More states asserting right to nullify federal laws.

HAHAHA. So that's your argument? We've let the USSC decide everything for 200 years so it must be right?. Hell - slavery was here for 300 years.
Does that make it right.


The constitution does NOT grant the USSC the power to nullify laws. It gives that power to the states and it's time to make that point.

 

The Constitution per the 3rd amendment has given all judicial power to the Supreme Court. This means that any case that goes to court and ends up in front of them will be the last stop and their judgement is final.

Therefore if a State nullifies a Federal Law, they will be taken to court eventually ending up in the highest court in the land where a final decision will be made.

Unless the State decides to act outside of the Law then they will have to obey what the Supreme Court decides.

I'm not sure why you guys are not understanding this.

 

Of course it doesn't and they don't do it. However their rulings do decide how other cases will be decided in the lower courts. The actual law they ruled on is still on the books but who will enforce it knowing that no court will ever uphold it?

 

I don't think so:

Amendment 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.​

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

No, what they have to obey is the Constitution, and they are not bound by any court decision which runs afoul of it.

It's not possible to understand nonsense, hth.

 

If the issue gets challenged again, it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court changes positions. Often the "principles" upheld by the court are just excuses to support what the judges personally feel is a fair practical decission. One would think the Supreme Court would be very concerned about the potential for abuse with this new federal law. I suspect the court would not only declare the federal provission "unconstitutional", but will also switch its early decission on the limitation of State powers, just as an additional safegaurd.

I find it very interesting, ironic, and even hypocritical, that Obama has not supported the repeal of this law. Most of Obama's supporters are very concerned. This is an issue which voters both on the left and right are concerned about the potential for abuse.

 

I meant article 3 not the 3rd amendment. That was my fault. Here is what it says:

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.)

The relevant part to this thread is the first sentence.

 

Thanks for sharing that.

 

I've known what it says for quite some time, so thanks for nothing. More to the point, unlike you, I understand what it means in the context of the whole Constitution.

 

Whether or not the states have the right to ignore federal law may be debatable, I think it's still a positive protest against a law that I believe at least most Americans would agree is unconstitutional; it ought to be praised, not simply scoffed at as irrelevant. I mean, such protests have been the catalyst for positive change throughout history.

 

Yes thanks for sharing your view of what it means. It is quite clear what it means and requires no reading between the lines.

 

I'm sure if a citizen is subject to this law that the case will reach the Supreme Court rather quickly and will be quickly ruled unconstitutional.

 

I was taught about the meaning of this and what the USSC could rule upon in high school; it's over 35 years since I and my classmates were all instructed about this... but I'm certain it has not been changed in all that time (unless someone slipped in an amendment somewhere in there).

 

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

What this means is that all the power in regard to Law or conflict regarding the Law is under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If a State decides to ignore Federal Laws than they will have to adhere to the ruling of the Supreme Court once the case reaches them.

A State cannot simply ignore a Federal Law and accept no consequences. This was tried during the Civil Rights movement in Alabama when George Wallace, governor, tried to ignore the Federal Government.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAwallaceG.htm
Simply look at what happened in this case to see what would occur today if a State tries to do things themselves without going through the court system.

 

This is why supreme court justices and all other appointed justices need term limits. The founders made the judicial branch the smallest branch of government in the first place to help safeguard against federal judicial power overriding the states.

No appointed magistrate should ever have the authority to govern any given American community.

 

The states should have the right to determine if whether or not the federal measure is constitutional or not under a federalist system. This isn't igoring any federal law, it's acting upon it.

The racist overtunes presented in the previous response must present the fact that state segregation was eliminated and equality was achieved for only several years untill racial segregation was transformed to the federal level thanks again to the appointed magistrates of the supreme court which originally implemented Jim Crow in the south then implemented forced busing mostly in the south also.

 

Not to people like you, it isn't.

True enough, you don't need to do that to believe SC rulings are universally binding ipso facto. What you have to do is make stuff up out of thin air, as Justice Marshall did in Marbury.

Obviously you were taught incorrectly; and unfortunately (but not surprisingly) you lack the proclivity for independent thought that would otherwise allow you to see the truth.

 

HAHAHA. The 3rd amendment is about quartering soldiers!!! The ignorance of you big-govt supporters is astounding. Get help pleasse.

 

Perhaps if you were to read further you would see that I meant the article 3 and not the 3rd amendment. Common mistake which I admitted to.

Nice to see your trolling ability though.

 

It may well be, among the constitutional illiterates you presumably hang out with.

 

The most amusing part of this argument is that by far the largest actual nullification comes from the left in their 'sanctuary city' efforts.

 

BS - how can anyone confuse the two.? You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

I never thought of deliberately refusing to enforce the law as nullification, but in a way it is. The left doesn't come out and say the law is void but by demanding obozo ignore the law, it amounts to nullification.

 

Haha your actually trying to make an issue out of this. Yes nobody could ever accidentally type 3rd amendment instead of article 3.

I'm such a failure at life

 

HAHA. So now you're claiming it was a typo???? You libs crack me up.

 

I find it funny you can't debate me on the facts which haven't changed no matter how much you try to sidetrack this thread. And I'm not liberal.