaining what "more perfect" was most likely to have meant.
Its not a marriage. A marriage is an equal partnership. The Constitution is explicitly established as the Supreme Law.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:01 pm to RollTide1987
No.
I agree that the Federal government has gotten too centralized and powerful, but states deciding which federal laws they want to follow and which ones they do not would create chaos.
I agree that the Federal government has gotten too centralized and powerful, but states deciding which federal laws they want to follow and which ones they do not would create chaos.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:04 pm to The Spleen
quote:This. Nullification is a bad concept with no basis in the constitution.
I agree that the Federal government has gotten too centralized and powerful, but states deciding which federal laws they want to follow and which ones they do not would create chaos.
Secession is a good concept that should be used in the most extreme of times.
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:08 pm to FT
quote:
Secession is a good concept that should be used in the most extreme of times.
PERPETUITY
The adoption of the Constitution did not alter this! The 13 colonies surrendered their ultimate sovereignty when they adopted the Articles of Confederation, Hawaii and Texas surrendered theirs when they willingly joined the Union, and the rest never existed as independent sovereign entities to begin with.
This post was edited on 12/29/14 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:10 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Sorry, can you show me where it says so in the constitution?
PERPETUITY
The adoption of the Constitution did not alter this!
Posted on 12/29/14 at 3:18 pm to RollTide1987
I do not agree with nullification, even when it is an attractive concept. Nullification is just lazy. As much as I do not like complying with a law, simply ignoring it is not going to change it.
Secession of a state is not outlawed in the constitution, which means that it is a power given to the states. Therefor, rather than nullifying a law, a state must either do what it can to have that law repealed, successfully defeat it in the Supreme Court, or secede and form their own country where that law does not exist (the so called, "put your money where your mouth is" provision)
Secession of a state is not outlawed in the constitution, which means that it is a power given to the states. Therefor, rather than nullifying a law, a state must either do what it can to have that law repealed, successfully defeat it in the Supreme Court, or secede and form their own country where that law does not exist (the so called, "put your money where your mouth is" provision)
Posted on 12/29/14 at 4:28 pm to FT
quote:the preamble!
Sorry, can you show me where it says so in the constitution?
Posted on 12/29/14 at 4:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
the preamble!
The preamble is not a legally binding document. It is merely a preface to the document describing the reasons why it was written. It's like a foreword for the Constitution. The foreword of a novel does not impact the plot in anyway, but it can help to give it a little bit more context.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News