Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws

page: 3
62
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Can the Constitution create something un-Constitutional?


Don't play footsy with me

You damn well know the supreme court was created specifically to determine questions of constitutionality of law




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
You Supremacy Clausers are funny.
What’s a “Supreme Clauser”? Someone who doesn’t deny it exists?


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.
I didn’t miss anything, I’m well aware of the whole language of the clause. It is you, apparently, who have missed the two main points I raised: the principle of presumption of constitutionality, and that it is for the judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of laws when they are questioned.

In Fletcher v. Peck (1810) Chief Justice Marshall noted—

[I]t is not on slight implication and vague conjecture that the Legislature is to be pronounced to have transcended its powers, and its acts to be considered as void. The opposition between the Constitution and the law should be such that the judge feels a clear and strong conviction of their incompatibility with each other.

In Ogden v. Saunders (1827) the Court, through Justice Washington, further elaborated on the principle—

It is but a decent respect due to the wisdom, the integrity, and the patriotism of the legislative body by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This has always been the language of this Court when that subject has called for its decision

Whether Congress enacted a law not in pursuance of the Constitution is to be determined by the Supreme Court, not Arizona’s legislature.

Right now it’s merely your, and Arizona’s, opinion that it wasn’t.


Furthermore . . . Arizona may pass this bill.
Who said Arizona couldn’t pass the bill?


It will be up to the Feds to take it to the Supreme Court.
You recognize the bill, if adopted, has to be challenged in court by the federal government, but yet here you are arguing that Arizona’s legislature can ignore federal laws it, by itself, determines to be unconstitutional, without intervention of the judiciary.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness



It will be up to the Feds to take it to the Supreme Court.
You recognize the bill, if adopted, has to be challenged in court by the federal government, but yet here you are arguing that Arizona’s legislature can ignore federal laws it, by itself, determines to be unconstitutional, without intervention of the judiciary.





Bravo !!!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
And what happens when the Supreme Court Justices become corrupt or have other "interests" other than the law of the land or the Constitution?
Is this what you are arguing that has happened? Or is it merely hypothetical?

Ultimately I do not understand your point, because can’t a state legislature “become corrupt or have other ‘interests’ other than the law of the land and the Constitution” as well?

It’s well established in our system of government who determines the constitutionality of laws, and it’s not state legislatures. If you are arguing that the Supreme Court is ‘corrupt’ that is a separate issue, one that doesn’t alter how our Republic is set up.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red


. . .

Traitors always find ways to justify their treachery


I am a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist


Funny thing. He was a traitor to a tyrannical government as well.



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


No . . . that was legislated by the Supreme Court in the Marbury v Madison case in the early 1800's.
It was up to the people and the states to decide what was Constitutional before that.

If members of Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court all read the Constitution carefully, they will realize that government derives its powers from the “consent of the governed.” Essentially, the founders drafted the Constitution with an understanding that American citizens should have the ultimate say.

When you combine judicial review with a political agenda, power is taken from the most important branch of government . . . Congress. When this happens, the executive branch and the Supreme Court are essentially creating a new form of government, an oligarchy.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the constitution. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to enforce the constitution.


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



Wrong.

10th Amendment.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Janky Red
 


Can the Constitution create something un-Constitutional?


Don't play footsy with me

You damn well know the supreme court was created specifically to determine questions of constitutionality of law


Kinky.

And know it wasn't. It was to aaply the Constitution. Not legislate from the bench.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by aptness
 


Where in the Constitution does it state that SC judges may legislate from the bench.

I will be waiting.


Originally posted by aptness


. . .

You recognize the bill, if adopted, has to be challenged in court by the federal government, but yet here you are arguing that Arizona’s legislature can ignore federal laws it, by itself, determines to be unconstitutional, without intervention of the judiciary.


Yes, I recognize it because that is the president that was set by Justice Marshall.

Arizona looks to change that back to its original form, and very well may do so using the 10th Amendment.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by Janky Red







No . . . that was legislated by the Supreme Court in the Marbury v Madison case in the early 1800's.
It was up to the people and the states to decide what was Constitutional before that.


Section 8 grants the Federal government its power below - refers to the enumerated list prior to
this clause

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You are posing a phony argument...

Please show me where the tenth amendment states that a radical state legistlature can nullify any FEDERAL law they like based upon their opinion/s.


If members of Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court all read the Constitution carefully, they will realize that government derives its powers from the “consent of the governed.” Essentially, the founders drafted the Constitution with an understanding that American citizens should have the ultimate say.


Well you appear to be advocating a revocation of the section 8, while placing all legal determinations into the
hands of politicians. Then after you proclaim the nullification of the document that creates the framework
for consent of the governed, you jump the tracks again and reference the constitution after you propose neutering
it. This post is working on triple speak my amigo



When you combine judicial review with a political agenda, power is taken from the most important branch of government . . . Congress. When this happens, the executive branch and the Supreme Court are essentially creating a new form of government, an oligarchy.


this is your opinion and is seperate from the legitimcy of the AZ political agenda of state level oligarchy or GOP "autocracy" at the state level



The purpose of the Supreme Court is not to interpret the constitution. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to enforce the constitution.
The purpose is to ensure that law does not violate the constitution, to
restrain governance




Wrong.


Ya you are

before you cite the tenth you should read the ninth



The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The Arizona Senate is using the Tenth in the very way that evokes the Ninth... Now the citizens of Arizona are subject to the whims of what partisans deem as constitutional...

edit on 6-3-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Arizona looks to change that back to its original form, and very well may do so using the 10th Amendment.


Not without violating the NINTH

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The politicians in Arizona are in effect stating that they have the authority to deem how the constitution applies
to INDIVIDUALS which strips the individual of the constitutional access to the federal judicial consideration, determination and protection - Do you know the legal channels and process for appeals in America? It is like discussing the wisdom of cutting a hole in the hull of a ship to make it lighter and subsequently faster

Did the people grant the Arizona legislature this dramatic new found power which had somehow been laying dormant for generations??? Arizona is wiping their ass with the constitution to illustrate that wiping
asses with the constitution is wrong?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 04:36 AM
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:



You sound a bit jealous. Yes, they want to be a sovereign state, as granted by our constitution. As does every other state, I'm sure. Police state has nothing to do with this. Nobody wants to be controlled by a corrupt government. I thought that was fairly obvious. Instead of talking down on them, you should be glad that a state is finally standing up to the oppressors. Maybe yours will be next.



Cheers,
Strype



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
aeh, AZ


really, this will give Obama critics more fuel



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:12 AM
link   
This is just window-dressing so some dumb-ass AZ legislator can say all laws passed during the Obama administration are un-constitutional because Obama wasn't born in the US so isn't a legitimate president blah blah blah.

This is just more birther nonsense in another guise. Total waste of time. Won't do any good, will just tie up more time and money in the courts over this crap. Like we have lots of money to spend on this kind of blather.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Ok, I've been lurking here for a year now but after reading these replies I felt compeled to chime in...

The Supremecy Clause does grant the Federal Government power over all states. It does this only in regards to the powers that we the states grant the Federal Goverment through the Constitution.

I said grant, yes GRANT, because all powers not granted to the FEDS are reserved to the states and to the people. You all should remember the 10 Amendment...

It was written to avoid this very arguement.

We reserve all other law making abilities to the states and the people.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I think most Arizonans would be willing to keep their funds in state and tell the feds to keep theirs. I'll bet about 90% of the federal return to the state goes to about 5% of the population, and most of that to "non-legal" residents. Once you pry your lips from the federal tit, you might actually become productive!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 08:31 AM
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:



If police states enforce personal responsibility and penalize whining, hand-wringing leftists, I'll take one now!



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo


I can't believe this wasn't posted on ATS....

Still, EPIC. All states need to pass that to tell the feds to go play in the bushes.

The feds don't follow the constitution? NULLIFY their law. Simple as that.

They should do this on old laws the feds passed. After all, the feds have done this kind of thing for decades now.

The only duties of the federal government is defending the border, making treaties and regulating interstate commerce (which they are abusing the power of).

TENTH AMENDMENT! Thomas Jefferson was the man.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


I agree with you wholeheartedly that Thomas Jefferson WAS the man, but what you and everyone else NEEDS desperately to understand is that the "Federal Government" IS the main corporation and all states are subsidiaries, just as counties and cities are subsidiaries of the state. Your home is a "residence" for the "employee" that is you. THAT is why you pay "federal income" tax. You are federal property and the tax is the fee for using the name in ALL capital letters to act in commerce. All of society acts in commerce and so your instrument is the NAME and the paper you trade with. You pay a rental fee, if you will, for use of the NAME and paper money. Think about that.

WE are the collateral for the national debt, there really isn't a national date as HJR-192 (House Joint Resolution) that was passed in 1933, removed the ability and obligation of the public to pay a debt. We transfer and trade in IOU's from the federal reserve which is not a government agency. Until we get our gold back, there is no legal way to pay a debt and by doing so in IOU's is actually against the law, so now you are a criminal, soooo.. the Slavery clause does not apply to you and your punishment is labor!!!! They take a cut and give you a little back as a "tax return" to keep you believing in the "system".

That is not the best explanation but I am half asleep. But you get the idea, most people think this is not the case because it is so bizarre, well that is the idea, make it so bizarre so no one really understands what exactly is going on. And then once they are convinced that we are powerless, then they have control, it has been this was since 1798. Just do a little research and you will see it all revealed.

www.barefootsworld.net...



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:49 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.




I think you have a good point, however, we are not able to decide what is 'Constitutional' the Supreme Court does that, and do you think they will find this law Constitutional? I have mixed feelings about the Supreme Court but it makes sense that we are not the ones deciding what counts as Constitutional, since we all have different ideas of interpreting the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by taskforce4256
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


I think most Arizonans would be willing to keep their funds in state and tell the feds to keep theirs. I'll bet about 90% of the federal return to the state goes to about 5% of the population, and most of that to "non-legal" residents. Once you pry your lips from the federal tit, you might actually become productive!



You sound very absolute in your assumptions. Have you talked to any of the public institutions that use that money? The schools, for example? I am sure a lot of schools depend on that money (I know my high school did.) What about the interstate highways? You are being very short-sighted, you don't even know what goes on in budgets. Minnesota would still have their drinking age be 19 if federal funding was so easy to get rid of - the only reason they changed to 21 was because the Federal Government wanted it to be that way, so they threatened to take away the funding otherwise. It is not an ideal situation but it's a real one, states are dependent on the fed, and would not be able to function without it.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

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

Seriously, who's stopping them?



Originally posted by The Sword
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?



Originally posted by The Sword
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.


Please continue trolling. It's entertaining.

On topic, as much as I would like to see this pass into law, I highly doubt it will, simply because defending it in the courts will be enormously expensive, so there's no need to lose any sleep over a state exercising some independence.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Taupin Desciple
 


Your interpretation is right on, right on, right on. The flow of power goes from God, to the individual and on up to the states and then the feds. With the exception, of course, of the federal powers that are enumerated in the Constitution.

Thumbs up!
edit on 6-3-2011 by Heros_son because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join