Mississippi bill would nullify federal laws - Obamacare too?!

www.foxnews.com...

Mississippi bill would
nullify federal laws

Published January 24, 2013 Associated Press

NOTE: For those of you who love to bash the source rather than read the message, this is an AP story.

JACKSON, MISS. – Mississippi defied the union during
the Civil War and civil rights era, and at least two
lawmakers think it is time to do so again.

Republican state Reps. Gary Chism and Jeff Smith,
both of Columbus, filed a bill this month to form the
Joint Legislative Committee on the Neutralization of
Federal Laws.

Chism said Thursday that the tea party-backed
measure is a response to President Barack Obama's
federal health care overhaul and proposals to curb
gun violence.

"Certainly, the Obamacare started this," Chism told
The Associated Press, referring to the health care
plan, "but then gun show loopholes that the
president wanted after Newtown really put an
exclamation on that -- that we need to do
something to stand up for the Tenth Amendment."

Now for something totally different, not only is Mississippi joining other states like Wyoming and Texas in defending their 10th and 2nd amendment rights on guns, they have expanded it to include Obamacare, as well.

For doing this, defending the Constitution, they are now being labeled "racist".

Folks, only in America. Where these same people that are being labeled "racist" fought for their rights to call them that.

State Education Rankings


Yeah, Mississippi. Smart move.

reply to post by Libertygal


Before somebody jump's in shouting the Supremacy Clause will make any law void.

Hence, the Supremacy Clause only applies if an act of the Federal Government is in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. In other words, Federal laws are valid and are supreme, only to the extent that those laws were adopted in pursuance of — that is, consistent with — the Constitution. To read the Supremacy Clause as big government proponents would have you — that all federal laws are supreme — would render the remainder of the Constitution meaningless. Why would there be a need for anything other than a Supremacy Clause? Why would the Constitution’s Framers have deliberated throughout the summer of 1787 over the other 4,500 words in the Constitution if their intent was to make the Federal Government supreme in all areas it unilaterally decided to act?


The reality is that we have a Constitution that delegates specific enumerated powers to the Federal Government—with the expectation that the Federal Government is not to act beyond those powers. In addition, we have 50 state constitutions that govern in the areas not delegated to the Federal Government. Together, the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of each of the fifty states contemplate that each state government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. Because the Federal Government is one of enumerated and limited powers, it must show that a constitutional grant of power authorizes each of its actions. But the opposite applies to the states—absent a Constitutional restriction on the states, state governments do not need constitutional authorization to act, specifically because it was the intent of the Framers that the powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were to remain the jurisdiction of governments more local and more accountable to the people. Therefore, the general power of governing the health, safety and welfare of the people, generally referred to as the “police power,” was reserved to the states and not delegated to the Federal Government. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, U.S. Supreme Court (2012

The Supremacy Clause only applies if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers. Federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Nullification, is the legal theory that states have the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they view as being unconstitutional; or any federal law that the states view as having exceeded Congresses’ constitutionally authorized powers. The courts have found that under Article III of the Constitution, the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts and that the states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law

en.wikipedia.org...

So in order to enforce a law against the bill of rights.The Constitution would first have to be admended.

or

.If the law exceeds the Federal goverment's power the states have the right to challenge in federal court.But to do so the State must first adopt a state law or have one on the books to challenge the federal law.

reply to post by DaTroof


Have you ever been to Mississippi?, lived in Mississippi? I was born and raised in Mississippi and I resent that remark.

Originally posted by I1Am1Ready1Are1You
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Have you ever been to Mississippi?, lived in Mississippi? I was born and raised in Mississippi and I resent that remark.

I agree.
But you shouldn't get too upset.
Guys name is "DATROOF"
Contradicting don't you think?

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


Thanks for that reply, that was beautiful.

I noted the name Sebelious. Would that be related to, or the same as in Affordable Healthcare Act?

I cannot help but wonder, after some of the Justices' comments, if he was not alluding to something just as this. He said some things that left people a bit confused, I am going to see if I can dig that up. I do seem to recall something about individual states and fighting back, somehow. My memory, sometimes, however, is not what it used to be!

Thanks again for the reply!




ETA:

Wow, indeed it was our very own Affordable Healthcare Sebelious. I had to go look that one up first, then off to check out Roberts' decision!

Check this:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

From the ETA link in my post above:

Text A majority of the justices,
including Chief Justice Roberts, agreed that the
individual mandate was not a proper use of
Congress's Commerce Clause or Necessary and
Proper Clause powers, but they did not join in a single
opinion. A majority of the justices also agreed that
another challenged provision of the Act, a significant
expansion of Medicaid, was not a valid exercise of
Congress's spending power, as it would coerce states
to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing
Medicaid funding.

Text Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Breyer
and Kagan, would have ruled that the Medicaid
expansion could survive, but that states must be
given the right to opt out of the expansion without

So lets see. Did Mississippi opt out?

www.advisory.com...

Though the map is out of date, they indeed did, along with all but 18 states.

Mississippi*: Gov. Phil Bryant (R) on Nov. 7 said Mississippi will
not participate in the Medicaid expansion, reiterating previous
statements that he had made about the ACA provision (Pender/Hall, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 11/7

OK, this crap is getting old. Not one of these "bills" from any state will EVER survive a Supreme Court challenge. Not one. It's the worst kind of political posturing by state officials pandering to their base and wasting their constituents time and tax money, rather than accomplishing anything.

No state will EVER successfully institute any law that simply nullifies Federal law. [snip]

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Since other states have passed mj laws, the Feds have been strangy silent.

But, this thread isn't about that, is it? I would rather not get the thread closed for discussing banned topics, but nice try. Lets stick to the topic, ok?

After reading up on Roberts' decision, I am not altogether convinced that a challenge to the Suoremes would be in the Feds favor. Seems Roberts was quite clear, and quite clever, in his decision. He placed rather strict limitations on Congress with his decision on the ACA.

Not to mention the 10th and 2nd amendments are pretty clear, as well. However, I still don't find your banned topic in the Constitution. Perhaps when that challenge goes to the SC, we can chat again. Till then, this is about guns and now, healthcare.

Interestingly enough.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
OK, this crap is getting old. Not one of these "bills" from any state will EVER survive a Supreme Court challenge. Not one. It's the worst kind of political posturing by state officials pandering to their base and wasting their constituents time and tax money, rather than accomplishing anything.

No state will EVER successfully institute any law that simply nullifies Federal law. [snip]

edit on 25-1-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)

What if 2/3 rds do?

Methinks we are brewing a constitutional amendment or two here in the near future and it aint going to favor Obama.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


You'd have to first establish that the federal law was unconstitutional. Meaning that these state laws trying to nullify federal law are pointless. Completely and utterly pointless.

As a Texan I know between ourselves Mississippi and Wyoming
we have about 7 teeth. Screw Obama, let's let them all fall out.
Along with our kidneys and pancreas.
It's our right.

I like the poster above, was also born, and raised in Mississippi. I could care less what people say about our state. We might have poor education but we sure don't have half of the problems, violence being the main one, that most other states have. So once again Mississippi proves that an armed society is a polite one. I would also bet, that you will never meet a more friendly place than this state.