States' Rights advocates on a roll these days

@joefromchicago,

Joefromchicago wrote:

Nope, I'm with Thomas on this one: there's no reasonable argument to be made in favor of these efforts at "nullification."

Thanks for the keyword "nullification". Perhaps one thing that takes some interest in American law to know is that ignoring federal law under the 10th amendment isn't a new idea. It's a very old idea, whose chief champion was a constitutional lawyer named John C. Calhoun (1782-1850). He argued, reasonably at the time, that the United States are a compact of sovereign states, rather than a sovereign state in its own right. Consequently, he concluded that if the US government enacted legislation a state didn't like, the state could ignore it. This argument is what your keyword "nullification" sums up.

So In Calhoun's time, Setanta would have had a point when he said that such nullification "is however, a subject for reasonable judicial debate". But Calhoun had already lost the debate when he died in 1850; even if he hadn't, the Civil War would have killed it 'till it died.

The Tenth Amendment champions aren't raising a new issue of constitutional law. They are beating a horse that had been dead for over 150 years. At best they can resurrect it as a zombie, but even that remains to be seen.

2 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

It kind of looks like we are trying to have it both ways. Force Illinois to accept federal firearms law, while trying to keep the federal governments grimy paws out of South Dakota, Montana, and Utah. I have trouble arguing both ways. At the same time, I mean.

I attempted to say the same thing you did, roger, when I mentioned the current Supreme Court case involving the City of Chicago. I wonder if local governments have any independent powers left. It does seem that those advocating gun ownership rights are using the same legal approach as those who fought for abortion rights.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

So while i bow to the authority of Joe's opinion in a matter such as this (as opposed to yours), i still don't think you've made a case for the vacuous cupidity of the editorial policies of the Times.

It's a free country. Think away!

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

It does seem that those advocating gun ownership rights are using the same legal approach as those who fought for abortion rights.

It does seem that way; and they are.

What's even funnier is that they both disagree with each other. Gun rights people generally don't like abortion rights and vice versa.

Personally, I for both gun rights and abortion rights, but I don't think I'm in the norm here.

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.

I think quite a few states have done something similar -- either proposed or have already passed some type of legislation. I don't have an exact count, but I think it's a majority ... somewhere around 34 or 36 states?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

The Tenth Amendment champions aren't raising a new issue of constitutional law. They are beating a horse that had been dead for over 150 years. At best they can resurrect it as a zombie, but even that remains to be seen.

NO Kidding!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I only been saying that for the last dozen posts beginning with my example of President Jackson issue with South Caroline in 1832.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

So we agree. What's the problem?

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Quote:

I think quite a few states have done something similar -- either proposed or have already passed some type of legislation. I don't have an exact count, but I think it's a majority ... somewhere around 34 or 36 states?

That's funny Irishk...

Did you know 34-36 states have proposed or passed legislation to make prostitution legal. (Of course it was defeated or not even voted on in every state but one but claiming so many proposed it makes it seem so weighty.)

0 Replies

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform

BOISE, Idaho " Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

...

2 Replies

@Thomas,

While i'm thinking away, i'll continue to think that your argument for the use of the militia (National Guard) is as vacuous as you apparently consider the editorial policy of the Times. While acknowledging that the states probably can't sustain are argument for pulling their NGs out of a foreign war, your claim about enforcing the law doesn't cut it. The Congress did not pass legislation requiring the invasion of Iraq, nor specifying any operational policy, nor specifying how staffing needs would be met--they simply passed a resolution to give the President war powers. So i see no merit in your claim about a justification for using the National Guard.

For an interesting view on this issue, i suggest that you investigate the declaration by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1970 that citizens of that state could not be forced to serve overseas in any conflict which were not a war as declared by Congress. That action, as much as anything else, lead to the passage of the war powers act under which Mr. Bush requested authority from the Congress.

[url=anthonydamato.law.northwestern.edu/Adobefiles/A70c-Mass.pdf]Here is a pdf document from Anthony Damato of the law school of Northwestern Univesity[/url] on the subject of Massachusetts' legislation and the hearing in Federal Courts.

Certainly, your argument that Congress has the power to call out the militia to enforce laws, and therefore can send them overseas, sounds very dubious, especially with regard to the war powers act. This would be one of the most interesting arguments to arise out of attempts to enforce states' rights.

0 Replies

In that last post, that should have read "to execute the laws"--since Thomas seems to think that nitpicking that word is important.

The link (obviously) doesn't work--however, i used the very simple search criterion "massachussetts+vietnam war" and that document was on the first page of the google results.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

Idaho first to sign law against health care reform....

Virginia looks like it will be the second, and 35 other states have introduced similar bills in their legislatures. If this idiotic legislation does get 216 yes votes in the House, can't the process itself be tied up forever in the courts - not sure who has standing to sue there, however. Far as the states: do they have to wait for the process issue to be decided by the courts first, or can they pursue litigation barring any more unfunded federal mandates?

Quote:

"We never gave Washington the power to force us to buy any products of any kind," Del. Charles Poindexter told Richmond's CBS News affiliate. "Insurance is a product. They're saying I have to buy insurance...."

3 Replies

@Irishk,

That's such a laugh because forcing citizens to buy health insurance is what in MA is known as Romneycare, the product of a Republican governor! Jeez! The people who ought to, by political allegiance to the Republican party heartily endorse this measure, are dissing it!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Which just goes to show that the insurance industry has more power than Congress and is the fourth branch of government. I attended a talk by Representative John Conyers about 13 months ago and everyone there wanted single payer.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

... I attended a talk by Representative John Conyers about 13 months ago and everyone there wanted single payer.

And you imagine that attendees at any meeting organized by Rep. Conyers qualify as a random sample of the US population? Or, more likely, you follow his judicial views that every medical or legal bill should be at the public's charge, including his own wife's who just got sentenced to 3 years in prison?!

http://media.washingtonexaminer.com/images/250*157/op.conyers.0312.jpg

Quote:

[Conyers] says she can't afford a lawyer...despite the fact that her husband " who is the second-longest serving current member of the U.S. House of Representatives " makes $174,000 a year....The court said that Monica Conyers provided information that established her inability to pay for a lawyer....

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Rep-Conyers-wont-help-his-wife-pay-for-a-lawyer-88152417.html#ixzz0iWxdBwyh

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Man, that's pretty messed up of him.

He makes enough to hire the best of lawyers.....and sticks his wife with a PD. I'd think that'd be grounds for divorce (not that accepting bribes, etc isn't either)

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Virginia looks like it will be the second, and 35 other states have introduced similar bills in their legislatures.

Hope and Change.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

can't the process itself be tied up forever in the courts - not sure who has standing to sue there, however. Far as the states: do they have to wait for the process issue to be decided by the courts first, or can they pursue litigation barring any more unfunded federal mandates?

Lord let spell this out one more time no laws pass by the states have the power to nullify Federal Laws in any manner.

This is settle law since before the civil war and the first judge who would hear such a law at the Federal or the state level will throw it out and it is highly unlikely that any other level would entertain an appeal so there will be no tying up forever in the courts systems.

Passing such laws are an act of political theater and nothing else.

0 Replies

@Irishk,

Irishk wrote:

High Seas wrote:
Virginia looks like it will be the second, and 35 other states have introduced similar bills in their legislatures.

Hope and Change.

State legislators can introduce any bill that they want to. Most states have introduced some bill to allow creationism to be taught alongside evolution. Only 2 states actually signed such bills into law.

Proposed legislation means very little. Many bills die in state legislature committees without ever being voted on.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Well, what about members of Congress saying that Americans do not want the public option while setting up their email accounts to screen out everyone outside of their district? Or, perhaps, the Tea Totalitarians screaming that they know what America wants when there has been ample evidence that there are deep fissures within that 'group.'

0 Replies

States' Rights advocates on a roll these days

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know