Nullification Movement Grows Among the Several States

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

As I've written about multiple times in the past, state nullification is a powerful tool that sends an unmistakable message to arrogant Washington politicians---despite the supremacy clause.

 

In my view, the supremacy clause is NOT an infallibility clause behind which an out of control federal govenment can arrogantly impose their dictates that run counter to the Tenth Amendment! When circumstances demand, I support such action as did one Thomas Jefferson.

 

~ Colonel Dan ~

 

=================================

 

Federal nullification efforts mounting in states

 

By DAVID A. LIEB

 

Associated Press

 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Imagine the scenario: A federal agent attempts to arrest someone for illegally selling a machine gun. Instead, the federal agent is arrested - charged in a state court with the crime of enforcing federal gun laws. Farfetched? Not as much as you might think.

 

The scenario would become conceivable if legislation passed by Missouri's Republican-led Legislature is signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon.

 

The Missouri legislation is perhaps the most extreme example of a states' rights movement that has been spreading across the nation. States are increasingly adopting laws that purport to nullify federal laws - setting up intentional legal

conflicts, directing local police not to enforce federal laws and, in rare cases, even threatening criminal charges for federal agents who dare to do their jobs.

 

An Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Badlands Beady]

Nullification does not have a very honorable history. Its use in this country has generally been on behalf of the right of one group to oppress another, and on at least one occassion has led directly to several hundred-thousand deaths. I look askance at people who would claim circumstances demand it.

 

Thinking about it, there are other aspects to the question. For example, gun owners like to talk about slippery slopes; let's talk about genies and bottles. After the states have nullified federal gun control measures, what is to stop them from figuring they can nullify federal rulings on, say, clean water and air regulation, occupational safety measures, school desegregation rulings and such? Where will it stop? If states can nullify federal laws, can counties nullify state laws? Can cities and towns nullify county rulings? Can individuals or social groups nullify government rulings and laws "if circumstances warrant"? Talk about slippery slopes and not being able to stuff the genie back into the bottle! Be careful what you wish for, Colonel, you just might get it.

[Blackwater 53393]

Nullification is a grass roots response to government overreach! There HAVE been occasions where it was not the best response to that overreach. Those instances were generally corrected quickly by the people.

 

It should be noted that each time that nullification has occured, it was in response to elected officials who didn't, or refused to, represent the people they were elected to serve!!!!!

[Badlands Beady]

 

It should be noted that each time that nullification has occured, it was in response to elected officials who didn't, or refused to, represent the people they were elected to serve!!!!!

Like when several states didn't want to desegregate, back in the 50s and 60s, and it took federal troops to make it happen. Like in the 1860s, when several states didn't want to give up their slaves and it took federal troops to make it happen.

 

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Lets take nullification back a step and look at the constitution. Some of the examples you suggest BB, are currently outline in our constitution. The nullification proposed around firearms is in concert with 2A. Segregation laws being nullified would not be in concert with our constitution. Nullification laws, most definitly push back on overreach. I think the feds need to be put back in their box for sure.

[Utah Bob #35998]

As I've said before, my concern right now is with the state houses imposing Draconian legislation that chips away at the 2nd Amendment. The Feds won't have to lift a finger if the trend continues. Stay alert!

[pinto pat]

Missouri has ideas that other states would not even consider.The news programs have talked about a bill possibly being put through the legislature to allow teachers who want to be traned to cary guns in schools to protect the children if a nut comes in .I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN .Missouri also excepts cary permits from all states.

[Blackwater 53393]

  Like when several states didn't want to desegregate, back in the 50s and 60s, and it took federal troops to make it happen. Like in the 1860s, when several states didn't want to give up their slaves and it took federal troops to make it happen.

 

Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

 

By failing to present my complete post when quoting, you leave out the part of my comment that acknowledges the only point you seem to want to make! Taking things out of context is what those who lean to the liberal side seem to do very well. And YES before you go off on that tangent as well, both sides do it! Other nullifications that corrected government overreach are ALSO a part of history. By ignoring them or not acknowledging them, don't you chose to not learn from history as well?

 

And just because the government chooses to send in federal troops does NOT make the cause exempt from examination!!!

 

Missouri has ideas that other states would not even consider.The news programs have talked about a bill possibly being put through the legislature to allow teachers who want to be traned to cary guns in schools to protect the children if a nut comes in .I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN .Missouri also excepts cary permits from all states.

 

Tennessee has also passed a bill allowing teachers and administrators to carry in schools with the proper training and permits. YES! It's a good idea!!

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

The war that started in 1860 was about exactly what's going on now. The Fed's imposing there rules/laws/legislation on the States. And the States seeing themselves as independent governments not willing to continue to be "ruled" by the Fed's. States rights vs. Federal mandates. Slavery was one of the issues among many that caused the States to secede, but not the only one. There were also a number of "northern" States with Slavery that didn't want to give it up.

 

Without sending in troops the Fed's get their way when they stop sending Federal funds to the States. As in Highway funds etc. Of course the money came from the States in the first place through Income Taxes. So they are keeping our own money from us!

Ike

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

So true with regard to taxes. However, I have seen PA refuse federal money. It was in support of Obamacare. So, the onus is on the Feds now to build an exchange and it isnt working well for them.

[Badlands Beady]

 

As I've said before, my concern right now is with the state houses imposing Draconian legislation that chips away at the 2nd Amendment. The Feds won't have to lift a finger if the trend continues. Stay alert!

What bothers me with nullification is that not only can these things can take on a life of their own, nullification will probably be a distraction. The issue will mostly be fought out in the courts, since it is the state pro-gun control measures which will predominate. Federal measures will be comparatively few, and nullification will be correspondingly irrelevant to where the main battles are to be fought.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

The Obama adminsitration and others opted to wage a battle on multiple fronts. This is one front. Is it a distraction? Yes and no. It is a point of attack that the left will have to address. So, their respources must be spent here as well. These types of state level legislative actions must continue.

[Smoken D]

Missouri has ideas that other states would not even consider.The news programs have talked about a bill possibly being put through the legislature to allow teachers who want to be traned to cary guns in schools to protect the children if a nut comes in .I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA IF IT WERE TO HAPPEN .Missouri also excepts cary permits from all states.

The decision on this idea has already gone to individual school districts. These great teachers/staff have already gone through a VERY REGIOUS training program that even the 20 year old staff members were put through the ringer. This fall my school district has teacher/staff armed. A new sign will go up for entrance to school property indicating no firearms except those authorized!

[Badlands Beady]

 

The Obama adminsitration and others opted to wage a battle on multiple fronts. This is one front. Is it a distraction? Yes and no. It is a point of attack that the left will have to address. So, their respources must be spent here as well. These types of state level legislative actions must continue.

When you talk "nullification," you're talking about a principle that is not confined to just 2A. If the red states can nullify Federal gun rules, then they can nullify this session's SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage; if they can nullify gun and gay marriage rules, then they can nullify anything else they want. If the red states can nullify any law or ruling they want to, then so can the blue states. If all the states are able to nullify any rule or law they want, what good is the Constitution? If the Constitution isn't any good, do we have a nation?

[Blackwater 53393]

 

When you talk "nullification," you're talking about a principle that is not confined to just 2A. If the red states can nullify Federal gun rules, then they can nullify this session's SCOTUS rulings on gay marriage; if they can nullify gun and gay marriage rules, then they can nullify anything else they want. If the red states can nullify any law or ruling they want to, then so can the blue states. If all the states are able to nullify any rule or law they want, what good is the Constitution? If the Constitution isn't any good, do we have a nation?

 

If an overreaching central government can disregard whatever portion of the Constitution it chooses, do you call that a nation? Is the Constitution any better then?

[Badlands Beady]

 

 

If an overreaching central government can disregard whatever portion of the Constitution it chooses, do you call that a nation? Is the Constitution any better then?

The courts are the proper venue for interpreting the Constitution, not the statehouse. There is no Constitutional provision outside the amendment process that mitigates the supremacy clause. If the People are going to save the Constitution by ignoring it, then what's the point of saving it?

[Colonel Dan, SASS #24025]

Badlands Beady, You wrote: The courts are the proper venue for interpreting the Constitution, not the statehouse.

You mean like the decisions cited below?

Plessy vs Ferguson:


Dred Scott:

As I've written many times in the past, the Supremacy clause you referenced is not an Infallibility clause. Does it not seem logical that the judicial branch should also be held bound by the same Constitutional limitations as are the other two branches...and the rest of us for that matter?

I've always held that legally right does not automatically connote or equate to morally right--as is clear by the case law cited above.

Finally, in my view, the Founders held that it was the ultimate right and responsibility of the people themselves to take action if and when government strays from its intended limitations as clearly stated within the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

If governments arrogantly ignore and/or infringe on the Second Amendment as in this case, with no accountability, we tread on seriously dangerous ground--simply put, when those charged with upholding the law, ignore the law, there is no law. It then clearly falls to "We the People" to act else we risk losing the ability to exercise all our unalienable rights.

Just the view from my foxhole...and I believe that view is in pretty good company.

Soldier on my friends...

~ Colonel Dan ~

[Badlands Beady]

 

Badlands Beady, You wrote: “The courts are the proper venue for interpreting the Constitution, not the statehouse.”

 

You mean like the decisions cited below?

 

Plessy vs Ferguson

 

Dred Scott

 

For their time and place, yes. Just like I believe the SCOTUS decisions announced this week are correct for their time and place. In any event, either we are a nation of laws, or we are not.

 

"...it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

Under the Constitution, there is no need for this to be accomplished by extra-constitutional means. There are two seperate constitutional processes for altering or abolishing the present government, neither of which have you so much as acknowledged. There are also several processes for working lesser changes in lesser circumstances.

 

I also submit that you have not established the need for resorting to extreme measures. For one thing, "The Government" is not a single, monolithic entity, and the courts, especially, have not been shy about checking the other two branches. For another, it's *your* elected representatives that are the problem, not mine. Just because yours don't listen to you, don't claim that mine don't listen to me. For a third, there is no evidence that "The Government" has acted outside its constitutional or legal limits. You might not like what it has been doing, but there is no evidence that its actions have, in the main, been illegal. Yes, there have been individual incidents, but the system has by and large functioned as it is supposed to, to correct them. It hasn't worked perfectly, but that is insufficient cause for destroying it.

 

Again I ask: If the People are going to save the Constitution by ignoring it, then what's the point of saving it?

 

That's the view from *my* saddle.

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

Judging from the "view from your saddle" you have it on backwards

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

Judging from the "view from your saddle" you have it on backwards

 

yup...

 

GG ~

[Badlands Beady]

You have a right to your opinions, and I will fight for your right to express them. As arguments, however, they kinda suck.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Holy moly! Take a few days off and a fella can really miss out! Anyway, back to nullification and the evolution of the claim that "If the People are going to save the Constitution by ignoring it, then what's the point of saving it?"

 

I don't know where this evolved into ignoring the constitution, I thought this was about rejecting laws that are not "just" within our constitutional framework and rejecting the overreach of a federal govenment.

 

So, what is nullificaion? Well, is it not legislation that restricts congressional action to the enumerated powers of the Constitution and returns those powers not delegated to the federal government back to the respective states?

 

BTW, I am thinking that if federal governement overreach isn't corrected by peaceful rule of law, sadly, we may indeed be headed for a civil war.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

You have a right to your opinions, and I will fight for your right to express them. As arguments, however, they kinda suck.

Did you look in the mirror when you said that?

 

GG

[Blackwater 53393]

The Colonel said it in more words than I did, but fleshed out my thought completely. As to "the times", right and wrong are timeless. Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson were wrong decisions when they were made. That the sundry states that refused to accept those decisions stood in opposition to them then was right!! A revisit of those decisions was too long in coming and nullification was called for.

 

Political correctness doesn't change right and wrong! Political climate doesn't change right and wrong!!

 

Some folks here believe you CAN pick up a chunk of excrement by the "clean end"!!

 

When the entire government has run aground, it does become monolithic! You have to break it down carefully to repair it or you may destroy it. I only hope the patient can survive the comming tumult!!

[Badlands Beady]

I don't know where this evolved into ignoring the constitution, I thought this was about rejecting laws that are not "just" within our constitutional framework and rejecting the overreach of a federal govenment.

Let's put it this way: The Constitution provides ways to "reject the overreach of a federal govenment" via amendment and the courts. The impression I've been given is that most folks here want to reject the constitutional means and go straight for extra-constitutional means. That's what I mean about ignoring the Constitution in order to save it. It also seems to me that the courts have by-and-large done a pretty good job of reigning-in the other two branches.

 

So, what is nullificaion? Well, is it not legislation that restricts congressional action to the enumerated powers of the Constitution and returns those powers not delegated to the federal government back to the respective states?

Uh, no. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the States to decide what laws they want to follow and what laws they don't want to follow, which is pretty much what nullification does. You might as well say that, since ultimate power is invested in the people, the people can ignore any laws they want to, whenever they want to.

 

BD wrote:

Political correctness doesn't change right and wrong! Political climate doesn't change right and wrong!!

St. Paul wrote:

"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord." Colossians 3:22

Moses wrote:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations

around you; from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus 25:44

King David wrote:

"Long ago I learned from your statutes that you established them to last forever." Psalm 119:152

[Blackwater 53393]

Beady!! You make my point!!!!!!!

[Badlands Beady]

How so? Slavery was a normal part of Biblical times. If there was nothing wrong with it then, and right and wrong don't change, then there was nothing wrong with it during the early 19th century. Hence Dred Scott was correct. Plessy v Ferguson is a little bit of a stretch, but Seperate But Equal, IMO, was a necessary intermediate step that gave southern (primarily) whites time to get used to the idea of Black equality. Even then, there were plenty of people that objected to the idea, up the point of lynching and burning Blacks who tried to act equal. If the Supreme Court had mandated full and immediate equality, I think there would have been a firestorm of White resistance that would have made Blacks wish for Seperate But Equal.

 

The whole problem with talking in terms of "absolute truth" is that it ignores human foibles. The only consistent thing about human beings is their inconsistency.

[Blackwater 53393]

The very fact that those positions were no less wrong then than they are now IS my point!

 

I guess I should be flattered to be compared to those others you quote, but I'm not!!

 

This only proves that good men do and think bad things! They are and were not right and NOTHING changes the fact that they were not right! I suspect that in the other quotes you made, that if taken in context of the times and situations, they were making those comments to prevent upheaval for EXPEDIENCY's sake!

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

I am not buyinh into the idea "that most folks here want to reject the constitutional means and go straight for extra-constitutional means."

 

What I see is state level legislation to nullify federal legislation. That will eventually be stettled in court until one side (probably federal agents enforcing a law) elects to use force, prompting a forcable resistance.

[Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L]

I am not buyinh into the idea "that most folks here want to reject the constitutional means and go straight for extra-constitutional means."

 

What I see is state level legislation to nullify federal legislation. That will eventually be stettled in court until one side (probably federal agents enforcing a law) elects to use force, prompting a forcable resistance.

Possibly a....possibility.

 

GG