Article VI Non-Pursuance vs Tenth Amendment Nullification

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny has a point. In Michigan, a public act was passed in December to prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in NDAA indefinite detention. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0228.pdf

There's no mention of nullification or the tenth amendment. I don't think it was ever mentioned when it was debated in the legislature either (it passed unanimously).

Thank you, and exactly. TPTB have effectively poisoned the word 'nullification' and the concept of arguing from the tenth Amendment to the point where it is awfully difficult to pass bills that most citizens would support; and even once passed, the bureaucrats are too scared to actually implement them. Do the exact same thing without the poisonous words, and it actually carries the policy into law, which I assume is what we all want.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Unless it can be proven that the federal government has no authority to do something, then nullification is useless. Nullification, on it's own, just looks like a bratty child not wanting to do what mommy and daddy says. (that's how it is portrayed).

Article VI is the authorization for the federal government to subordinate the states to it's laws and treaties, "when in pursuance of this constitution". Article VI is the case for the argument that the laws/treaties must follow the constitution, otherwise are of no consequence.

The 10th Amendment only specifies where those non-compliant Article VI authorities reside, not what is lawful for the states or the people.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Unless it can be proven that the federal government has no authority to do something, then nullification is useless. Nullification, on it's own, just looks like a bratty child not wanting to do what mommy and daddy says. (that's how it is portrayed).

Article VI is the authorization for the federal government to subordinate the states to it's laws and treaties, "when in pursuance of this constitution". Article VI is the case for the argument that the laws/treaties must follow the constitution, otherwise are of no consequence.

The 10th Amendment only specifies where those non-compliant Article VI authorities reside, not what is lawful for the states or the people.

That's true. I would say that if the 10th and nullification had not been poisoned by the statists trying to prevent an uprising of the States, then it is exactly the tack to take, but they have invested all of their effort poisoning the 10th and building up Article VI, as though Article VI somehow countermanded the 10th A. Obviously that's not true, the same policy found in the 10th A is found in Article VI.

But here we can use the statists efforts against them. They have spent years derogating the 10th Amendment and building up Article VI, so we make the argument from Article VI and they literally have no defense against it, since they were the ones in the first place building up the Supremacy Clause so much as though it contradicted our efforts.

The only objection I have heard anybody able to muster from an Article VI Non-Pursuance argument is "But that's not really what it means!" That objection is very simple to overcome, simply by pointing to the Tenth Amendment and explaining that it was ratified in the event that people failed to understand Article VI, the Tenth Amendment spells it out clearly.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

That's true. I would say that if the 10th and nullification had not been poisoned by the statists trying to prevent an uprising of the States, then it is exactly the tack to take, but they have invested all of their effort poisoning the 10th and building up Article VI, as though Article VI somehow countermanded the 10th A. Obviously that's not true, the same policy found in the 10th A is found in Article VI.

But here we can use the statists efforts against them. They have spent years derogating the 10th Amendment and building up Article VI, so we make the argument from Article VI and they literally have no defense against it, since they were the ones in the first place building up the Supremacy Clause so much as though it contradicted our efforts.

The only objection I have heard anybody able to muster from an Article VI Non-Pursuance argument is "But that's not really what it means!" That objection is very simple to overcome, simply by pointing to the Tenth Amendment and explaining that it was ratified in the event that people failed to understand Article VI, the Tenth Amendment spells it out clearly.

I agree. I see Article VI spelling out what the Federal government supreme powers are limited to, and then the 10th Amendment answering "well, then, who do the rest of the powers belong to".

 

[Pericles]

Well, it's the exact same thing without the vulnerability to the smear job. That's kinda the point. There never was a Southern Nonpursuance Crisis. Nonpursuance was never invoked by Calhoun.

I'm LOLing at even the people on this board not thinking it through. Did Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ever actually call it 'nullification?" And here we are hung up on a word. Not a policy, but a word, because the policy is exactly the same, we're just articulating it out of Article 6 instead of the 10th A. Why is that? Why are we so invested in a word at the expense of the actual policy, when simply adjusting a word has a better shot at actually affecting the policy?

This is the way to approach it - not a delegated power, therefore not in pursuance of the Constitution.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

And where they have actually passed (Other than Colorado and Washington State -- who BY THE WAY did NOT call it 'Nullification' nor did they invoke the 10th Amendment) has any of the bills that have passed actually affected policy at all?

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Gunny has a point. In Michigan, a public act was passed in December to prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in NDAA indefinite detention. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0228.pdf

There's no mention of nullification or the tenth amendment. I don't think it was ever mentioned when it was debated in the legislature either (it passed unanimously).

There is no mention of nullification and the tenth amendment in the bill because it was watered down.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

I just read California's Assembly Bill 351, as well as both the Senate and the Assembly's analyses.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB351

There is no mention of nullification anywhere, and the Assembly's primary legal Constitutional justification is...are you ready for this? Article 6 nonpursuance.

So in California, where this has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion, they used Article VI Nonpursuance

 

[Anti Federalist]

I understand Gunny's point, but...

All of this is just mental masturbation unless and until some state actually finds the stones to enforce nullification or non-pursuance.

Without that, NDAA will still be the "law" in CA, and you still will not be able to buy a Montana Firearm Freedom weapon.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

I just read California's Assembly Bill 351, as well as both the Senate and the Assembly's analyses.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB351

There is no mention of nullification anywhere, and the Assembly's primary legal Constitutional justification is...are you ready for this? Article 6 nonpursuance.

So in California, where this has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion, they used Article VI Nonpursuance

It's not enough to deny compliance the feds though. We need to work toward nullification and get the idea out there and teach people about it. Non-compliance bills won't be enough to stop federal kidnapping or gun control.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand Gunny's point, but...

All of this is just mental masturbation unless and until some state actually finds the stones to enforce nullification or non-pursuance.

Well, that's exactly why I am suggesting a pivot into a rhetorical approach that can be embraced by both parties instead of just half of one party. Alcohol prohibition was killed largely by a preponderance of States rejecting it. If we want to effect change in federal law and behavior, we need to build a preponderance of States. We can accelerate the uptake of this policy by presenting it in a way that the majorities of both parties can accept rather than a minority of just one party. When 35 States declare a federal law invalid in their States for failure to follow from the Constitution, then the law will go away, whether the individual States have the guts or not. Use the sheeple effect to our advantage.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not enough to deny compliance the feds though. We need to work toward nullification and get the idea out there and teach people about it. Non-compliance bills won't be enough to stop federal kidnapping or gun control.

Is there something specific about the word 'nullification' itself that would cause us to cling to a word when the exact same policy has 4 to 6 times as much public acceptance when described in other terms?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Is there something specific about the word 'nullification' itself that would cause us to cling to a word when the exact same policy has 4 to 6 times as much public acceptance when described in other terms?

Non-compliance or anti-commandeering would work on certain issues, but we ultimately need nullification and interposition if we are going to ward off the feds.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Well, that's exactly why I am suggesting a pivot into a rhetorical approach that can be embraced by both parties instead of just half of one party. Alcohol prohibition was killed largely by a preponderance of States rejecting it. If we want to effect change in federal law and behavior, we need to build a preponderance of States. We can accelerate the uptake of this policy by presenting it in a way that the majorities of both parties can accept rather than a minority of just one party. When 35 States declare a federal law invalid in their States for failure to follow from the Constitution, then the law will go away, whether the individual States have the guts or not. Use the sheeple effect to our advantage.

I see...well, I'll introduce it in discussion and see what happens.

I'm game to try any damn thing at this point.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Wow. It. Blows. My. Mind. That. This. Is. So. Hard. To. Understand.

You can call me Joe, you can call me Moe, you can call me Curly, you can call me.............whatever.

The principle of nullification is based on WHAT? Can you constitutionally nullify a constitutional law? Eh? Why? Why not? WTF?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Non-compliance or anti-commandeering would work on certain issues, but we ultimately need nullification and interposition if we are going to ward off the feds.

So what makes the stronger argument that 1) a given federal law does not pursue from the US Constitution, therefore the State should interpose itself with the blessing of the Article VI Supremacy Clause; a worse idea than the argument that 2) a given power is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States therefore per the Tenth Amendment we should nullify and interpose the State in protection of the citizens?

Not only is nonpursuance with interposition stronger because it arises from the Supremacy Clause itself (leaving the statists no objection to run to for cover), it is also stronger because it takes fewer words to explain it. The end result is the same. Fedgov can't do it, the State should interpose if they try. The main difference is nonpursuance is acceptable to a majority of both parties while nullification is only acceptable to a minority of a single party.

If we want to change the way the feds do business, we have to build a preponderance of States. If we want to build a preponderance of States, we have to articulate the policy in a way that the majority accepts.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I see...well, I'll introduce it in discussion and see what happens.

I'm game to try any damn thing at this point.

I started re-framing the debate in this direction about a year ago, and the difference in acceptance has been astounding to me. You can still go back to the 10th A for explanations and support, but when you LEAD with Art VI nonpursuance, it opens a lot more doors. A lot of people have filters and gatekeepers up, particularly on the middle and left of the false spectrum. Making it past the filters and the gatekeepers is about 80% of this battle. Re-frame the debate, wake more people up.

 

[Origanalist]

Wow. It. Blows. My. Mind. That. This. Is. So. Hard. To. Understand.

You can call me Joe, you can call me Moe, you can call me Curly, you can call me.............whatever.

The principle of nullification is based on WHAT? Can you constitutionally nullify a constitutional law? Eh? Why? Why not? WTF?

I sense a lot of resistance.....

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

So what makes the stronger argument that 1) a given federal law does not pursue from the US Constitution, therefore the State should interpose itself with the blessing of the Article VI Supremacy Clause; a worse idea than the argument that 2) a given power is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States therefore per the Tenth Amendment we should nullify and interpose the State in protection of the citizens?

Not only is nonpursuance with interposition stronger because it arises from the Supremacy Clause itself (leaving the statists no objection to run to for cover), it is also stronger because it takes fewer words to explain it. The end result is the same. Fedgov can't do it, the State should interpose if they try. The main difference is nonpursuance is acceptable to a majority of both parties while nullification is only acceptable to a minority of a single party.

If we want to change the way the feds do business, we have to build a preponderance of States. If we want to build a preponderance of States, we have to articulate the policy in a way that the majority accepts.

A majority of voters accept nullification so there is no reason for this change in terminology

 

[GunnyFreedom]

A majority of voters accept nullification so there is no reason for this change in terminology

You clearly don't canvass where I do.