Ok.....need some big gun help from you of the more informed

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

moderator from a gun rights site: So no, a ruling of the Supreme Court that you, or someone else, thinks conflicts with the Constitution is not "null and void."

And, most notable, is that this guy is disagreeing with Chief Justice
Marshall himself, who said:

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19&page=transcript

 

[Anti Federalist]

He's right.

And he quotes the Federalist to make his case.

And this is one reason, of many, why the Anti Federalists were opposed to the counter coup and CONstitution of 1787.

While the bill of rights has helped stave off the final extinguishing of liberty in AmeriKa, at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a goddamned piece of paper, to quote Shrub.

Rights, and who defines their exercise and existence, is decided by who has the most guns.

 

[Anti Federalist]

He's right.

And he quotes the Federalist to make his case.

And this is one reason, of many, why the Anti Federalists were opposed to the counter coup and CONstitution of 1787.

While the bill of rights has helped stave off the final extinguishing of liberty in AmeriKa, at the end of the day, it is nothing more than a goddamned piece of paper, to quote Shrub.

Rights, and who defines their exercise and existence, is decided by who has the most guns.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

What use is a document when 9 clowns in gowns can re-interpret it in anyway they choose? There are no checks and balances from either the legislative or the executive on the judiciary.

To the contrary, there are several. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. It can gut its budget. The President can refuse to enforce its decrees. The Constitution doesn't specify the number of Justices, so if Congress and the President don't like a particular decision they can appoint additional justices to overturn it when a similar case arises in the future (which is what FDR's court-packing plan was all about, although the Senate refused to go along).

In extreme cases the states can amend the Constitution to overturn a SCOTUS decision, although this has happened only three times.

The problem is that some political body needs to have the authority to determine constitutional issues. If you're going to allow state nullification, then you're gutting not only the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights in the state but also specific prohibitions on state action in the Constitution ("We don't care that SCOTUS says our law amounts to a bill of attainder, and we hereby nullify its decision."). If Congress gets to be the judge of the constitutionality of its own enactments then the Bill of Rights is worthless nation-wide.

To those who think Congress should impeach members of the Court who, in the opinion of Congress, have violated the Constitution, consider a hypothetical federal ban on private firearm ownership that is overturned by a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. The entire court gets impeached, right?

Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.

 

[Swordsmyth]

To the contrary, there are several. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court. It can gut its budget. The President can refuse to enforce its decrees. The Constitution doesn't specify the number of Justices, so if Congress and the President don't like a particular decision they can appoint additional justices to overturn it when a similar case arises in the future (which is what FDR's court-packing plan was all about, although the Senate refused to go along).

In extreme cases the states can amend the Constitution to overturn a SCOTUS decision, although this has happened only three times.

All options that have been under-utilized.

The problem is that some political body needs to have the authority to determine constitutional issues. If you're going to allow state nullification, then you're gutting not only the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights in the state but also specific prohibitions on state action in the Constitution ("We don't care that SCOTUS says our law amounts to a bill of attainder, and we hereby nullify its decision."). If Congress gets to be the judge of the constitutionality of its own enactments then the Bill of Rights is worthless nation-wide.

Nullification is only valid in support of the Constitution, if a state attempts to violate the Constitution it should be expelled or suppressed depending on it's population's support for the violation.

To those who think Congress should impeach members of the Court who, in the opinion of Congress, have violated the Constitution, consider a hypothetical federal ban on private firearm ownership that is overturned by a 9-0 SCOTUS decision. The entire court gets impeached, right?

Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it.

It might have brought things to a head and sparked a 2nd revolution before the frog was slowly boiled to death, the checks and balances system acts as a thermostat to keep the pot from heating too fast.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Nullification is only valid in support of the Constitution, if a state attempts to violate the Constitution it should be expelled or suppressed depending on it's population's support for the violation.

But who's to decide if a State has violated the Constitution? If a State has the right to nullify a SCOTUS decision it doesn't like, it certainly has the right to nullify one that says the State has violated the Constitution. Did Kansas have the right to nullify the ruling that its segregated public schools violated the 14th Amendment?

 

[Swordsmyth]

But who's to decide if a State has violated the Constitution? If a State has the right to nullify a SCOTUS decision it doesn't like, it certainly has the right to nullify one that says the State has violated the Constitution. Did Kansas have the right to nullify the ruling that its segregated public schools violated the 14th Amendment?

You are correct that at some point our entire system rests on voluntary or involuntary submission, that is why I said the state should either be expelled or suppressed.
All political power proceeds out of the barrel of a gun, that is why the 2ndA is so important and why the states never should have let their militias be federalized and atrophied.