It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


hello
i would like to ask you a couple of questions
1. when a court decideds a corperation has the same rights as a human does that mean that corperations are human or they just have the rights of one?
2. if laws are more powerful because of their age and precident dont the founding laws have more weight in law than the new one that says corperations have the same rights as man?
3.does the sale of online porn over state lines realy give the govenment the right to regulate when the internet was not in existance at the time?
4.if i am agreved by the law what recourse do i have?
5. is a decition of a jury of peers more powerful that a statue in law?

so can a jury find someone not guilty of a federal crime because it is an afrount to their sensabilities or morals
let me answer for you

jurys can nullify statutes in law by finding the statute to be immoral or simply that the law does not serve the peoples requirements or wishes

the court gets its power from the jurors to come to a finding

nulifycation is some forms is still practiced

xp
6.




posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   
While there is some validity to the sovereignty of states, this was all hashed out during the Civil War. And, then, further, it was hashed out during the Civil Rights era. Both times Federal troops and/or National Guard were sent in to *enforce* Federal law, which in most cases *trumps* a state's wishes.

In the end, we are a UNION of states, not a group of states in a union. Splitting semantic hairs, but the Federal government trumps everything. Besides, the new healthcare LAW is exactly that. A law. So far, I haven't seen the death squads that Palin promised would haul away our grandparents. I'm not saying that it's a sterling and 100% perfect piece of legislation. But the way things were (in healthcare) was TRAGICALLY WRONG.

Big Insurance. Big Pharma. Big Medicine. All dwarfed the average person who was nothing more than a number. How did it get to be that working people of the middle class had problems paying for healthcare? When I grew up, if you had a job, healthcare wasn't much of an issue. How did it get to be that the SAME IDENTICAL medicine was 10 times cheaper in Canada than in the US? How is it that Americans travel to Mexico, India, Thailand --or just about anywhere but here-- to have equal (sometimes better) treatment/care and cheaper treatment?

To me, people upset about the new healthcare are probably already amongst the ranks of the "haves." Because, healthcare benefits the have-nots. And this whole thing about states rights is just a necessary step to take for people influenced by lies (Palin's death squads, et al), big corporations (campaign contributions) and special interest lobbies (wealthy corps and individuals) to set forth an opposition to a law that tries to level the healthcare playing field, among other issues.

No one has come to ask about and/or take any firearms that might be in my possession. No death squads. In fact, the Federal Government is doing a heck of a lot to keep this country safe from all sorts of foreign attacks and influences. We all don't enjoy our Freedom because of the singular contributions of Georgia, or Florida, or Alaska, etc. We enjoy our Freedom because of the combined contributions of all states, combined in the form of the Federal Government.

All of this "states rights" is going to descend us into Civil War if people keep ranting and provoking and calling for action. And then, once divided, someone will step into our mess and conquer. The best thing for people to do is use the systems already in place to evoke change. Just my opinion. And, to add, I am also a stubborn Virginian and love the Old Dominion. I also happen to realize that it is a *part* of a larger whole, too.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Dr. Tom Woods tells us all about the "evils" of nullification.








edit on 13-9-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
While there is some validity to the sovereignty of states, this was all hashed out during the Civil War. And, then, further, it was hashed out during the Civil Rights era. Both times Federal troops and/or National Guard were sent in to *enforce* Federal law, which in most cases *trumps* a state's wishes.


Agreed


Originally posted by GhostLancer
In the end, we are a UNION of states, not a group of states in a union. Splitting semantic hairs, but the Federal government trumps everything. Besides, the new healthcare LAW is exactly that. A law. So far, I haven't seen the death squads that Palin promised would haul away our grandparents. I'm not saying that it's a sterling and 100% perfect piece of legislation. But the way things were (in healthcare) was TRAGICALLY WRONG.


Somehwat agree. We are 50 individual States that are part of the United States, with our own laws and Governments. The Federal Government was suppose to represent us on the World Stage in terms of treaties, defense etc.


Originally posted by GhostLancer
Big Insurance. Big Pharma. Big Medicine. All dwarfed the average person who was nothing more than a number. How did it get to be that working people of the middle class had problems paying for healthcare? When I grew up, if you had a job, healthcare wasn't much of an issue. How did it get to be that the SAME IDENTICAL medicine was 10 times cheaper in Canada than in the US? How is it that Americans travel to Mexico, India, Thailand --or just about anywhere but here-- to have equal (sometimes better) treatment/care and cheaper treatment?


I disagree here because the entites you just named are regulated at the FEderal level because they cross State Lines. Federal Laws (influenced by lobbyists) have given these companies defacto monopolies in states. If an insurance company say in California could cover me, and I live in Wyoming, they could not do it. State Farm as an example, is an umbrella style organization which operates in multiple states. However if u move from one state to the next, your policy will change to reflect the laws of the state you moved to. If the Feds would represent the people, and not business, I think health care costs could be under control. But when they get to piece meal coverage because of non compete issues, allowing to charge higher and higher premiums.... you get the idea.

Trying to compare Canada and the US is difficult. They have a population of around 30million+/-, while the US is over 300 million. They have a very high tax rate (PST / GST - Provincial / Government Tax) that goes on just about everything. If we introduced that type of sales tax, at those levels here in the States, and you would see a massive influx of money into the coffers. That style of tax is being pushed, which would eliminate many loopholes, but business is against it for obvious reason.

As far as Americans trying to get drugs from other countries. The reason they are more expensive here is research and development. It takes a lot of cash and time to develop a new drug, then test it, then finally market it. Other countries, through their central Government, are allowed to buy the drugs at preferential prices that removes most of the R and D added money. This is done because of how expensive the drugs are in the US, since we are the ones funding the research.

The other argument is because we can somewhat afford it. Drugs for AIDS are considerably reduced in areas that have little to no medical infrastructure. Just because people are poor doesnt mean they should not have access to medicine or life saving measures. Government / business get pissed when Americans buy from overseas because that is lost revenue, since they are paying for the product, and not the research attached to the prices.



Originally posted by GhostLancer
To me, people upset about the new healthcare are probably already amongst the ranks of the "haves." Because, healthcare benefits the have-nots. And this whole thing about states rights is just a necessary step to take for people influenced by lies (Palin's death squads, et al), big corporations (campaign contributions) and special interest lobbies (wealthy corps and individuals) to set forth an opposition to a law that tries to level the healthcare playing field, among other issues.


I dont think its really the haves vs the have nots. What it is, imo, is the haves working their asses off to pay for the have nots, who some feel its owed to them. I have full medical health insurance, yet my bills are genrally higher because the Hospital I use is non profit. I get charged more to help offset the free care that is given to people who cannot afford health care.

If you dont have medical insurance and need to go to the Hospital, by all means go. If you are going to get your refill of xanax and percoset for your chronic pain and social anxiety disorder, then turning around and selling pills on the street... meh this argument will piss me off, so I will stop here. Granted their are legitimate needs by people. Sadly I see the system abused by the "have nots" more than I care to.



Originally posted by GhostLancer
No one has come to ask about and/or take any firearms that might be in my possession. No death squads. In fact, the Federal Government is doing a heck of a lot to keep this country safe from all sorts of foreign attacks and influences. We all don't enjoy our Freedom because of the singular contributions of Georgia, or Florida, or Alaska, etc. We enjoy our Freedom because of the combined contributions of all states, combined in the form of the Federal Government.


Completely agree


Originally posted by GhostLancer
All of this "states rights" is going to descend us into Civil War if people keep ranting and provoking and calling for action. And then, once divided, someone will step into our mess and conquer. The best thing for people to do is use the systems already in place to evoke change. Just my opinion. And, to add, I am also a stubborn Virginian and love the Old Dominion. I also happen to realize that it is a *part* of a larger whole, too.


Awesome response. Participation is the only way to fix our House.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Starred and Flagged with a smack on the knee.
Dem boyzz midagot sompm goin A'oohn dehr.
That would be 'the' move for now.
A move in the 'right' direction and then some.....

This one claims she's "Seen the Light". You be the judge. Who are 'you' to judge? Carry on.....










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



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GhostLancer
 


I actually agree with you. It is not Constitutional or Just and it is not the intent of our forefathers, but it is certainly the current state of affairs.

The Federal Government started gaining its stranglehold following the bloody Civil War where the South lost its fight for State's Rights. The taste for rebellion was gone until Prohibition where the Federal Government capitalized on a religious conservative support group to trample our rights again. Then the Federal Reserve was established, the fiat currency, and the private corporate control of our finances was taken over. After that all resemblence of the original Constitutional Republic was pretty much lost. The Civil Rights movement was further proof that the Federal Government had garnered far too much economic and military power. Then through Patriot Acts I and II after 9/11, the establishment of DHS, and the shifting of powers to FEMA after Katrina, at this point there is barely a squeek of any State's Rights. Even the States' own National Guard now serves at the whim of Federal Cabinet level commanders.

You are correct, and that is exactly the reason that something must be done. The Republic is imploding, the economy is crashing, human rights are failing, the bloated Government is consuming everything, including our future earnigs and the rights to tax our estates, children, and real estate. The people have nothing left accept for a portion of our right to bear arms that we desperately cling to in hopes of righting this listing monstrosity of a ship.

Will we continue to surrender our rights until none are left?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



As far as Americans trying to get drugs from other countries. The reason they are more expensive here is research and development. It takes a lot of cash and time to develop a new drug, then test it, then finally market it. Other countries, through their central Government, are allowed to buy the drugs at preferential prices that removes most of the R and D added money. This is done because of how expensive the drugs are in the US, since we are the ones funding the research.


This is you just making it up as you go along, that's not exactly right is it? Medicine is 10x more expensive in the united states because you have pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington steering ALL the legislation in whatever direction they want. No one likes to admit it in the good old US of A but your federal government has been hijacked. While R&D does obviously cost money it is not the reason medicines and health care are 10x higher in the US than else where in the world. One other thing you seemed to have paid no mind to at all is the fact that the US is no where near the top of any lists rating medical advances and drug research in the last decade.


Government / business get pissed when Americans buy from overseas because that is lost revenue, since they are paying for the product, and not the research attached to the prices.


They are getting pissed because instead of Joe American paying 1000 dollars for his script, he can cross the border and pay 100 dollars and they lost 900 dollars profit, end of story. If Company X sells something for $1000 on one side of the street and $100 on the other side of the street Company X can get bent if they expect me to pay $1000 for something they are profiting off at $100. Give your head a shake, these companies operate for one reason only, PROFIT, they are still making profits worldwide at 10% of the cost, if they weren't they wouldn't be selling to that market.


I have full medical health insurance, yet my bills are genrally higher because the Hospital I use is non profit. I get charged more to help offset the free care that is given to people who cannot afford health care.


Are you actually saying your Not For Profit hospital charges you more than a for profit hospital and you do this because it helps the people that can't afford health care? I have a question for you...

In 2014 when Obama's health care bill rolls into full effect what do you think is going to happen to the 20+ million people that can't afford to purchase health care? The government isn't going to give it to them for free, that's not part of the deal, but it will be against the law not to have health care. What then?

-Lightrule



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


If you're not going to explain what you mean by this then I don't know how to respond either. I looked up and read the legislation of the 14th amendment, and I don't see what you're talking about. Are you saying the 14th amendment somehow negates the 10th amendment? I need elaboration on what you're saying.


The controlled Substances Act is the conflict in California


Right, but there really shouldn't be any conflict considering that act is not a Constitutional amendment. The feds have no right to enforce it over state law.


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.


And I never said otherwise. I don't think it's right though, and neither do authorities apparently because in practice I have never heard of this happening. When federal authorities assume a case, the state authorities usually back off and let the feds handle 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?


This is a misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause. That clause actually states the the US Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and overrides state laws. Can you show me where the Controlled Substances Act is an amendment to the Constitution itself? If not then the Constitution DOES take precedent and the 10th amendment is still completely valid.


Edit to include the Supremacy Clause for clarity, Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution:


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 says the Constitution itself and any laws that are made in pursuance thereof take precedence in the US, as well as treaties, and states will not be granted the right to contradict this.

The Controlled Substances Act is not "in pursuance" of the Constitution from anything I am seeing in it. I stop short of saying it's unconstitutional because the federal government has every right to pass the act, just as they pass anything else. But there is nothing in the Constitution binding the states to every act passed by Federal Congress. This was the entire original purpose of the 10th amendment, and the Constitution itself. Go back to its original signing and read the debates between federalists and anti-federalists, and you will see they were very very careful to limit the power of the feds over the states in this way.

This is also why it's so hard to pass an amendment to the Constitution.


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



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
So, we have people who would rather prop up the health insurance industry nullifying laws? Who do you think they're working for? Hmm?




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




HAHAHAHA! Don't you realize that the healthcare bill Obama passed is the one that ACTUALLY props up the healthcare industry? The law REQUIRES people to buy health insurance from these companies. In a decade, health insurance companies will make hundreds of billions of dollars more than they would have because of this bill. Obama told us it would keep costs down, but its driven costs up already. You realize the insurance companies SUPPORTED this bill? So maybe it is you that needs to do the thinking.....



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
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.


Can you find an example where nullification was ever successful?


Nullification resurfaced in the 1950s in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which decided that segregated schools were illegal. At least ten southern states passed various measures preserving segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision. The advocates of these measures argued that the Brown decision was unconstitutional and that the states had the inherent power to prevent that decision from being enforced within their borders. However, the Supreme Court rejected this idea in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, finding that the state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision.


States don't have nullification power.

If you have states deciding what federal laws do and don't apply, you have a confederation, not a union.

Don't like it? Hold a Constitutional Convention and start from scratch.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Right on!
you said it.

Too bad the tenth amendment doesn't give us the right to blow up all the banks and lynch all the currupt politicians.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
i thought constitutionality goes through supreme courts =\



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by GhostLancer
The taste for rebellion was gone until Prohibition where the Federal Government capitalized on a religious conservative support group to trample our rights again.


You left off the part where 46 of the then 48 states ratified the 18th Amendment. Hardly a simple case of federal overreach when the states gladly handed over sovereignty and individual rights.

Only Connecticut and Rhode Island did not ratify the amendment.

Then, quite a few southern states (the usual suspects when cries of 'states rights' are heard) refused to ratify the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th. North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Georgia either rejected or just didn't get around to ratifying the 21st.

Prohibition is the WORST example to use for the idea that states safeguard liberties better than the feds, because of the amount of states that happily signed on. Next worst: Jim Crow, since the states that enforced legal segregation and otherwise trampled natural and civil rights had to be stopped by federal action.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GhostLancer
While there is some validity to the sovereignty of states, this was all hashed out during the Civil War.


Right, which is an excellent illustration of exactly how decided this issue really is.

Who is saying the feds take authority no matter what, despite the 10th amendment? The Feds!!

Who is saying the states have the right from the 10th amendment to not follow any law that is not in the Constitution? The States!!

If you go back to our founding fathers, this Constitution only was able to pass in the first place after the Bill of Rights was added insuring that the federal government wouldn't be able to just write whatever laws it felt like and push them on the states without question. This is EXACTLY what so many people fought and died to defend against!

Otherwise, the 10th amendment doesn't make a damned bit of sense. Why guarantee the states discretion on all issues outside of the Constitution, just to make all non-Constitutional federal laws override state laws?



All of this "states rights" is going to descend us into Civil War if people keep ranting and provoking and calling for action.


If there is another civil war in this day and age it will NOT be state against state.

It will be the people against the feds.

That much is clear. EVERYONE all over this country is SICK of the corruption of the federal government, and if they try to raise a hand against Americans again they are going to turn this whole country into Iraq.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Nullifying is incredibly awesome in theory, much harder and less practical in practice. There are so many gray areas that both the Federal and State governments could jump through loopholes for years and years on any given issue.

A big one that is actually panning out (not sure they actually used the term nullify) is the legalization of medical marijuana in CA. Though CA state laws said dispensaries were legal and good to go (assuming they were properly regulated), Federal authorities (DEA) were still kicking down doors, confiscating LEGAL stashes of marijuana and arresting dispensary owners and operators.

States rights should rule, and while we benefited a s__t load from the Union's victory during the civil war, we lost almost as much. Slavery was but a chunk of the argument (a very profitable chunk), but the State's individual rights were the reason young U.S. Americans were slaughtering each other.



edit on 13-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




Great idea guys. Let's start by nullifying the federal income tax.

tt



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
All you people that want to nullify, where were you when Bush ripped America apart?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Then, quite a few southern states (the usual suspects when cries of 'states rights' are heard) refused to ratify the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th. North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Georgia either rejected or just didn't get around to ratifying the 21st.


You know why? Not because the people themselves wanted to keep it illegal to drink alcohol. Because the states were making bank off of all the new crime they were fighting. Al Capone wasn't the only one capitalizing on prohibition. The courts did too through all kinds of legal fines they were slapping on people.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Agreed. Rights are not granted by the government, as much as some would like to have it that way in this country.....



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Of course, I misread the headline - thought it said "US tranny defense". lol.

Bought new meaning to "don't ask, don't tell" for me.




top topics



 
70
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join