M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Great article! Thanks! I'm too new to know where to post this, so, I thought I'd just paste it here.

Has anyone heard any rumblings in the news about the 11 commercial airliners ISSIS had captured in Libya? With tomorrow being 9/11 just wondering?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Excellent Article - everyone needs to read and understand this!

Three States - Montana, Kansas and Alaska, if memory serves correctly, have already passed laws, signed into Law by the Governor - PROHIBITING the enforcement of Unconstitutional Gun Laws within the boundaries of their State(s).

This means that, should the Feds attempt to enforce Draconian Gun Control Laws, the States will refuse their assistance and local Law Enforcement, Jails and Courts will NOT assist the Federal Officers. And at least one of the States levies a $1000 fine for each occurance on the responsible individual Officer!

Such lack of support will make enforcement by the Feds problamatic - and a lot more dangerous. You want to raid people's houses? Do it yourself! The local cops are not going to be your cannon fodder to supress their Neighbors Liberty!

Now we need this in ALL 50 STATES!!!! CC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Great article! Thanks! I'm too new to know where to post this, so, I thought I'd just paste it here.

Has anyone heard any rumblings in the news about the 11 commercial airliners ISSIS had captured in Libya? With tomorrow being 9/11 just wondering?
I heard Glen Beck read a report a few days ago that the airlines had accounted for them; but who knows.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Excellent Article - everyone needs to read and understand this!

Three States - Montana, Kansas and Alaska, if memory serves correctly, have already passed laws, signed into Law by the Governor - PROHIBITING the enforcement of Unconstitutional Gun Laws within the boundaries of their State(s).

This means that, should the Feds attempt to enforce Draconian Gun Control Laws, the States will refuse their assistance and local Law Enforcement, Jails and Courts will NOT assist the Federal Officers. And at least one of the States levies a $1000 fine for each occurance on the responsible individual Officer!

Such lack of support will make enforcement by the Feds problamatic - and a lot more dangerous. You want to raid people's houses? Do it yourself! The local cops are not going to be your cannon fodder to supress their Neighbors Liberty!

Now we need this in ALL 50 STATES!!!! CC
Absolutely right CC! Ohio has legislation introduced, but it"s not going anywhere. Somehow we need to get more people educated in the rights of the States and We The People who created the federal gov't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Well I am certainly a believer that the States' need to step up and put the Fed back in it's place. See, the Feds raises our taxes and uses our own money, the State resident's money, to push the States to conform to Federal Policy. If the State doesn't play ball then the Fed withholds Education Funds, or Infrastructure Funds, or whatever. They use our money against us. I think we need to take that money back and if our State needs it then they can ask us for it. At least we have a better chance of it coming back a little closer to home and less chance of it running off to foreign parts unaccounted for.

Now I don't believe in abolishing the Fed, just putting it back in it's place, the Genie has been out of the bottle a little too long.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·

·
Banned
Joined
·
654 Posts
Coming from Commifornia I find this somewhat depressing.

When our own governor welcomes Illegal Immigrants en-masse, inundating a state already overpopulated with 3rd world minded Sheep & Libtards, any cognizant thought or sense has absolutely NO 'Effing Chance.
RNGR4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,725 Posts
Supremacy Clause...

Oh, and Ableman v Booth, Cooper v Aaron.

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.
There are only 18 enumerated powers delegated to the Federal government.

The federal government is SO FAR off the reservation with the "necessary and proper" clause and the their imaginary "Incorporation Doctrine" I can believe we haven't called BS years ago.

Guess what folks, that ship has sailed years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Big Banks, which own the Fed, are what's in absolute control. The right of the individual state is really the only hope, but IMO there is no hope, only delaying the inevitable. This system collapsed a long time ago starting in 1791.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Maybe you should look at the supreme court cases and the opinions of the Federal judges (you know, those guys who have the delegated constitutional power to interpret the constitution), rather than the obviously biased "tenth amendment center".

State nullification of federal law is nothing new. It's been shot down over and over again. The framers of the constitution wanted a strong central government because they had tried the opposite and watched their efforts fail miserably in the Articles of Confederation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,912 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Maybe you should look at the supreme court cases and the opinions of the Federal judges (you know, those guys who have the delegated constitutional power to interpret the constitution), rather than the obviously biased "tenth amendment center".

State nullification of federal law is nothing new. It's been shot down over and over again. The framers of the constitution wanted a strong central government because they had tried the opposite and watched their efforts fail miserably in the Articles of Confederation.
SCOTUS does not have the delegated power to be the supreme judge of the Constitution, other than what they gave themselves. Whose side do you think they are going to take the overwhelming majority of the time? They are part of the Federal Government which was created by the States. The States and We The People are the ultimate judge of what's Constitutional, therefore the judges of what is or is not a Constitutional law or no law at all.

The framers wanted a strong central government over certain things, the powers they delegated to them; not all things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
Maybe you should look at the supreme court cases and the opinions of the Federal judges (you know, those guys who have the delegated constitutional power to interpret the constitution), rather than the obviously biased "tenth amendment center".
Constitutional judicial review stems from a court decision, not the Constitution.

State nullification of federal law is nothing new. It's been shot down over and over again. The framers of the constitution wanted a strong central government because they had tried the opposite and watched their efforts fail miserably in the Articles of Confederation.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions come to mind. Unless you discount Madison as a "Framer".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Well, since you want to cite Federalist Paper #46 in your OP, lets take a look at a few others...
33 -
These two clauses have been the source of much virulent invective and petulant declamation against the proposed Constitution. They have been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane; and yet, strange as it may appear, after all this clamor, to those who may not have happened to contemplate them in the same light
So your argument is nothing new. It's been going around since the 1780's, and Hamilton provided an explanation here:
The Convention probably foresaw, what it has been a principal aim of these papers to inculcate, that the danger which most threatens our political welfare is that the State governments will finally sap the foundations of the Union; and might therefore think it necessary, in so cardinal a point, to leave nothing to construction ...

But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify ...

But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing ... If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed.
So he frames it pretty well that the laws of the Federal government are supreme to those of the states, and that the People, not the states, are to "take such measures to redress", as exigency suggests and prudence justifies.

Not convinced yet? No, of course not, you've still got "the tenth amendment society" pushing their tripe.
How about Federalist 39?
Talking about disagreements between lower and higher governments:
It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general government. But this does not change the principle of the case. The decision is to be impartially made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly essential to prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact; and that it ought to be established under the general rather than under the local governments, or, to speak more properly, that it could be safely established under the first alone, is a position not likely to be combated.
Maybe Federalist 44 will help:
Speaking of N&P clause:
Few parts of the Constitution have been assailed with more intemperance than this; yet on a fair investigation of it, no part can appear more completely invulnerable. Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter.
Speaking of alternatives to the N&P clause that weren't taken:
There are four other possible methods which the Constitution might have taken on this subject. They might have copied the second article of the existing Confederation, which would have prohibited the exercise of any power not expressly delegated; they might have attempted a positive enumeration of the powers comprehended under the general terms "necessary and proper"; they might have attempted a negative enumeration of them, by specifying the powers excepted from the general definition; they might have been altogether silent on the subject, leaving these necessary and proper powers to construction and inference.
And why they didn't take those routes:
Had the convention taken the first method of adopting the second article of Confederation, it is evident that the new Congress would be continually exposed, as their predecessors have been, to the alternative of construing the term "expressly" with so much rigor, as to disarm the government of all real authority whatever, or with so much latitude as to destroy altogether the force of the restriction
Had the convention attempted a positive enumeration of the powers necessary and proper for carrying their other powers into effect, the attempt would have involved a complete digest of laws on every subject to which the Constitution relates; accommodated too, not only to the existing state of things, but to all the possible changes which futurity may produce; for in every new application of a general power, the particular powers, which are the means of attaining the object of the general power, must always necessarily vary with that object, and be often properly varied whilst the object remains the same.
Had they attempted to enumerate the particular powers or means not necessary or proper for carrying the general powers into execution, the task would have been no less chimerical; and would have been liable to this further objection, that every defect in the enumeration would have been equivalent to a positive grant of authority
And more:
If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers.
So, he's giving us reasons why the Constitution did not take other considered options over the N&P clause, and it basically boils down to "because other options would have made the Constitution powerless, or would have made the Constitution an enumeration of laws rather than a framework for future legislation". He wraps up this section of the paper by positing the question "what is the consequence of the federal government overstepping its bounds", now, if the framers had intended for states to be able to nullify federal laws, this would be the perfect place to come out and say it, right? Instead of saying "the states shall nullify the laws of the federal government", he says the job of the states is to "sound the alarm", and the people are to elect more faithful representatives "to annul the acts of the usurpers"

Federalist 22, 78, 80, and 82 all speak to the power of interpretation of the law and the Constitution being given to the Federal courts, arising from the need of uniformity of interpretation.

If you're looking for words out of the constitution, rather than the framers' interpretation of such, you can look to Article III
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 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.
If you want later quotes, you can look to Daniel Webster, during the Webster-Hayne debate from 1830. John Calhoun had argued for state sovereignty (because, being from the south and not liking the tariff of 1828). Webster argued, again, for the supremacy clause and Article III giving the federal courts the power to resolve disputes between the states, or between the states and the federal government, citing that giving the states the power of constitutional interpretation would result in "as many conflicting interpretations ... as there are states." A few years later, when South Carolina actually started to try to nullify both the tariff of 1828 and of 1832, and President Jackson was preparing to use force to enforce the law, James Madison weighed in saying that his Virginia Resolution should not interpreted to mean that any state has the right to nullify federal law.
But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined
Now, let me caveat all that with this: I'm not saying everything the federal government does is peachy-keen, nor am I saying that there haven't been places where the federal government oversteps or abuses its authority. What I'm saying is that the idea of state nullification of federal law has been a half-baked one from the start, way back in the 18th century. There is no provision of the constitution, or any legitimate interpretation thereof, that allows for a state to nullify acts of the federal government. Should laws be unconstitutional, they are to be challenged in the supreme court, or the legislators enacting them are to be replaced by vote of the people and annulled by "more faithful representatives."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
Constitutional judicial review stems from a court decision, not the Constitution.



The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions come to mind. Unless you discount Madison as a "Framer".
Court decision based on Article III.

Look at the bottom of my last post, James Madison's "notes on nullification", where he talks about his Virginia Resolution as it applies to South Carolina's attempt to nullify federal law. You'd expect the guy who wrote it would know what he was talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Dude this reads like...

Well, since you want to cite Federalist Paper #46 in your OP, lets take a look at a few others...
33 -

So your argument is nothing new. It's been going around since the 1780's, and Hamilton provided an explanation here:

So he frames it pretty well that the laws of the Federal government are supreme to those of the states, and that the People, not the states, are to "take such measures to redress", as exigency suggests and prudence justifies.

Not convinced yet? No, of course not, you've still got "the tenth amendment society" pushing their tripe.
How about Federalist 39?
Talking about disagreements between lower and higher governments:

Maybe Federalist 44 will help:
Speaking of N&P clause:
Speaking of alternatives to the N&P clause that weren't taken:
And why they didn't take those routes:


And more:

So, he's giving us reasons why the Constitution did not take other considered options over the N&P clause, and it basically boils down to "because other options would have made the Constitution powerless, or would have made the Constitution an enumeration of laws rather than a framework for future legislation". He wraps up this section of the paper by positing the question "what is the consequence of the federal government overstepping its bounds", now, if the framers had intended for states to be able to nullify federal laws, this would be the perfect place to come out and say it, right? Instead of saying "the states shall nullify the laws of the federal government", he says the job of the states is to "sound the alarm", and the people are to elect more faithful representatives "to annul the acts of the usurpers"

Federalist 22, 78, 80, and 82 all speak to the power of interpretation of the law and the Constitution being given to the Federal courts, arising from the need of uniformity of interpretation.

If you're looking for words out of the constitution, rather than the framers' interpretation of such, you can look to Article III


If you want later quotes, you can look to Daniel Webster, during the Webster-Hayne debate from 1830. John Calhoun had argued for state sovereignty (because, being from the south and not liking the tariff of 1828). Webster argued, again, for the supremacy clause and Article III giving the federal courts the power to resolve disputes between the states, or between the states and the federal government, citing that giving the states the power of constitutional interpretation would result in "as many conflicting interpretations ... as there are states." A few years later, when South Carolina actually started to try to nullify both the tariff of 1828 and of 1832, and President Jackson was preparing to use force to enforce the law, James Madison weighed in saying that his Virginia Resolution should not interpreted to mean that any state has the right to nullify federal law.

Now, let me caveat all that with this: I'm not saying everything the federal government does is peachy-keen, nor am I saying that there haven't been places where the federal government oversteps or abuses its authority. What I'm saying is that the idea of state nullification of federal law has been a half-baked one from the start, way back in the 18th century. There is no provision of the constitution, or any legitimate interpretation thereof, that allows for a state to nullify acts of the federal government. Should laws be unconstitutional, they are to be challenged in the supreme court, or the legislators enacting them are to be replaced by vote of the people and annulled by "more faithful representatives."
Nina Totenberg (sp) reviewing SCOTUS decision…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
Court decision based on Article III.
A court decision extending Article III. All three branches are to interpret the Constition. It is given to the USSC to interpret cases UNDER it, but it is not given to them to be the final arbiter of it. They assumed that themselves.

Look at the bottom of my last post, James Madison's "notes on nullification", where he talks about his Virginia Resolution as it applies to South Carolina's attempt to nullify federal law. You'd expect the guy who wrote it would know what he was talking about.
The tariffs to which he referred were not illegal. The Alien and Sedition Acts were. There is a substantial difference justifying a strong statement by the States to force repeal.

You cannot read the Constitution legitimately and ignore the Amendments to it. A less-bound Federal Constitution, built on the original document, would not have been ratified. Hamilton's Constituton would not have been ratified and, in fact, was not.

The 10th Amendment exists, even if it is ignored with the rest of them. Madison was against the inclusion of the the Bill of Rights initially, since he felt they were not necessary as the Federal government was granted no power to restrict speech, restrict arms, and perform fishing expeditions and conversion (search and seizure). Obviously, he was wrong there and the Anti-Federalists were right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
609 Posts
A court decision extending Article III. All three branches are to interpret the Constition. It is given to the USSC to interpret cases UNDER it, but it is not given to them to be the final arbiter of it. They assumed that themselves.



The tariffs to which he referred were not illegal. The Alien and Sedition Acts were. There is a substantial difference justifying a strong statement by the States to force repeal.

You cannot read the Constitution legitimately and ignore the Amendments to it. A less-bound Federal Constitution, built on the original document, would not have been ratified. Hamilton's Constituton would not have been ratified and, in fact, was not.

The 10th Amendment exists, even if it is ignored with the rest of them. Madison was against the inclusion of the the Bill of Rights initially, since he felt they were not necessary as the Federal government was granted no power to restrict speech, restrict arms, and perform fishing expeditions and conversion (search and seizure). Obviously, he was wrong there and the Anti-Federalists were right.
I'm not saying the amendments don't exist. I'm just saying that none of the amendments grant the power of state nullification. Note that the 10th amendment says nothing about "express powers", since, as Madison noted, "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia." The tenth amendment does not reject the N&P clause, or the supremacy clause.

There are not many items in the Constitution which are explicit, but the supremacy clause is; probably means the people who wrote the document thought that concept was pretty important.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top