Arizona loves the Constitution so much....

Real Americans do love the Constitution, what do Obamazombies think about the Constitution?

As long as there are two brains in every pot, HURAY!!

We settle that argument both first in the courts and the battlefield a hundred and fifty years ago.

The far right seem not to know a bit of history and what little they claimed to know happen to be false.

"Meh, it's been done before."

They're not talking about nullifying the constitution, fool, just particular pieces of left-wing insanity (like "Obungacare") which happen to get through congress during periods of weakness or whatever.

Nullification (U.S. Constitution)From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nullification is a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the Federal Bench are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. A more extreme assertion of state sovereignty than nullification is the related action of secession, by which a state terminates its political affiliation with the Union.

State efforts to nullify federal law have not been legally upheld. The courts have held that the states do not have the power to nullify federal law. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and federal law therefore trumps state law in the event of a conflict. The courts have found that the Constitution, by granting final appellate power to the Supreme Court in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, empowers the federal courts (not the states) to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal and state laws. The Supreme Court has rejected the compact theory that underlies the idea of nullification.

One of the earliest and most famous examples of attempted nullification is to be found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. In these resolutions, authors Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that "the states" are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution and can "interpose" to protect state citizens from the operation of unconstitutional national laws. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were not accepted by any of the other states. The power of "the states" is distinct from the power of a single state. James Madison clearly denounced the concept of nullification by a single state, as unconstitutional, in his writings. [1] [2] [3] James Madison eloquently wrote, "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined." [4]

While some interests in northern states occasionally considered the possibility of nullification or secession after Jefferson's party gained control of the federal government in the years after 1801, for example at the Hartford Convention, the idea of nullification increasingly became associated with matters pertaining to slavery. The most famous statement of the theory of nullification, authored by John C. Calhoun, appeared in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. Four years later, during the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina undertook to nullify a federal tariff law and a subsequent federal bill authorizing the use of force against the state. President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary. James Madison, author of the Virginia Resolution, also weighed in at this time, stating that the Virginia Resolution should not be interpreted to mean that each state has the right to nullify federal law. The issue was made moot by a enactment of compromise tariff bill.

Northern states in the 1840s and 1850s attempted to block enforcement of the pro-slavery federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. The most famous examples of this centered around northern states' personal liberty laws. These personal liberty laws had the practical effect, in many local situations, of nullifying the effectiveness of the federal fugitive slave statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), finding that the Fugitive Slave Act was authorized by the Constitution's fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2). The Court found that Pennsylvania's personal liberty law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the fugitive slave clause. The Court thus rejected Pennsylvania's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of northern abrogation of the federal fugitive slave statutes in the case of Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859). The courts of Wisconsin had held the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and had ordered the release of a prisoner who was prosecuted in federal district court for violation of the Act. The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify federal law or to prevent federal officials from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The Court held that in adopting the Supremacy Clause, the people had made federal law superior to state law and had provided that in the event of a conflict, federal law would control. Further, the Court found that the people had delegated the judicial power, including final appellate authority, to the federal courts with respect to cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the people had given the federal courts final authority to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes. Accordingly, the Court held that the Wisconsin court did not have the power to declare unconstitutional statutes that had been upheld by the federal courts or to interfere with federal enforcement of those statutes.

Nullification and the related doctrine of interposition resurfaced in the 1950s in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which decided that segregated schools were illegal. At least ten southern states passed various measures preserving segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision. The advocates of these measures argued that the Brown decision was unconstitutional and that the states had the inherent power to prevent that decision from being enforced within their borders. However, the Supreme Court rejected this idea in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), finding that the state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal court rulings are ineffective.

[edit] External links2010 State-by-State Nullification Efforts
South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832
Nullification Revisited, An article examining the constitutionality of nullification (from a favorable aspect, and with regard to both recent and historical events)
Nullification Overview, A research paper examining nullification bluntly (from a student perspective, and keeping other events in mind.)
Know Your States' Rights, Review of historian Thomas Woods' book on the subject in the American Conservative
[edit] References^ Madison, James "Letter to Mathew Carey", Library of Congress, July 27, 1831.
^ Madison, James "Letter to Nicholas P. Trist", Library of Congress, December, 1831.
^ Madison, James "Letter to Nicholas P. Trist", Library of Congress, December 23, 1832.
^ Madison, James "Notes, On Nullification", Library of Congress, December, 1834.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)"
Categories: United States Constitution | Legal history of the United States
Hidden categories: Articles needing additional references from December 2008 | All articles needing additional references | Articles that may contain original research from January 2009 | All articles that may contain original research
Personal toolsLog in / create account NamespacesArticle Discussion VariantsViewsRead Edit View history ActionsSearch NavigationMain page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia InteractionHelp About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia ToolboxWhat links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Cite this page Print/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesDeutsch This page was last modified on 6 March 2011 at 22:21.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non

Arizona Group Pushes County Secession, Creation of New State
Frustrated Pima County Democrats Want Referendum on Baja Arizona as 51st State

SpaceNewsvineRedditDeliciousMixxYahooSome liberal residents of Pima County, Arizona, have become so dissatisfied with their state's conservative politics that they've begun a campaign to help the county secede from Arizona and become a state on its own.


Pima County, in the southwest part of the state including the city of Tucson, is home to roughly 1 million people and is more politically moderate than neighboring Maricopa County to the north, which includes the state capital of Phoenix.

"Like Maine, which broke off from Massachusetts, we want to get the legislature to let us leave," Eckerstrom said, "and then we can petition Congress to accept us as a state."

The odds of that happening are extremely long -- a point Eckerstrom and his fellow lawyer, Peter Hormel, concede.

Still, they say theirs is a serious effort at an idea that for decades has been nothing more than "Baja-ha."

"Nobody ever thought about how we do this legally. And we did," said Eckerstrom. "And given our extreme frustration with what's happening in Phoenix, this path started to make more and more sense."

The movement, which has more than 2,300 supporters on Facebook, taps into deep-seated frustration with a slew of recent legislation passed by the Republican-led state legislature. Arizona has cut organ transplant coverage for Medicaid recipients, and required police to check the immigration status of people if they have "reasonable suspicion."

The recent passage of a Senate bill that would allow Arizona to "nullify," or ignore, any federal law a panel of lawmakers deemed unconstitutional was the last straw, Eckerstrom said.

"All of this is extremist legislation, and some is reminiscent of nullification bills leading to the Civil War," he said. "We don't want to be part of that."

My my two people do not seem to like the Constitution of the US and the courts rulings under that Constitution with their votes down of the posting of the Wikipedia article on Nullification.

Kind of tell you how loyal the far rights wingers happen to be to this country.

Left wing loons are plentiful here...

H20 I would state that the right wings loons wish to go back to the Articles of Confederation but for the most part they are so lacking in knowledge of the country they claim to love such a comment would be beyond them.

Bill, your incorrect statement has been noted

I look up the state senator who was behind this nonsense to see if he had a law degree or not and therefore should had known better.

He have an interesting history but no law degree so perhaps he is an honest fool instead of being a dishonest fool.

However anyone who voted for this law that does hold a law degree is beyond question is being dishonest and just playing to the mouth breathers in the state of Arizona.

DredDad I can only wonder what the right wingers think they are gaining by voting down a wikipedia article on nullification in this thread.

It currently have the most votes downs and as it just give the state of the law and history of nullification so that seem sense free for even mouth breathing right wingers.

I didn't work out very well for 'em, either.

Sovereign states.... that's a laugh.

Texas was sovereign. Hawaii was sovereign. Vermont was sovereign. And maybe California maybe was sovereign.

Arizona became a state 52 years after it was a very settle matter that states nullification of federal laws was not allow under the Constitution .

Did the founding fathers of Arizona have their fingers cross behind their backs when they promise to obey the Constitution when they became a state?

Or for your parents.

All loons have a left wing and a right wing. Otherwise they couldn't fly.