It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:24 AM
Any thread that says, "I hate the government, government = evil" and then go on and on about Ron Paul, Liberty and the Constitution, throw in a couple links and you will get tons of flags and stars. It's just so funny how the members of ATS are oh soooooo predictable.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:30 AM
Who has Sovereignty over me? Who is "qualified" to decide what is Constitutional or not? Who decides my "rights" and "responsibilities" as a citizen of my city/state/country?

This all started with becoming more and more litigious as a people and taking less and less responsibilities for our actions. If I spill hot coffee on my crotch, is it my fault? The cup maker? The lid maker? The coffee maker? My car maker? The politicians that didn't regulate coffee temperature and lid parameters? Is it worth $1M?

As long as we keep looking outside ourselves for someone to blame, then we are giving up our rights of sovereignty and we are telling the government that we want them to be responsible for EVERYTHING! That is a scary, scary world. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be a law making entity, but when every word of every law is up for interpretation, then the SCOTUS has the final say on what the meaning of the law is.

The interstate/intrastate commerce law is a prime example. Montana has every right to make laws for inside their own state. The Fed will argue that it affects interstate commerce if one state does things differently than another state. Therefore they assert their right to regulate it. The SCOTUS has to decide the outcome, but they are a Federal Authority, and they are appointed by the Federal Executive, so it isn't a fair trial.

The FINAL say has to come from the people. Montana, Oklahoma, Arizona, or anybody else does not have to be a part of this Republic. If they don't like the outcome of a Supreme Court ruling, they are free to ignore it. They lose Federal Funding and protection, but they may not mind.

Amish People, Teacher's Unions, Railroad Workers, and others do not pay into Social Security. Indian Reservations do not pay Federal or State Taxes. There are plenty of examples of people asserting their rights as individuals, but to do so means losing the blanket of protection by the Federal Government.

It boils down to a choice and a personal conviction. Do you want the right to sue 2 dozen entities over a cup of spilled coffee, or do you want to be a little more careful with your own crotch and be "sovereign" over your own life and rights?

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by getreadyalready
It boils down to a choice and a personal conviction. Do you want the right to sue 2 dozen entities over a cup of spilled coffee, or do you want to be a little more careful with your own crotch and be "sovereign" over your own life and rights?

Precisely my friend! I hope more feel as you do.

With Love,

Your Brother

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Tell me, if the government passes blatant unConstitutional legislation...

Just because your brand of constitutionalism doesn't follow mine doesn't make mine or yours any more or any less constitutional. Much like followers of the old testament are any more or any less Christians than followers of the new testament.

I will trust the interpretation of the law by the supreme court over your interpretation. Mainly, because I don't see anything unconstitutional about any legislation passed in the past two years.

It is possible that you "don't see anything unconstitutional about any legislation passed in the last two years" for a few different reasons:

1) You are a liberal "progressive" shill who believes that a centralized government is necessary to "keep the sheep in line."

2) You don't fully understand what freedom is, and you do not recognize how much freedom and personal sovereignty has been eroded by oligarchs and criminals in the U. S. federal government;

3) You don't understand what our founding fathers battled against during the American revolution;

4) You don't understand what "natural" or "common" law means, in terms of power flowing from the individual to the government.

5) You don't understand that power corrupts absolutely, and that perhaps key components of and individuals within our government here in the U. S. are corrupted. They believe that they should be able to bend and mold the actions, perceptions and attitudes to their will and their ideologies.

Is it some combination of the above factors, or just one? I don't know the answer to your issue.

Whatever the case, I pray that you waken to these issues, do some soul-searching and become more cognizant of the reasons behind the revolution that is happening now.

With warmest regards...

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:33 PM

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I'm just going to re write this in PLAIN ENGLISH for the non lawyers among us, because clearly you have no fricking idea what this actually says.

All companies, corporations, businesses1 legally created on paper with the United States Corporation2 will be subject to the jurisdiction thereof and are considered to be citizens of the United States Corporation. They will be allowed to live in which ever State they like3. States are not allowed to make up rules or enforce the rules of the United States Corporation; nor shall they interfere in matters of business between the United States Corporation and its citizens, without due process of law4. Don't worry, we will treat all of you citizens the same5.

1. Remember in a legal dictionary or by the act/statute itself the definition of person includes but is not limited to corporations.

2. A baby is born. A "person" is legally created. Your first and last names were SUBMITTED for REGISTRATION in order to create a legal "person" or what is known as a legal fiction, a corporation, your Birth Certificate is your receipt!

3. Once registered with the corporation no matter where you are you are now subject to all of its rules and regulations. (Sounds right on target with how US CITIZENS are treated with taxes huh? haha dur...)

4. State and Local authorities are not going to be dealing with you if you break the company rules, the company has its own security forces that will deal with you. FBI is the best example.

5. This is pretty self explanatory but all it means is every 'person' registered with the company will be offered the same protections.

Now before anyone responds I want to just say a few things...

The US government (Canada as well) is unlawful, this is not debatable it is fact. Where most people get confused and are unwilling to listen is when told unlawful and illegal are two completely different things, with two completely different meanings. Law is a word that is very confusing, on one side of the fence we have lawyers, judges, politicians all of whom know that the Law and our Legal system are completely separate. They know 2 very important facts. Law is absolute. The legal system is not. On the other side of the fence we have regular Joe American he has his high school education, works 7-5 at his first job and 6-10 at his second, doesn't know a lick about the law or his own legal system, all he knows is that which he has been told. Joe's only chance is to seek the help of a lawyer who will in turn tell him he knows nothing and its best to leave it to the professionals. Joe is ignorant of the law, but ignorance of the law is no excuse... Wait what? Oh man, Joe got duped into believing the rules are laws. Poor Joe.

Law is absolute because it covers every crime! And it is oh so simple...

The Law is simply do not kill, hurt, threaten the life, liberty or property of another person and do not use fraud in your contracts.

Now taking a step back and bushing your ego aside will allow you to understand just how all encompassing that ONE law actually is. If you say you are going to do something that has been agreed upon, keep your word. Don't steal. Don't Kill. Don't do anything you yourself wouldn't want done to you. Simple. Its stops all crime in its tracks. Take any crime you can think of, now apply the above law to it and see for yourself, it is stopped if this one law is followed.

The legal system is not the law. The legal system is a set of rules made up as they go by men in powerful positions within the government. No one is taught an ounce of law or legal studies in school, hell you can't even get into law school without a 4 year degree, great grades and endless amounts of money. There is a reason for this people, its because long ago before we were even born those powerful men realized that by closing the circle to all but a privileged few they could use this legal system as a means of enslavement. Without the masses of people knowing what is going on its easy to wrangle power for yourself.

Any (other) lawyer worth his salt will tell you acts and statues are not law. They are only rules, they are only given the power of law.


posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Nulify away fellas! You're so lucky to have a constituion - even if it gets a little mangled at times!

- I guess with a country as large and diverse as the U.S the option to nullify stops it imploding!

Its like the failed fed. direct taxation bills - TPTB don't want the gen pop to know about the fail safes!

Information is strength.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Excellent video.
Passing around.
Inform, Aware, Action, Results.
That's usually the way it 'works'.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:31 PM
Thanks everyone for the comments, wink wink say say no more, you know who you are.

I am just going to reiterate my feeling on the nullification position one more time for everyone.

First off, the Constitution is NOT difficult to understand. Anyone who has researched just a little bit of the founding of our country, the creation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will understand the ORIGINAL INTENT of the founders.

This nation is a conglomerate of Nation States. They are sovereign unto themselves, as we are sovereign individuals unto ourselves. The Nation States created a Constitution and Declaration of Independance that are the ONLY two documents that TRUE law can be derived. Any legislation must be based upon them and cannot directly deviate from them.

As I and many others in the past and present have proven, that all the components must be taken as a whole and must be interpreted by the ORIGINAL INTENT.

Just as I have stated that the Alcohol Prohibition amendments prove that nothing within the Constitution can be added or removed without a Constitutional Amendment, hence any legislation that either takes a right away or tries to add another one, be it to the Individual, the States, or the Federal government must require an Amendment.

Common sense dictates this. No incantation from the black robe religious sect, can break this basic tenet.

Nullification by the states or by an individual in a jury, is the direct link to the individual sovereignty guaranteed by these two documents.

You cannot state that the regulation of commerce, allows the federal to do anything and everything. What if it takes away the rights of the individual? of the States? You cannot use just ONE COMPONENT to verify a "law", if the very legislation breaks ANY component of the Constitution it is then null and void. Also, regulation in the original intent, was to make things regular and fair to the two parties or the numerous parties involved.

The same goes for the general welfare component. Yes the federal government is allowed to pass legislation for the general welfare of the individual or the states, if it does NOT break any other component of the Constitution. Otherwise, what was the purpose then, for the procedure for the Constitutional Amendments.

I think this is a very basic and simple thing to understand. It does not take any BAR licensing scheme. It does not take the 9 kings, priests or whatever you want to call the SCOTUS to interpret the law. It is NOT rocket science.

Thanks for your participation.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:44 PM
If only we had the constitution in the UK. Excellent set of videos I hope that one day instead of a small minority fighting for everyones right to live free it will become a majority movement.

On that day America truely will be envied all around the world and held up as an example of how a counrty should be run. Sadly until then it is nothing more than a police state run by an elected dictator.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:51 PM
Who will fire the first shot is what this is boiling down to. I hope the most peaceful way of dealing with this is what happens. I wonder if the pentagon will back the federal government and if the American soldiers will back them too? The people will win but at what cost? I imagine in a civil war scenario here, foreign powers will use the "distraction" to seize American overseas assets and control allied territories; possibly even form an invading force to gain control of the United States. Imagine if 911 was a plot to destabilize the economy and expose the government to the people and cause dissension all the while encouraging revolution and financing domestic terrorism. LOL all tyrannies crumble. So I guess before that could happen the United States would ask the UN to deploy Nato forces to deal with any domestic uprising and send American troops overseas on other business so that way American troops couldnt aid the American people.... wow sounds like a good movie plot

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:52 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Ts, ts,'s so funny, it isn't a joke any more. While you people are falling for the 'nullify' thing, the guy in the video is touring USA earning money from people like you.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:08 PM

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
reply to post by jpmail

I would have probably put 'elected' in inverted commas - kinda like I just did.

Or 'fooled into electing' or even 'offered not much of an alternative' -except Ron Paul -- he rocks.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

You're welcome endisnighe.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:29 PM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by XPLodER

Yes absolutely.

The LAW shall set us free.

"Are we a nation of laws, or of men?"

I cannot find the originator of that statement, it has many references.

But, I will post one of the statements relevant to it-

From this Lincoln speech, at the early age of

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

I agree with a lot of the things that you say.

But now you cast a stumblingblock before men.

You say the law shall set us free -- but the law is not here to set anyone free. The law is here to condemn!

IT is the TRUTH that sets us free. And if we "...sacrifice unceasingly upon its [the law] altars.", then we will find ourselves where we ARE TODAY.

But if we sacrifice ourselves according to Truth, then we will be free... because we realize that regardless of humanity's many systems, we ARE created and/or exist naturally with free-will. No manner of law shall change what we truly feel and what we truly mean.

The Law is no different however. Just because laws are written down, it does not mean that those are the only laws that exist. Laws are natural as well. Natural law is cause and effect. Natural law is personal responsibility.

So, I think it is ironic that we talk here of our natural rights when we fail to recognize the natural law. The Constitution is better, but it is by no means the document to which we should resort.

In these times where there are many more states, many more people with much less a number of people representing that greater number, with a corporation called the District running what used to be the United States of America followed by a short lasting New World Order...

It is inevitable. Anarchy will inevitably ensue and transform into Armageddon. There will be a divided few who each lead many in rebellion against eachother. There will be few wise who, if they have not already departed, who will find a way to avoid all the madness surrounding them and will confess their love for people and their distaste for such stupidity as warring over pieces of parchment.

Because, you see, no letters scribbled on a piece of paper is going to prevent people from doing what they will, in the long run.

edit on 9/13/2010 by TarzanBeta because: Added closing quote tag.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:32 PM

All you have to do is look at my avatar to see what I think about this.

Then again I already break laws when it suits me, and when the coppers aren't around to give me hell for it. As long as they don't come looking for trouble from me there won't be any.

The 10th amendment is still there whenever the states want to invoke it, and our natural rights always will be as well.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:34 PM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by filosophia

Well I would change a couple of your initial points but well said.

The government rules by the CONSENT of the governed.

If we or I do not consent, they have no power.

Thanks for the comment.

The one thing I think most people miss is they govern by the consent of majority. The point behind our Congress was a compromise when it was created. The House, with representatives sent by the people to mind the peoples business, and the Senate, sent by the people to represent their States intrest. The setup we have pretty much ensures that the minority opinion is heard (sometimes hard to do I know).

As for the question in hand about the consitutionality / legality of laws. It is somewhat goofy in my opinion. The Legislative (Congress) can make laws and send them to the Executive (President) for veto or signature.

If the President vetos, it goes back to congress where they can either rewrite it and send it back, or go for the override vote of the veto, making it law.

Once the law has been passed The Supreme Court can, if they want, do Judicial review to ensure its constitutionality. They reserve this ability, and if anyone actually checks this setup was never put in place by our Constitution. The early Supreme Court gave themselves this ability, which I guess looking back its kind of funny since we all complain about Government over stepping their bounds

Once it becomes Law someone has to be affected by it to have legal basis to challenge it. The Healthcare Bill has been argued to death in terms of the consitutionality of requiring people to carry insurance. They are, however, using the guise that it is a tax to slip it through (since congress is responsible for passing taxes in that manner).

As far as enforcing laws that are perceived as illegal we run into an issue. Law Enforcement does just that, enforces a law on the books, unless a court (any level, from Muni, State, Federal) says otherwise. We have discretion on how we enforce something, but ultimately its up to the Judicial to hear the case and decide if its valid. However it does not stop law enforcement from actually using a law. We can use discretion in most cases in that area, but a report has to go to the PA's office, who can file charges on their own.

Civilian Law Enforcement has some of the same built in safegaurds as the Military UCMJ when it comes to carrying out an order beleived to be illegal, which is to say you can refuse to do it, but it doesnt mean you are not going to get screwed in the end. Most of the times its preferred that the courts handle that aspect and not law enforcement or the PA's office, since that is the traditional and legal way.

An example of this from my state - Domestic Violenece:

I responded to a domestic at one of the local fast food chains. The boyfriend showed up intoxicated to forcibly retrieve his child from babys mama, who was sober and working at the time (child care issue aside for the moment). When I showed up there was a brawl between dad, mom and several 3rd party individuals.

Based on my investigation, and under Miranda, both parties stated they were hitting each other. Both parties were cited for domestic assault and the court can determine how to go from there. When it went to court, the female went before the judge and plead guilty. Based on my report, he rejected her plea and told her to consult with her lawyer and the PA. In the judges opinion the female, even though she met text book definition of a 3rd domest assault, she was justified in defending herself AND going on the offensive (instead of retreating) with the mindset that the drunk dad would get the child and harm would ensue (Most states require a person to retreat from a situation if they can safely do so - refusal to retreat and then engaging can result in charges being filed on them, and not the agressor - stupid in my opinion).

Use of Deadly Force - Missouri (not my state)
Tennesse vs. Gardner - A black minor was shot in the back while fleeing from police after a home invasion. It went to court, then federal, the USSC where it was ruled Law Enforcement cannot shoot a fleeing felon in the back unless their is an immidate danger to the public. In MO the law states its legal to shoot a fleeing felon in the back (which is scary since writing a bad check is a felony there).

Should Tennesse be forced to comply with a Federal Law that counters a State Law when it specifically says anything not specifically given to the Feds is reserved for the States? In this case they made it a 4th amendment violation, since shooting the person to stop the crime consituted a seizure of that person.

My point being even when laws are in place that are valid, the courts are known to apply common sense and invoking the spirit of the law and letter of the law arguments. Congress can pass laws that would repeal the 1st amendment, and be justified in doing so until the moment it became law and someone was affected by the law, in which case the courts take over.

This happens all of the time, in terms of conrgress passing bills people know are illegal or sketchy in terms constituional compliance. We just cannot do anything about it until the law takes affect. One of the reasons you always hear people say contact your representative or Senator and tell them to vote yes/no on whatever it is, in an attempt to stop the insanity before it goes any further. That would require citizen participation though, which is why Congress thinks they run the country and not the people - That is to say we are here today because of our apathetic approach to participation in Government.

Have refusal of the masses ever worked? Well, we dont sing God save the Queen so I would say yes. California, many years ago, had a tax revolt were enough people refused to comply with the tax law, that it was eventually removed from the books. Only when a majority stands up untied will something like that work, because its to easy for the Government to pick us off one by one.

As far as nullification goes the Federal Government has been down this road many times before - Civil Rights. Back in the day the States were deciding who would get rights in erms of voting, where they could eat, go to school etc. When the Feds were involved, they were essentially told to take a hike because there was no Federal Law that stated otherwise - The States argued, correctly at the time, that they alone could make these changes since it was not specifically granted to the FEderal Government.

The Feds, in turn, passed leigslation to counter that argument. The Commerce Clause was born, which allows any business / entity that conducts buisness across state lines, be subject to federal oversight and law (To those not versed in this part, the argument from the Feds is this: Yes, you ordered your hamburger in the State of Alabama. However, the cow the meat was made from came from wisonsin, the ketchup came from oregon, the fries came from Idaho, and the wrapper the burger is in came from maine - and since all of these things crossed state lines for commercial purposes, the Feds can regulate the buisness in turn).

Legal mumbo jumbo and history aside, I agree that our Leaders have the false notion they are rulers, with the power coming from them, and not us. The only way to get this through to them that they are wrong, is to vote people in who are sick of it also. The flip side to that coin though is people need to stay involved once their representative is in office and hold them accountible. If they fall into the trap other politicans do, then we need to fire them as well.

I guess the question here is this. People say that the States have the right to sue since the Health Care Bill is not specifically given to the Federal Government. The counter to this argument is established here:

Constitution of the United States

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Healthcare Bill is meant to promote the General wellfare of the People of the United States.

To those who argue about Federal Term limits I say this:

We have them, they are called elections.

Only when the majority of people come together to force change, is when change will happen. Until then its divide and conquer from our Royalty in Office.

edit on 13-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:34 PM
reply to post by djzombie

Thanks for that video, it was SOOO the same as most of my arguments HERE!


Neo Confedderrate.


We all know who the zombie was on this thread.

OH, you made my day. Thanks a LOT.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:45 PM

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Did you know that states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them?

Technically they don't have to follow ANY federal law that isn't an amendment to the Constitution. That is exactly what the 10th amendment states: any law that is not in the Constitution, is left at the states' discretion to follow, or to the people themselves.

Amendments to the Constitution require special sessions of Congress or state conventions, where the states themselves bypass the federal government by a certain majority of their own discretion.

Virginia, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…

And one of my personal favorites, California allows people to smoke marijuana legally in at least three counties and not only that, but tells the DEA to go shove it whenever they try to enforce federal law over state laws. The crook feds still raid and arrest people now and then, but the California Supreme Court has ruled that California will obey California laws before federal laws. The city of Denver, state of Montana and a few others have done the same or similar.

Tennessee has been fighting federal gun control legislation and other federal pressures.

In Texas, and Tennessee, I have seen billboards all along the interstates reminding everyone to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, advertising gun sales and gun shows and basically warning people that if they don't exercise their rights the feds will try to take them away.

The federal government has become a disease. These 50 states are all friendly towards one another, there is no way at this point our bonds are going to be broken again. But we have to realize the federal government is a cancer on all of us. Our state authorities are almost invariably less corrupt than federal authorities, and city and town authorities are even more accessible and easy to keep an eye on. This is where we need to return our seat of power: the towns and cities first, then state comes second, and then lastly we technically don't have to listen to the federal government at all unless they pass another amendment to the Constitution. People need to wake up and remember this.

I would love to have 50 countries within our borders.

At one time "state" was synonymous with "country." The State of Virginia, the State of North Carolina, etc, basically meant the sovereign country of Virginia, the sovereign country of North Carolina.

The Articles of Confederation were even better than the Constitution imo. In history class they teach you that the Articles of Confederation were an inefficient system, but what they really mean is that the feds had so much trouble trying to bully the states that they just had to come up with a way to exert more power over them.

Patrick Henry was an anti-federalist. Many many other founding fathers were also anti-federalists, stood firmly against the Constitution, and REMEMBER PEOPLE it was only passed AFTER the Bill of Rights was included, and the 10th amendment guaranteed that the federal government would be very limited in its powers. Before that -- it was a no-go.

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:50 PM

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Did you know that states don’t have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them?

Technically they don't have to follow ANY federal law that isn't an amendment to the Constitution. That is exactly what the 10th amendment states: any law that is not in the Constitution, is left at the states' discretion to follow, or to the people themselves.

Doesnt the 14th Amenedment already Force Federal acts on the States though? And since this is a consitutional Amendment do the Sates have that right to refuse? For argument sake I will not get into how the 2 amendments conflict with each other.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain
And one of my personal favorites, California allows people to smoke marijuana legally in at least three counties and not only that, but tells the DEA to go shove it whenever they try to enforce federal law over state laws. The crook feds still raid and arrest people now and then, but the California Supreme Court has ruled that California will obey California laws before federal laws. The city of Denver, state of Montana and a few others have done the same or similar.

The controlled Substances Act is the conflict in California, in addition to the States having direct control over medical licensing in their states, since the States also have the requirement of promoting the Genral Welfare of its Citizens.

Originally posted by VirginiaRisesYetAgain And one of my personal favorites, California allows people to smoke marijuana legally in at least three counties and not only that, but tells the DEA to go shove it whenever they try to enforce federal law over state laws. The crook feds still raid and arrest people now and then, but the California Supreme Court has ruled that California will obey California laws before federal laws. The city of Denver, state of Montana and a few others have done the same or similar.

This is why its possible to be charged for the same crime twice, since the State level is seperate from the Federal level. Its entirely possible to be charged for say possession of drugs (non marijuana) at Local and Federal.

California is correct in saying they will enforce State Law First over Federal Law, since by stating that they are not changing anything, but continuing the status quo. Local Law Enforcement is not enforceing Federal Law, which is how they can say they go State Law first, Federal Law second (If you commit a crime in Los Angeles, you are actually be charged by that entity for misdameanors, State for Felonies and so on and so on).

Many states have State Laws that make it a crime to counterfit money, even though the Federal Government is the only one able to coin / mint. If I come across someone using counterfit money, I can charge them at the state level. We still notify the feds on the off chance they want to prosecute also, but unless its a very large amount or operation, they defer it.

California Law is in violation of Federal Law. Supremacy Clause says when in conflict, Federal Law prevails. My question then is how can we claim both sides of the argument?

We argue that anything not specifically given to the Feds, is reserved for the States, while at the same time stating any state law that is in contradiction to Federal Law, has to give way to Federal Law.

whats the answer?

edit on 13-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2010 by Xcathdra because: Lysdexic, spelling and forgot about these new edit lines.

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in