NationStates Jolt Archive

These two political concepts purport the idea that in a Federal government, a state/province has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any Federal law which that state had deemed unconstitutional.

When the Adams's administration passed the hated Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions upon these same principles. The first real example of state defiance against an overarching Federal government.

In light of the SCOTUS's ruling on emminent domain, I believe it is time we ressurect these concepts for one final attempt at bringing down the monster that is the United States Federal government. Nullification and interposition will effectively undermime the Feds on the basis that they have overstepped their bounds, and the Courts which are supposed to be self-correcting simply won't suffice. It is now time for the individual states to rise up and defend their liberty, something our states have failed to do in the past.

I agree. I'll do what it takes to stop this travesty from undermining our property rights.

I agree. I'll do what it takes to stop this travesty from undermining our property rights.
Not to mention it should put the Feds in their place. What I worry though, is that the Feds will initiate force as to enforce their laws back. Yet if it comes to that we'll have to push back.

Not to mention it should put the Feds in their place. What I worry though, is that the Feds will initiate force as to enforce their laws back. Yet if it comes to that we'll have to push back.

Well, the British tried to force their laws on us and look what happened to their colonies. Regardless of what people say, I think the American people still have the resolve to do what's needed to defend their rights.

This has been tried before. The "Nullification Crisis" almost meant a Civil war, and the last time states decided to really stand up for their rights, we did get a Civil War.

I don't see a revolution, civil war or other extreme measure a neccesary yet, unless the SCOTUS's decision becomes widely abused.

This has been tried before. The "Nullification Crisis" almost meant a Civil war, and the last time states decided to really stand up for their rights, we did get a Civil War
We've got to do something into scaring the Federal government back down to size. I won't sit idly by as this unfolds; nip this in the budd

We've got to do something into scaring the Federal government back down to size. I won't sit idly by as this unfolds; nip this in the budd

A strong reaction from the people is the only way the government can be stopped. The only reason it grew so big was because people stopped caring.

We've got to do something into scaring the Federal government back down to size. I won't sit idly by as this unfolds; nip this in the budd

Are you recommending more states rights? Full on Nullification rights given to every state? Revolution?

Either way it will probably end up really bad. Really bad.

Besides, where besides this new Eminent Domain issue does the Federal Gov't need to be scared back down to size? And what would that proposed size be? More importantly in fact, who would fill the power void?

This has been tried before. The "Nullification Crisis" almost meant a Civil war, and the last time states decided to really stand up for their rights, we did get a Civil War.

I don't see a revolution, civil war or other extreme measure a neccesary yet, unless the SCOTUS's decision becomes widely abused.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Translation: People will put up with a lot of things if it's done gradually, even if they really shouldn't. You let a country have a slightly larger army one day, then you let it into the demilitarized industrial zone, then next thing you know, you're letting it annex the country next door.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Translation: People will put up with a lot of things if it's done gradually, even if they really shouldn't. You let a country have a slightly larger army one day, then you let it into the demilitarized industrial zone, then next thing you know, you're letting it annex the country next door.

Strange that I would understand better the untranslated version of that quote...

Strange that I would understand better the untranslated version of that quote...

I know, I'm not good at translating at half three in the morning.

I know, I'm not good at translating at half three in the morning.

English? Yea it would be pretty late overthere.

I was just confused about the whole military getting bigger and no one caring, then something about a demilitarized zone leading to annexations. I honestly just had no idea what you were talking about :D

Though I get the thurst of the 18th century quote(18th century if it did indeed come from a Founding Father of the US that is).

This has been tried before. The "Nullification Crisis" almost meant a Civil war, and the last time states decided to really stand up for their rights, we did get a Civil War.

I don't see a revolution, civil war or other extreme measure a neccesary yet, unless the SCOTUS's decision becomes widely abused.
The nullification crisis, in the long run, DID cause the Civil War to a degree. Sectional tensions over slavery did not exist until they up and started fighting over tariffs and nullification. After that, the North and the South weren't on very good terms (understatement of the century), and looked for something else to fight over. I shouldn't be spoiling the ending of this little story by telling you they found it.

Apply this to a modern situation. Massachussetts nullifies the Bush Administration's tax cuts. Do you really think they're going to let them get away with it? Hell no. Martial law in that state. Do we really want to do that? We saw what happened last time; the potential for polarization to that degree in current American society exists just as much. Nullification would be the tinderbox that set it off.

Further, nullification essentially means the dissolution of the Union. If a state can nullify a federal law or constitutional provision, that state can nullify all federal law - that's called secession. There ceases to be any federal government. Hell, states with majorities opposed to the occupation in Iraq could nullify the existance of the Army. Unless you think that the Union is a bad idea, leave nullification alone. It's too dangerous to be treated lightly.

... and that says a lot in these forums.

1. If you have a problem with the Supreme Court's recent Kelo decision re eminent domain, nullification won't help. Who do you think was exercising the eminent domain in these cases? It is state and local authorities. In complaining about the Kelo case, you have a situation where you states' rights people are actually wanting the federal government to limit the power of the states. So, nullification is an bass-akward solution.

2. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution is crystal clear:

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Federal law is supreme over state law. End of story.

3. You revisionists that act like somehow freedom was lost because the South lost the Civil War make me sick. How dare you? Have you no decency?

blah blah blah for one final attempt at bringing down the monster that is the United States Federal government. Nullification and interposition will effectively undermime the Feds on the basis that they have overstepped their bounds, and the Courts which are supposed to be self-correcting simply won't suffice. It is now time for the individual states to rise up and defend their liberty, something our states have failed to do in the past. blah blahYeah, that's a real good idea. Let's also bring back the Articles of Confederation, that worked just swell.

I'm not sure I really care about the SCOTUS ruling, but if there's one thing I care about it's that your pseudo-libertarian ramblings are irrealistic and reckless. Whether you like it or not America is one entity, ruled by a sovereign government, as it should be. States having the right to disregard federal acts whenever they want would effectively undermined the USA as a historical entity and as a Republic. And if you want the end of America you're an idiot.

So, let me get this straight. Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state's rights by ruling that states have the right to take people's land without having to prove that the land is blighted, all supporters of state's rights must revolt against the SCOTUS decision and demand that the states NOT have the right to choose when they may enact their eminent domain powers? Is this the dumbest proposal ever or what? If a state does not want the ability to use its eminent domain power, wouldnt it be easier to just pass that law in the state? What the supreme court ruled was that the federal government isnt going to intervene against the state because it is the state's right to determine what they consider is for "the public good". If your state wants to enact a law that says enacting their eminent domain powers to transfer land to a private entity is never in the public interest, they are free to do so.

1. If you have a problem with the Supreme Court's recent Kelo decision re eminent domain, nullification won't help. Who do you think was exercising the eminent domain in these cases? It is state and local authorities. In complaining about the Kelo case, you have a situation where you states' rights people are actually wanting the federal government to limit the power of the states. So, nullification is an bass-akward solution.
LOL! I was wondering when someone was going to point this out. :)

So, let me get this straight. Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state's rights by ruling that states have the right to take people's land without having to prove that the land is blighted, all supporters of state's rights must revolt against the SCOTUS decision and demand that the states NOT have the right to choose when they may enact their eminent domain powers? Is this the dumbest proposal ever or what? If a state does not want the ability to use its eminent domain power, wouldnt it be easier to just pass that law in the state? What the supreme court ruled was that the federal government isnt going to intervene against the state because it is the state's right to determine what they consider is for "the public good". If your state wants to enact a law that says enacting their eminent domain powers to transfer land to a private entity is never in the public interest, they are free to do so.
Good summation, LH! :)

So, let me get this straight. Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of state's rights by ruling that states have the right to take people's land without having to prove that the land is blighted, all supporters of state's rights must revolt against the SCOTUS decision and demand that the states NOT have the right to choose when they may enact their eminent domain powers? Is this the dumbest proposal ever or what? If a state does not want the ability to use its eminent domain power, wouldnt it be easier to just pass that law in the state? What the supreme court ruled was that the federal government isnt going to intervene against the state because it is the state's right to determine what they consider is for "the public good". If your state wants to enact a law that says enacting their eminent domain powers to transfer land to a private entity is never in the public interest, they are free to do so.

Well said. You did a much better of job of explaining the Looking Glass logic at work here than I did.

Besides, where besides this new Eminent Domain issue does the Federal Gov't need to be scared back down to size?
This wasn't addressed to me, but I was going to suggest the SCOTUS ruling on medical marijuana.

one of the most idiotic threads... and that says a lot in these forums.
Troll

1. ...-snip-...
I am *not* pro-states' rights on unconstitutional things. I know the limits of state power too, you know.

2. Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution is crystal clear:
-snip-
Federal law is supreme over state law. End of story.
That means that un-Constitutional law is supreme over state law - obviously a perplexing situation.....

3. You revisionists that act like somehow freedom was lost because the South lost the Civil War make me sick. How dare you? Have you no decency?
It's no use explaining it to you hardcore Unionist types.

Troll

Nope. Honest, accurate assessment.

As pointed out by myself and LH, your core logic is backwards.

I am *not* pro-states' rights on unconstitutional things. I know the limits of state power too, you know.

You don't get it. You are objecting to a state and local practice and claiming the solution is more state power!

The problem you identify has nothing to do with federal law. So nullification is a backward solution.

Gee, the foxes are stealing our chickens and the guard dog is letting them. I know ... let's replace the guard dog with a fox!

(And by "unconstitutional things" you only mean those things you think should be unconstitutional.)

That means that un-Constitutional law is supreme over state law - obviously a perplexing situation.....

Pfft.

Not perplexing at all. Federal law is supreme. If it is unconstitutional is for the judiciary to decide.

What is perplexing is that so many persist in ignoring 220 years of history and thinking they could do a better job from scratch.

It's no use explaining it to you hardcore Unionist types.

Nice ad hominem. Slavery = freedom. Orwell is spinning in his grave.

Try explaining it to the descendent of slaves -- like my sister and brother-in-law.

Even setting slavery aside, we were better off 150 years ago? Bullshit.

I'm beginning to think "America: Love it or leave it" has more merit than I ever thought.

I am *not* pro-states' rights on unconstitutional things. I know the limits of state power too, you know.
Except that you are, because nullification is patently unconstitutional - the quote from the Constitution is pretty damining.

That means that un-Constitutional law is supreme over state law - obviously a perplexing situation.....
Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion; not that of the Supreme Court, who's there to decide such things. I may not agree with the Court on everything, but I do think a world where individual states had the power to overrule them would be far worse than one where only one organ got to interpret the Constitution.

It's no use explaining it to you hardcore Unionist types.
Go back and read my original post. The problems I brought up with nullification as an idea are generally agreed upon by historians and legal experts as reasons why nullification should never be deployed in American political discourse again.