Nullification is a five-minute fashion

[LibertyWorker]

I am making this post in order to hopefully save people a little bit of time energy and embarrassment.

The people running around talking about nullification are completely wasting their time. Nullification is nothing more than a buzzword of the week. If you’re putting your eggs in the nullification basket get ready have your eggs smashed.

In order for nullification to work the US Supreme Court a branch of the federal government would have to make a ruling saying its okay for states to ignore federal law.

I will say it again do you really think a branch of the federal government is going to say it’s okay to ignore the federal government?

So don’t fall into this little game of running around using the latest buzzword of the week “Nullification” politicians and news networks are just using this word because it sounds confrontational but nothing will ever come of it.

Please people stop falling into this little trap the politicians and the media are doing nothing but getting you to chase your own tail.

You want to make a difference stop working with the system.

 

[Bruno]

I see no problem with having a number of baskets to put the eggs in

 

[Matt Collins]

Tom Woods disagrees. And no nullification does not depend on the federal courts to my understanding.

Having the AG of each State sue the federal government DOES depend upon the federal courts, and suing the feds in their own courts is a quick path to failure in my opinion.



YouTube - Is Health-Care Reform Unconstitutional?

 

[ghotiblue]

I admittedly don't know too much about the nullification process, but I thought the whole point was for a state to establish its sovereignty and therefore elect to simply ignore the federal law. If the state is asserting its sovereignty and right to decide for itself when a law is unconstitutional, wouldn't this mean that any ruling by the Supreme Court would be irrelevant?

 

[Anti Federalist]

You want to make a difference stop working with the system.

I happen to agree with the idea that the lawsuits and nullification efforts will be unsuccessful, since they rely on a fed court to grant them legitimacy.

I think they are highly necessary that they be done, so that when, and it will, this comes down to a stand off, we can seize the moral high ground by proving we have exhausted every single peaceful avenue, only to be laughed at and ignored at every turn.

But, stop working within the system.

Thrown around a lot, care to explain how that's possible?

 

[Erazmus]

nullification does not depend on the federal courts.

Exactly.

*edit* I would add that to stop working with the system is the heart of nullification. It just makes it so the state will not go after you. The real issue is whether the state will back you should the Feds come after you. That, I cannot answer.

 

[Acala]

Nullification

Nullification does NOT depend on the Supreme Court. Nullification is extra-Constitutional, meaning that it is not a remedy provided in the text of the Constitution but rather is implied in the VOLUNTARY nature of the compact. The States do not need to get approval from on high to nullify. They just do it. They refuse to enforce the law in their jurisdiction, they refuse to cooperate with Federal agents, and they treat Federal agents enforcing the law as acting outside their authority.

Will any States have the cubes to go through with it? I don't know. But it will be up to the States and the people, not the Supreme Court.

 

[FrankRep]

Tom Woods disagrees.

We just need states with courage to stand up to the Federal Government for Nullification to be effective.

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...7-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement


Nullification in a Nutshell
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2971-nullification-in-a-nutshell

 

[low preference guy]

when I read the title of the thread, "Nullification is a five-minute fashion", I thought he was quoting someone on the DailyKos of Huffington Post. What a laughable claim.

Nullification is a tool that can be used, based on American traditions, as an indirect threat to secession. Secession is never a five-minute fashion. There's always the possibility that people get fed up enough to break apart.

 

[Erazmus]

We just need states with courage to stand up to the Federal Government for Nullification to be effective.

State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index...7-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement


Nullification in a Nutshell
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/history/american/2971-nullification-in-a-nutshell

Ultimately I see people moving to the states that promote liberty in the fight against our rogue national government. This will put pressure on states to grow some ballz. At least based on bills and resolutions, Idaho is looking pretty awesome to me. Time will tell if they are serious. Right now the only thing tying me to California is my job. If that disappears, I outta this ****hole state.

 

[Juan McCain]

Some states already have some success with medical marijuana nullification of the federal prohibition of cannabis.

Also, parts of Social Security in 1936 were found by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional - and had to be removed.

 

[Stary Hickory]

No nullification is the States making a judgment as to whether federal legislation is or is not Constitutional, as one of the parties to the contract it has EVERY right to enforce the terms of that contract and not let the other party be judge and jury over what is and what is not considered a breach of contract.

 

[TomAlciere]

I am making this post in order to hopefully save people a little bit of time energy and embarrassment.

The people running around talking about nullification are completely wasting their time. Nullification is nothing more than a buzzword of the week. If you’re putting your eggs in the nullification basket get ready have your eggs smashed.

In order for nullification to work the US Supreme Court a branch of the federal government would have to make a ruling saying its okay for states to ignore federal law.

“It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.” Robert E. Lee, 23 January 1861

 

[Travlyr]

Ha... ha... ha... silly post. It's more like a 200+ year provision.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


republic
1604, "state in which supreme power rests in the people," from Fr. république, from L. respublica (abl. republica), lit. res publica "public interest, the state," from res "affair, matter, thing" + publica, fem. of publicus "public" (see public). Republican (adj.) "belonging to a republic" is recorded from 1712; in noun sense of "one who favors a republic" it is recorded from 1697; and in sense of a member of a specific U.S. political party (the Anti-Federalists) from 1782, though this was not the ancestor of the modern Republican Party, which dates from 1854. Republicrat in U.S. political jargon usually meaning "moderate," is attested from 1940.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence