"States' Rights": Does a state have the "right" to nullify a federal law ?

In reference to: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x525375

Just like how the Commerce Clause doesn't permit modest regulation on the health insurance industry, but it DOES permit kicking down doors to drag pot smoking cancer grannies off to prison.

I would dare say you won't find many of those who push the concept of nullification to be in favor of the federal government having any say on issue one way or the other in regards to pot. This tends to come from the libertarian side of the RW.

I think the folks pushing for Nullification are the Theocrats, Racists, and flat-out crazies.

depends on if you think Thomas Jefferson had any clue as to the meaning of the Constitution since he is the one who established the basis for the Nullification Doctrine using the 10th amendment.

And the pro-nullification forces lost badly on the battlefield in 1861-65.

military battles don't change legality they enforce policy which may or may not adhere to legality. Two very different things. Changing legality requires actually going through the process to change the law or in some cases the Constitution itself.

n/t.

That's what the government, particularly the Judicial wing of the government, is for.

on if you believe Jefferson knew anything about the Constitution. He was very clear that the government was not to interpret the Constitution that was the job of the States. Keep in mind, that the SC gave itself that power.

As much as I respect the man and his contributions to the founding of this country, the fact remains that nullification is neither practical nor precedented in the United States of 2011.

and I think most of us here would agree with that. Unprecedented, well we wouldn't be having this discussion if that was the case.

So here's the million dollar question, do we simply deny the states the option potentially ignoring the rules as written or do we go through the agreed upon process of changing the rules to do away with the option once and for all?

Seriously, look at all the historical moments when the phrase "state rights" was brought up.

Segregation, slavery, homophobia, anti-health care, anti-welfare, etc...

There is a very good reason why federal supremacy exists.

if that argument holds up during the founding of the nation.


The problem with putting aside states rights purely to forward political objectives such as health-care, is that it makes those who do not favor the position wonder why they are part of the union in the first place if the union is going to toss aside its limitations to enforce a desired political ideal. The reality is that colonies were very forward that in the face of a Hamiltonian style federal government several of them wanted nothing to do with the union. What we ended up with was a negotiated difference that was more in line with the Jeffersonian vision of the federal government.

Now we rally against a particular governor for not adhering to the negotiated contracts, are so much better when we put aside the negotiated agreement made by the states for the sake of forwarding our ideals? Shouldn't we instead find a way to convince them to change the negotiated agreement?

With that said, this logic applies to political issues such as health care and welfare because like it or not the Constitution is a list of negative rights not positive liberties. However, when it comes to ending slavery and segregation then I think the nobility of the issue comes into play. Redistribution is one thing, oppression is something all together different.

This isn't to say that we can't push for our ideals, just that we have to tread carefully.

It was called the Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. That's why they wrote and ratified the Constitution.

Note the original ratification procedure written into the Constitution. It did not require unanimity of ratification, but it was implicit that if 9 states (IIRC) ratified it, all states were in. ;)

Emphasis added by me.

It took 9 states to bring the union into existence but that did not establish a requirement of participation on the other colonies. They considered accomplishing the transition by amending the AoC instead of writing a new Constitution but they realized that the differences were so significant that an update from one to the other was not going to work. Instead they had to end the previous and restart with a whole new agreement. A key provision for example that created this need was that the AoC was a union that did not allow secession, to achieve such an agreement each state was given effective veto power of any change to the agreement. Thus only changes that were universally acceptable could be accomplished. To be workable they had to get rid of the veto power, but the member states were only willing to so do by removing the component that disallowed session. Which is why the federal government is not granted power involving secession as it was viewed at the time as a power reserved by each state. These types of interchanging relationships of one issue effecting another existed throughout the AoC so they realized that to move away from it to gain a more significant degree of cooperation necessary to continue protecting themselves from foreign powers would require a complete rewrite, thus is born the US Constitution.

It was an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment), there is a difference.

Powers not granted to congress in the constitution are reserved to the states.

But the real answer is almost always "no".

However, a state does not have the right to nullify any provision of the Constitution, Bill of Rights (if incorporated), or additional amendments.

As an example... states should have the right to set their own speed limits and safety requirements (seat belts, helmet laws, etc), and not face the prospect of "federal blackmail" (you'll lose your federal funding if you do not comply).

The "Commerce clause", is easily the most abused, and interpreted to suit ones agenda provision of the Constitution.

Read Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, it does not just cover the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it covers all Federal law.

yes or no?

overstepping?

and case law

Didn't you northern guys win that one?

But that ain't gonna stop Perry and others.

My fear is some of these guys WANT a civil war... and they think it is a glorious thing.

Federal law say pot is illegal. Many states are not passing medical pot laws. This creates a quasi position for drug laws, where state says the drug can be had legally and federal law says it can't. State law enforcement officers tend to ignore enforcement of federal laws (hence they don't regularly round up illegal immigrants) and instead wait and let federal law enforcement officers enforce federal laws. This in turn creates a tough mesh mash for you the average citizen to know if what you are doing is legal or not. You even have some states passing voter ID laws that seem very Jim Crowisk. So when it comes to the battle of states and federal government you will have some situations where state and federal law disagree and no clear ruling/ or enforcement exists. The civil war was result somewhat of this, but by no means solved or ended this.

supremacy clause.

By the way.. I am all for legalizing pot not just at a state level but the federal level. The war on drugs has been an utter failure.

same state has the military force sufficient to secure its right. Just like a state has the right to secede . . .

...and I do believe the question was settled.

States have powers (reserved powers).
Federal government has powers (enumerated powers).

The Constitution makes certain powers illegal.

People have rights.

.

of scrapping the unworkable Articles of Confederacy and adopting the Constitution? After all, the people pushing for these measures *claim* to be experts when it comes to understanding the Constitution, right? :eyes:

The Constitution. Have you read it?

Idiotic meme that it is.