23 States now have complete Republican control

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well, I've heard around here that advocating for trampling the Constitution is treason, and acts of treason create traitors.

US Constitution Article 6 Clause 2:

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.

The Founders did not mince words, there is nothing left to interpretation, if you support "nullification" you're advocating the dismissal of the Constitution, pure, simple, clearly and obviously.



Truth be told, your suspicions are important only to one person, yourself. Your personal feelings about me are immaterial.

But, since you brought it up, on a personal note, I am stating for an undeniable fact that I am very ENTHUSIASTIC about what the Republicans are going to do, for the record.

I look forward to Impeachment, ACA repeal, and the attempted gutting of Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid for starters.

And who knows after that really ... maybe live action exorcisms on the Senate floor via C-SPAN?

Maybe a Prayer Breakfast held to balance the budget?

The possibilities are endless; dang right I'm excited!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The American people? Riiight. You know as well as I do that neither the Republicans (nor the Democrats) have been elected by "the People." A third of the registered voters voted, and a little more than half of those voted Republican. Care to do that math?

Which is the equivalent of voting 'present' or abstaining during a vote in either chambers of Congress. The people who did not vote also made a de facto impact on the political landscape. Two thirds of the people said, whether right or wrong, 'you handle this for me' and now are just as responsible for their inaction as those who took action.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The American people? Riiight. You know as well as I do that neither the Republicans (nor the Democrats) have been elected by "the People." A third of the registered voters voted, and a little more than half of those voted Republican. Care to do that math?

Which is the equivalent of voting 'present' or abstaining during a vote in either chambers of Congress. The people who did not vote also made a de facto impact on the political landscape. Two thirds of the people said, whether right or wrong, 'you handle this for me' and now are just as responsible for their inaction as those who took action.

According to whom? Where does it say in the Constitution or any other document that if someone doesn't vote they are ceding their rights as Americans?

By this logic then, votes for slavery and segregation in the historic South made those concepts "okay"?

A majority of the legislators elected by the voters that voted in 2008 created and passed the ACA ... so that's "okay" as well?

Claiming that if Americans don't vote they don't have any say in anything that happens thereafter is merely a blatantly weak attempt to further suppress free expression.

PFfft.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
According to whom? Where does it say in the Constitution or any other document that if someone doesn't vote they are ceding their rights as Americans?

Who mentioned ceding any rights? I simply stated they are just as responsible for helping to create the political landscape in which they currently reside. A non-vote cannot nullify a vote made by a person the non-voter disagrees with.

Claiming that if Americans don't vote they don't have any say in anything that happens thereafter is merely a blatantly weak attempt to further suppress free expression.

I did not say that. I said they actually had a say by not voting, they have impacted the political results by abstaining.

originally posted by: AgentShillington
a reply to: beezzer

A great thing about Republicans controlling everything is that I don't have to hear about how the government is going to take away all the guns now.

your right....the mentally insane, and the criminal fresh out of prison, will get to buy and keep their guns

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your 'position' on this seems an act of desperation.

It isn't a violation of the Constitution if the law is in itself unconstitutional. You keep ignoring that point.

That is decided, when it comes to Nullification of a law be each state. Obviously, they consider it legal.

That is why Obama and Co. have done nothing to counter it. (Perhaps they know it righteous?)

Both parties have violated the Constitution. Sometimes jointly.

Obama has raised the bar. The people are fed up. Many see no difference between the two, hence voter apathy.( self-disqualification)

By the way, attempted impeachment isn't 'traitorous'. Impeachment wouldn't fly without Democrats joining the process.

An E.O. granting amnesty to millions, which contradicts existing law, will get an impeachment vote with Democrat support.

Fear....

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Of course you didn't say that. He knows it, but puts his spin on the subject. ( I suspect he didn't consider nullification as a possible by-pass of the coming gridlock.)

Treason/traitorous acts and other such labels are the spoils of the victors. They decide who is traitorous, who is patriotic.

Frankly, nullification may give the states an option that gives both political parties the middle finger salute.

all you people that now work in government on the lower end, you better start looking for another job. expect to see your benefits cut, wages cut, layoffs, and firings. all you wealthy people of that state, your personal taxes will be cut, and expect to get breaks on starting up a business by not paying any fees or business taxes to the city your in....what a great republican country...YEEHAH!!!!

tell me something...do any of you really expect to see republicans in the states they control, work on raising wages and the standard of living for the middle class??...

a reply to: jimmyx

So criminals that have served their time do not deserve to have their rights back?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I asked a question in the first case, I didn't make a statement. Thanks for your answer.

Your comments leave out the effect of voter intention. When a political party wins, they claim the "mandate of the people."

That's patently untrue. They have a mandate of the people that voted for them only.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: jimmyx

So criminals that have served their time do not deserve to have their rights back?

Are you so naive to think that serving time actually rehabilitates criminals? Prisons are grad schools for criminals.

Your credibility just evaporated!!!

a reply to: olaru12

LMAO. Too funny. Too true.

a reply to: olaru12

So then we should just execute them no trial just bam?

a reply to: Gryphon66

They have the mandate of the people who voted only. That's all that is required.

Marginalizing that changes nothing.

It's done. Get over it...

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: olaru12

So then we should just execute them no trial just bam?

Now you are reaching for straws with stupid hyperbole. The American justice system is broken...Now what is the GOP going to do about it now that they have the power? More private prisons? That should work

If you want to debate fine....all I ask is to keep it on an adult level.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Why on earth is it desperate? I have stated what the Constitution actually says, as opposed to anything you have said.

If the law is unconstitutional it is found so by SCOTUS, not by decision of some yahoo state legislature.

That, by the by, is also in the Constitution; you really should read it sometime. Excellent document.

You're just whistling Dixie on nullification and you know it.

The fact is that the faulty concept of "nullification" has been SPECIFICALLY considered AND denied multiple times by State, Federal and the Supreme Court: see Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809). (Justia Supreme Court)

Regardless of that, let's go with it Trucker ... which States have used "nullification" on Federal law?

Go ahead; thrill us with your acumen. Which States have "nullified" anything since the 1860s?

"Righteous?" Are you KIDDING? You think that trampling the laws of the United States and the Constitution is RIGHTEOUS?

Yada, yada, yada "both sides do it" etc. etc. What a yawner! Even if both sides do it, are you saying that you are personally advocating to ignore the Constitution here? Willing to go on the record with that?

Talk about putting words in someone' mouth and spinning their claims ... please show me where I have stated that Impeachment is "traitorous" ... please. Quote me.

When did the President issue the EO in question, granting amnesty to millions? What, he didn't? So you're getting all wound up about something that hasn't happened?

Yeah, someone's "afraid" here, but it's not me. LOL

Or are you shivering because you're so far out in the cold on these issues?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's patently untrue. They have a mandate of the people that voted for them only.

And the non-voters influenced that election result as well. If three people live in a town and one votes you only had a third of the electorate voting but all three had an impact of the results. Voter apathy, as translated to abstention, does not minimize their influence. 100% of the electorate determines the results 100% of the time.

I understand what you are saying and while it is not a mandate of overall citizens able to vote those non-voters are as equally responsible for the outcome.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Right, so the winners take it all?

Glad to see you weigh in on what you think of the American people. So, individual rights mean nothing, individuals rights to expression? Having opinions counter to yours?

Get over yourself, Trucker. You're doing your faulty best to try to shut down discussion, for what reason I have no idea.

If you don't want to talk about the issues, go watch tv or something. Don't try to enforce your will on others.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That's patently untrue. They have a mandate of the people that voted for them only.

And the non-voters influenced that election result as well. If three people live in a town and one votes you only had a third of the electorate voting but all three had an impact of the results. Voter apathy, as translated to abstention, does not minimize their influence. 100% of the electorate determines the results 100% of the time.

I understand what you are saying and while it is not a mandate of overall citizens able to vote those non-voters are as equally responsible for the outcome.

Yes, but about 30% of the electorate voted in Tuesday's election. Those are the only voters who expressed their opinion or their will, and about 48% of those voters did NOT vote for this outcome.

Yes, the winner takes it all, but those winners do not have the "mandate of the people" ... in this case, they have about 17% of the people who support them.

A non-vote is not a vote for the winner; that's just preposterous. Talk about "spin."

That's like claiming that if someone "does nothing" to stop a robbery, that they actually robbed the store, even if they weren't there.

What kind of logic is that?

a reply to: jimmyx

It's already illegal to sell guns to felons.

The 'insane' are already on Federal watch lists. ( That includes vets who are on 'disability' due to PTSD. They lose their benefits if they don't take the psych drugs prescribed to them.)

Have a psych history? You can't even get a Haz-Mat endorsement as a trucker.

These points are already covered. More legislation is aimed at the rest of us and the ultimate goal of disarming the population.