Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws

page: 2
62
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


couldnt agree more but thats is specifically the job of the SCOTUS not the state legislators.
article 3 section 2 of the US constitution...




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, nullify any law that is unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Constitution. No state, person, politician, officer of the law, has to obey any law from the United States government that is unconstitutional or outside of the scope of the Constitution, period.


Yeah but when you've got the SCOTUS continually expanding that scope, what's a state to do? If we would have told the founding fathers that wiretapping was legal, or the Patriot Act, or cameras in cities, mini UAV's flying around with cameras, and police stations with battle tanks, you think they would have put that in the constitution as law? Obamacare? Bah.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
(Original emphasis kept)


According to this section of the U.S. constitution, the rights of individual states dictate how the U.S. constitution is to be written: with the rights of the states coming first.
It’s the second clause of Article VI, and it’s colloquially referred to as the Supremacy Clause. And, contrary to what many would rather believe, and what you are asserting here, it does not say laws of the states supersede federal law. Quite the opposite.


The problem is, is that it is written in such a way as to easily confuse the average reader. Thankfully Pearce is not your average reader.I'm not taking this out of context either. On the contrary, I'm putting it INTO context.
I will presume that you honestly believe it to be the correct interpretation, and this is not some attempt to distort something that has been settled, for centuries, in constitutional jurisprudence.

It seems clear to me, particularly from the emphasis you used, that you are interpreting the last statement of the clause — “anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding” — to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means.

Notwithstanding is a term frequently used in legal contexts and it means “in spite of.” So the Supremacy Clause, under more common language, could be read as—
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States (...) shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, in spite of anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.

The last statement of the Supremacy Clause then, actually, and explicitly, says the United States Constitution and federal law supersede state law, not the contrary.

These particular questions have been settled since at least the Marshall Supreme Court in the early 1800s, and reaffirmed multiple times since then, but I understand how some people, for political gain, or for ideological reasons, would rather pretend the Constitution, in some instances, doesn’t say what it clearly does.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
In other words, nullify any law that is unconstitutional or outside the scope of the Constitution. No state, person, politician, officer of the law, has to obey any law from the United States government that is unconstitutional or outside of the scope of the Constitution, period.
As some other members have pointed out, it is the United States Supreme Court that ultimately determines the constitutionality of laws, not an individual state’s legislature.

It’s a well established principle that legislative enactments are presumed to be constitutional. If a particular state believes an act of Congress to be unconstitutional then it can contest and challenge it in court.

There is simply no basis in the Constitution for an individual state to unilaterally determine the constitutionality of a federal law.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pirhanna
That's laughable.

I think I'm going to nullify all of Texas laws.
They no longer apply to me.




You call yourself a Texan?

Pffft.

Probably from Austin, Houston, El Paso, or the RGV.



Learn to read the Constitution.


Just the fact that you even got a star for that posts shows exactly what is wrong with this country.





edit on 3/5/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


You Supremacy Clausers are funny.

You always HAPPEN to miss one small but very important detail . . .

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Did you catch it?

The laws of the land must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.



Furthermore . . . Arizona may pass this bill. It will be up to the Feds to take it to the Supreme Court.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:32 PM
link   
allows for state and federal wars to commence start building tanks and artiliary for the state, militia as well
make antiair craft guns missle lanchers, Drop a couple shells on the whitehouse lawn they will be wanting to listen than.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws


tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com

After being shot down earlier this week, the Arizona State Senate revived and successfully passed a bill that would create a mechanism for the state to nullify federal laws.

As TPM has reported, Senate Bill 1433 would create a 12-person "Joint Legislative Committee on Nullification of Federal Laws," which would "recommend, propose and call for a vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation that is outside the scope of the powers delegated by the People to the federal government in the United States Constitution."
(visit the link for the full news article)




Wow this is great news, now if all the other 49 states will follow along and tell the Feds to go "F" themselves and go back to protecting borders and regulating commerce like they were supposed to do instead of overstepping the boundries within the law.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aptness
it is the United States Supreme Court that ultimately determines the constitutionality of laws, not an individual state’s legislature.

And what happens when the Supreme Court Justices become corrupt or have other "interests" other than the law of the land or the Constitution?



Originally posted by aptness
There is simply no basis in the Constitution for an individual state to unilaterally determine the constitutionality of a federal law.

Every state in this union is sovereign. Sovereign means self-governing; independent. The leaders of any state can determine the constitutionality of a law when it pertains to their state.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Why doesn't Arizona just shut the hell up and secede already?

Seriously, who's stopping them?



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
 


Hey Jethro, are you blind or just plain stupid?

Do you really think that the Feds are going to sit there and let a bunch of hicks throw crap on their lawn?




posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
Well, I guess we should stop giving Arizona Federal money. They want to nullify federal laws and pass their own? Fine let them, In fact I wouldn't care if the United States kicked out AZ out of the Union. They then can create and live happily in the little police state that they so badly want.
edit on 3/5/2011 by muse7 because:



Bad ass.

Guess Arizona should not send money either, considering the Federal government is not protecting the border.


Arizona gets about $1.19 for every dollar taxpayers spend, but on receive the smallest amount of money in earmarks. So we will call it about equal, and Arizonians do not miss out on anything, and get their border secured.

Never mind the fact that the federal government owns about 50% of Arizona land . . . so that will be taken back as well.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
Why doesn't Arizona just shut the hell up and secede already?

Seriously, who's stopping them?


I think they are working on it.

They are pretty much following in South Carolina's footsteps.

And I think the first state to go will cause a domino affect throughout the southern and western states.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Good for them. Seems like they just want another Civil War so they can parade their true intentions in blackface in front of other Americans.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by The Sword
 


And what would their true intentions be?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Uggh.. not this crap again. The theory of nullification of federal law by the states was brought up since the inception of the Constitution. To date, its never been succesful, because the Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the land.

I would rather see lawsuits forcing the government to do their damn jobs before we go down this road. I dont think we have used redress of greivances to its fullest extent.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Let me repeat this:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Did you catch it?

The laws of the land must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Its good until you get state politicians crying wolf on a whim, based upon their outlook and their opinion.


It is a back handed way to crap on the constitution when it suits them as the constitution is exactly the document creates the federal/state hierarchy of jurisdiction.
edit on 6-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Can the Constitution create something un-Constitutional?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Let me repeat this:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

Did you catch it?

The laws of the land must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.


Traitors always find ways to justify their treachery

The constitution states that the determination of constitutionality of LAW is in the hands of the supreme court...

Therefore, they are in violation of the supreme law of the land

In essence Arizona only needs opinion to defy constitutional statute





new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join