More states asserting right to nullify federal laws.

Traditionally only the Supreme Court has had the power to nullify laws even though the constitition gives them no such power . By the tenth amendment, the power thus SHOULD rest with the states.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/states-prepare-brakes-on-citizen-detention-option/

States prepare brakes on citizen-detention option
'It's going to take We the People to stand up and say, No!'
Published: 4 days ago

State and local officials in surging numbers are telling Washington they simply won’t cooperate with any plans to detain Americans the federal government may choose to describe as “belligerents.”

The issue centers on provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, signed by President Obama, for the indefinite and rights-free detention of those Washington cites as belligerents, whether American citizens or not.

WND reported when Rep. Daniel P. Gordon Jr. immediately drafted a resolution in the Rhode Island legislature to express opposition to the sections of the NDAA “that suspend habeas corpus and civil liberties.”

Now the Tenth Amendment Center confirms that the resistance to the federal bureaucracy is catching on

snip

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that where a conflict exists between Federal Law and State Law that the Federal Law overrules the state.

You can preach about the 10th amendment all you want but its irrelevant when a conflict exists.

 

That should be changed........federal law should only have jurisdiction in cases where multiple states, or the nation as a whole are involved.........The fed should never be givenm power over something that concerns only one state....or each state individually without involving other states.

 

Dispute over the degree of centralization of political power in the United States highlighted by debates between Alexander Hamilton and JamesMadison led to formation of the first political parties in the nation. As a result, the Supremacy Clause was written into Article IV of the Constitution providing the primary basis for the federal government's power over states. The article states the "acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law."

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_federa...ws_when_the_two_are_in_conflict#ixzz1m91vvx00

 

John C. Calhoun rides again.

Does Obama have the sand of Andrew Jackson?

Read up on the Nullification Crisis of 1828.

 

All that really needs to be changed is the composition of the Supreme Court. The Tenth Amendment stands but is ignored. As are the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

 

It should be up to the states to determine if the federal law is needed to decide any given conflict or whether or not the federal government has the authority to overstep the constitution with any given federal measure.

The differen't states can handle most of what the supreme court decides itself in the first place by simply calling state constitutional conventions on the matter and voting on it. If the vote either presents a 3/4 majority yea or nay, then the fed must either implement or reject given law depending on the outcome of the decision of the differen't states.

 

A State by itself cannot overturn a Federal Law. You may be thinking of a Constitutional Convention to overturn a Supreme Court ruling.

 

Abject baloney.Any conflict argument has no merit because this
issue or edict was never applicable.It wasn't even created out of
whole cloth.Just whimed out by a whimsical President who fashions
himself a Ruler.

 

Law of the Land argument ... eh.Then how come that didn't apply to
Hawaii and the standards of Birth Certificates.Obama surrogates
claiming for a couple years that Hawaii only allows for COLB
not the Original { Long Form } when someone asks for a copy
of their BC.The most Important document of an Americans life.
You mean there weren't any Federal guidlines for that.A law
governing Birth Certificates.

 

You keep saying that, as though you've actually proven it. (But you have not.)

 

HAHAHA. That makes no sense. The supreme court can't simply grant themselves new powers. If they want to change the constitution, they have to amend it.

 

Then so is the rest of the Constitution. You OK with that?

 

Even so, a right-leaning Court rules differently than a left-leaning one in many cases.

Things can/will change. New people in every branch of government is an inevitability.

 

That is a brazen lie. The supremacy clause does not say what you quote it as saying. Here it is

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding"

It's only federal laws made in pursuance of the constitution that are supreme. If a state thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can nullify it.

 

Sure it can. The constitution does not say who has the power to nullify laws so by the tenth amendment, the states can do it.

 

If it's not any clearer than what you infer here, then why is this?

The efficacy of your premise is very questionable.

 

There's no point to the Federal Government if you can just nullify the federal laws, basically ignoring what you don't like and only participating in what you do like. All the while reaping the benefits while not accepting much of the burden.

Sounds like conservative states which are by far more on welfare than the liberal ones.

 

Sorry but the articles of condfederation were a failure. The constitution clearly grants power over the states. As it should.

 

The only way to render, as a sovereign act, a federal statute legally void is by an act of Congress or by constitutional amendment. If a state or a federal court declares a federal statute null and void, it can only do so if that statute was not made in pursuance of the Constitution, in which case it was legally void to begin with.

 

Same thing can be said about our present system. Why do we have state legislatures if the feds can just nullify any law they wish?

 

'

That's what we're saying. If a state thinks a federal law is unconstitutional, they can nullify it. Many states have done this recently with obamacare and with national ID.

 

Let's see what the USSC ultimately says. It surely ain't over yet.

And I eagerly await the fight for UHC!!

 

Why should anyone care what the USSC says? The constitution does not grant them the power to nullify laws. That's what the states should tell them. By the tenth amendment, the states have the power of nullification.

 

As much as I know we have the absolute 'experts' on Constitutional Law residing at this website... the USSC is where the nation goes to have the biggest legal disputes interpreted and ruled upon. After all, someone has to decide on these things. Do you think that the body of people represented in this forum would do any better than the USSC?

I'd just say, that YOU and everyone else 'ought' to care what they USSC says (if you're an "American" citizen anyway).