PDA

View Full Version : Nullifiction vs. Constitutional Convention



Don
07-10-2015, 03:03 PM
I like the nullification route.

https://youtu.be/0bjSXZAl7nM

Ethereal
07-10-2015, 03:57 PM
Same here!

Jury trials are the best way to actively protect liberty in the present.

Aggressively reject "guilty" charges for non-crimes like drug use/possession, firearms possession, sex work, and other non-violent offenses.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 04:55 PM
The thinking behind this item appears to be quite flawed, imho. Could it be that it was brought up simply because Same-Sex Marriage won at the SCOTUS level? Why else? Now those unhappy with the decision are frothing at the mouth and are wanting to change the Constitution (Mind You!) and are pathetically up in arms about it. It's a reminder of the old "It's my marriage and only I get to enjoy it and I won't share it with you or others!" syndrome. So enjoy your marriage, no one wants to join in it but you now need to also simply allow others in the G & L community to do the same as per the law. After you absorb that fact simply move on with your own life and marriage and please leave others alone.

How foolish and indeed naive to even think of changing the U.S. Constitution just to remain "King of the Hill" and retain all rights and privileges to marriage all to yourself, despite the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Had it been anything else but S-SM this would not even have been brought up nor would it be an issue. Not even with the abortion issue. Not even with the Citizens United issue. But with the Gay Marriage issue, fogy men with draconian 16th Century thinking are breathing out fire and firing fireworks out through their nose and fogy women are in panic raising their skirts up over their heads. That is the greatest example of pathetic thinking if there ever was any. It puts America to shame actually. To think that just because some want to undo the Same-Sex Marriage Law, they would stoop this low as to want such a drastic change to American Law is beyond comprehension. But That Simply Will Not Happen. With over 62% of Americans, including Evangelicals, now feeling quite comfortable with Same-Sex Marriage, they would be hard-pressed to support such a travesty of a move as this.

Please folks, use your time for better things. America does not need further division in this country. We need cohesion. Let's instead work towards that end for the betterment of all! Thank you.

Don
07-10-2015, 05:02 PM
Not everything is about homos. Stop with your paranoia.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 05:12 PM
Not everything is about homos. Stop with your paranoia.
Then what IS it about? Tell us. Are you categorically denying that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Same-Sex Marriage Law?

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:12 PM
I need to buy some stock in Alcoa and Reynolds right before the convention.

Chris
07-10-2015, 05:20 PM
Then what IS it about? Tell us. Are you categorically denying that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Same-Sex Marriage Law?

It's a video that looks at two ways for states to reign in the out-of-control federal government, through nullification state-by-state or convention of all states. Didn't you watch it at all?

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:22 PM
It's a video that looks at two ways for states to reign in the out-of-control federal government, through nullification state-by-state or convention of all states. Didn't you watch it at all?

Why is that necessary? Why not elect a bunch of Libertarians and let them change things the way intended?

Chris
07-10-2015, 05:24 PM
The problem with a convention is it wouldn't be geared toward reigning in the federal government. I mean, what's the least it could do, write an amendment that says the federal government must abide by the limitations of the existing Constitution? It doesn't listen already. And the worst could be an even more out of control government.

So, I think the individual states need to take up the responsibility, exercise their Constitutionally protected powers--"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."--and start nullifying unconstitutional expansions of federal power.

Chris
07-10-2015, 05:25 PM
Why is that necessary? Why not elect a bunch of Libertarians and let them change things the way intended?

Because it didn't seem TB listened to the video but just rushed in with agenda.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:38 PM
Because it didn't seem TB listened to the video but just rushed in with agenda.

No. Why go the nullification or constitutional convention route when we have all these Libertarian and Tea Party reps?

And do you really think there's enough votes for a constitutional convention?

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:40 PM
Side note Chris. I'm aware this talk isn't new. It's been around ever since Obama got elected.

Chris
07-10-2015, 05:41 PM
No. Why go the nullification or constitutional convention route when we have all these Libertarian and Tea Party reps?

And do you really think there's enough votes for a constitutional convention?


Why? Because the federal government is out of control--wait, didn't you listen to the video either?

The question is which would you prefer, nullification or convention? What about you?

Chris
07-10-2015, 05:43 PM
Side note Chris. I'm aware this talk isn't new. It's been around ever since Obama got elected.

Nullification was first put forth in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

magicmike
07-10-2015, 05:50 PM
Nullification was first put forth in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

I know all about them. I also know that what you want isn't what Madison meant.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp


I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 06:01 PM
It's a video that looks at two ways for states to reign in the out-of-control federal government, through nullification state-by-state or convention of all states. Didn't you watch it at all?
I did watch the video all the way through beforehand. However, it did not answer my question.

The OP, Don, should well know the answer to that question so let him answer.

How odd that they would come up with this crud right after the Same-Sex Marriage ruling and all of the commotion that has been experienced with people not wanting to follow the new law, especially County Clerks in some states. So, again I ask. Does this stuff have anything to do with the new Same-Sex Marriage ruling or not? Come forward with an answer. Don't cower out.


=============================
----------------------------------------------------------

Republicans Are Such Sore Losers When It Comes To A Person's Civil Rights.

NO REPUBLICAN BIGOTRY ACCEPTED IN AMERICA!

Chris
07-10-2015, 06:11 PM
I know all about them. I also know that what you want isn't what Madison meant.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp

Then why'd you mention it only goes back to Obama?

Madison still supported nullification of unconstitutional laws, or what he called interposition, Virginia Resolution of 1798:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Chris
07-10-2015, 06:12 PM
I did watch the video all the way through beforehand. However, it did not answer my question.

The OP, Don, should well know the answer to that question so let him answer.

How odd that they would come up with this crud right after the Same-Sex Marriage ruling and all of the commotion that has been experienced with people not wanting to follow the new law, especially County Clerks in some states. So, again I ask. Does this stuff have anything to do with the new Same-Sex Marriage ruling or not? Come forward with an answer. Don't cower out.


=============================
----------------------------------------------------------

Republicans Are Such Sore Losers When It Comes To A Person's Civil Rights.

NO REPUBLICAN BIGOTRY ACCEPTED IN AMERICA!


But the video said nothing at all about your agenda.

This "crud" was developed in the 1700s.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 06:34 PM
But the video said nothing at all about your agenda.

This "crud" was developed in the 1700s.
It's obvious that it did not say anything about what I'm asking about otherwise we would know their full intent and I wouldn't have to ask. We're entitled to know. That is why I have to ask again and no one is willing to answer my question directly. Now why is that?

Simply answer: "Yes. It is designed to undo the Same-Sex Marriage ruling." Or "No, it has absolutely and unequivocally nothing to do with Same-Sex Marriage." That's all that needs to be said.

And to try to undo a SCOTUS law or ruling simply because a select few don't like it most certainly can be called "crud!"


===========================
------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Gay Haters only make a mockery of themselves in the process of showing themselves to be egregious, uncaring and nasty fools.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:44 PM
I like the nullification route.

Nice post. But it is mostly a lie. Why distract from the only constitutional way to resolve our problems with the federal government?

I smell a rat.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:49 PM
The thinking behind this item appears to be quite flawed, imho.
Up to this point we agree.

The artist begins with a lie. A Convention of states is not a Constitutional Convention nor is it a con-con. Those two ways to describe a convention of states are used by enemies of the Constitution not by its friends.


Could it be that it was brought up simply because Same-Sex Marriage won at the SCOTUS level?
Maybe. The supreme court had no Constitutional authority for deciding. When they struck down the defense of marriage act just a couple of years ago they rightly said that the federal government has no role to play. Marriage is an issue for the states and for the people. So when they chose to involve themselves many people started to see that the flaws in our Constitution needed to be fixed.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:50 PM
It's a video that looks at two ways for states to reign in the out-of-control federal government, through nullification state-by-state or convention of all states. Didn't you watch it at all?
While we are getting the 34 states to petition the Congress go ahead with nullification. It is harder than it sounds. It is also ineffective overall as a strategy.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:52 PM
The problem with a convention is it wouldn't be geared toward reigning in the federal government. I mean, what's the least it could do, write an amendment that says the federal government must abide by the limitations of the existing Constitution? It doesn't listen already. And the worst could be an even more out of control government.

So, I think the individual states need to take up the responsibility, exercise their Constitutionally protected powers--"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."--and start nullifying unconstitutional expansions of federal power.
There are about a dozen proposed amendments already. If you want the best of the bunch read Mark Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments. It is inexpensive and informative.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:54 PM
No. Why go the nullification or constitutional convention route when we have all these Libertarian and Tea Party reps?

And do you really think there's enough votes for a constitutional convention?
An Article V convention of states is not a constitutional convention. It is authority granted under Article V of the Constitution as one of two Constitutional ways to amend the Constitution.

Which people do you believe support and defend the Constitution in the House or the Senate?

MisterVeritis
07-10-2015, 06:55 PM
Why? Because the federal government is out of control--wait, didn't you listen to the video either?

The question is which would you prefer, nullification or convention? What about you?
The real problem is the Federal government's usurpation of enormous powers so that it is in control of everything. More of its actions are unconstitutional than are Constitutional.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 07:36 PM
Up to this point we agree.

The artist begins with a lie. A Convention of states is not a Constitutional Convention nor is it a con-con. Those two ways to describe a convention of states are used by enemies of the Constitution not by its friends.


Maybe. The supreme court had no Constitutional authority for deciding. When they struck down the defense of marriage act just a couple of years ago they rightly said that the federal government has no role to play. Marriage is an issue for the states and for the people. So when they chose to involve themselves many people started to see that the flaws in our Constitution needed to be fixed.
However, the SCOTUS does have the right to reverse themselves at any point in time during a case. Also, the SCOTUS cited the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as the basis for their ruling on Same-Sex Marriage. That Amendment applies to Gays and Lesbians also the court ruled. Why is that such a problem for you?


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

Chris
07-10-2015, 07:42 PM
It's obvious that it did not say anything about what I'm asking about otherwise we would know their full intent and I wouldn't have to ask. We're entitled to know. That is why I have to ask again and no one is willing to answer my question directly. Now why is that?

Simply answer: "Yes. It is designed to undo the Same-Sex Marriage ruling." Or "No, it has absolutely and unequivocally nothing to do with Same-Sex Marriage." That's all that needs to be said.

And to try to undo a SCOTUS law or ruling simply because a select few don't like it most certainly can be called "crud!"


===========================
------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Gay Haters only make a mockery of themselves in the process of showing themselves to be egregious, uncaring and nasty fools.


Explain how you go from a video that say nothing about your agenda to one that does? Besides you're just making it up.

Chris
07-10-2015, 07:45 PM
Up to this point we agree.

The artist begins with a lie. A Convention of states is not a Constitutional Convention nor is it a con-con. Those two ways to describe a convention of states are used by enemies of the Constitution not by its friends.


Maybe. The supreme court had no Constitutional authority for deciding. When they struck down the defense of marriage act just a couple of years ago they rightly said that the federal government has no role to play. Marriage is an issue for the states and for the people. So when they chose to involve themselves many people started to see that the flaws in our Constitution needed to be fixed.



Does the Constitution lie?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This is the convention the video speaks of.

Chris
07-10-2015, 07:45 PM
The real problem is the Federal government's usurpation of enormous powers so that it is in control of everything. More of its actions are unconstitutional than are Constitutional.

Right, and the video offers two ways to remedy that.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 07:52 PM
Explain how you go from a video that say nothing about your agenda to one that does? Besides you're just making it up.
Chris, despite the fact that there is so much dirty air being blown from bigots over the recent SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage ruling do you even need to ask that?

And it is a very simple question to answer. Or do you and Don not know the answer whether or not this stuff has been brought about due to the SCOTUS ruling? It's really that simple. Answer either "Yes, it has." or "No, it hasn't." Give us a truthful answer, Chris. As of this moment no one is coming forward with that answer which makes me believe even more that it is very possible that this proposal has come about due to the S-SM ruling as a means to try to overturn it. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong so that we will all know. Can you or Don do that, Chris?

And why is Don, who originally posted this item, strangely silent in answering my question?


============================
--------------------------------------------------------
HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

Chris
07-10-2015, 07:57 PM
Chris, despite the fact that there is so much dirty air being blown from bigots over the recent SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage ruling do you even need to ask that?

And it is a very simple question to answer. Or do you and Don not know the answer whether or not this stuff has been brought about due to the SCOTUS ruling? It's really that simple. Answer either "Yes, it has." or "No, it hasn't." Give us a truthful answer, Chris. As of this moment no one is coming forward with that answer which makes me believe even more that it is very possible that this proposal has come about due to the S-SM ruling as a means to try to overturn it. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong so that we will all know. Can you or Don do that, Chris?

And why is Don, who originally posted this item, strangely silent in answering my question?


============================
--------------------------------------------------------
HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!




Yes, I ask you to connect the dots between the OP video and your agenda. It's a very simple answer you say but then do everything you can to avoid it. A video on nullification vs convention. Your agenda about same-sex marriage. Connect the dots.

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 07:59 PM
Constitutional convention would likely lead to a total re-write.

Nullification is really used in limited circumstances when the Federal government is clearly acting outside of its authority. The problem is lots of money comes into the States from the federal government, so some states may not be able to afford nullification.

Plus SCOTUS case law since 1937 has shifted a lot of state power to the central government.

Newpublius
07-10-2015, 08:06 PM
Convention can propose whatever it wants of course, but it'd need to be ratified by the requisite number of states.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 08:07 PM
Yes, I ask you to connect the dots between the OP video and your agenda. It's a very simple answer you say but then do everything you can to avoid it. A video on nullification vs convention. Your agenda about same-sex marriage. Connect the dots.
You are the one who is throwing in a red herring to obfuscate and avoid answering a most simple question that I have now asked multiple times. Why Chris? And again, it is because of the clandestine nature of the video in not fully explaining its intent in wanting to initiate this action that one must assume the recent SCOTUS ruling on Same-Sex Marriage must be somehow involved. Please disprove that theory now if you can.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

Chris
07-10-2015, 08:11 PM
You are the one who is throwing in a red herring to obfuscate and avoid answering a most simple question that I have now asked multiple times. Why Chris? And again, it is because of the clandestine nature of the video in not fully explaining its intent in wanting to initiate this action that one must assume the recent SCOTUS ruling on Same-Sex Marriage must be somehow involved. Please disprove that theory now if you can.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!



What it didn't say? So the dots to connect what the video said and your agenda is what the video didn't say? LOL, the video also didn't tell us how to cook a steak, so it must therefore be against cooking steaks! It didn't say water is H2O so it must have something against that too. My God, the possiblities are endless. My what fun this is!

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 08:11 PM
In my limited experience people have been talking about the Convention and Nullification processes since the mid 1990s. Prior to that I didn't really pay much attention to politics.

Don
07-10-2015, 08:23 PM
And why is Don, who originally posted this item, strangely silent in answering my question?

Because you are a "Hater who only makes a mockery of yourself in the process of showing yourself to be an egregious, uncaring and nasty fool" if the subject falls outside your narrow agenda. I usually have you on ignore because you seem to care about only one issue and are so quick to tag everyone else as bigots who don't share your views. I will put you back on ignore now.

I put the video up to show what needs to be done along the lines of "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary" "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"

A long train of abuses, not because someone is upset with the SCOTUS about their ruling on "gay" marriage although I do think that the ruling was outside their aegis along with so many other things.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 08:42 PM
What it didn't say? So the dots to connect what the video said and your agenda is what the video didn't say? LOL, the video also didn't tell us how to cook a steak, so it must therefore be against cooking steaks! It didn't say water is H2O so it must have something against that too. My God, the possiblities are endless. My what fun this is!
Nice try but that won't work, Chris. We are not talking about steaks or water or other edibles. We are talking about the law and court rulings. Therefore, my assertion that this has to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling must be held valid until disproved with facts.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 08:48 PM
Because you are a "Hater who only makes a mockery of yourself in the process of showing yourself to be an egregious, uncaring and nasty fool" if the subject falls outside your narrow agenda. I usually have you on ignore because you seem to care about only one issue and are so quick to tag everyone else as bigots who don't share your views. I will put you back on ignore now.

I put the video up to show what needs to be done along the lines of "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary" "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"

A long train of abuses, not because someone is upset with the SCOTUS about their ruling on "gay" marriage although I do think that the ruling was outside their aegis along with so many other things.
And you are nothing more than a copy-cat of my work and sayings. You still have not provided any proof that this is not about the Same-Sex Marriage ruling.

And how ironic! I too have you on ignore but this thread was so interesting I temporarily removed you from that status but back into it you rightfully go. :)


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

Private Pickle
07-10-2015, 08:51 PM
I like the nullification route.

https://youtu.be/0bjSXZAl7nM

Of course you do.

Boris The Animal
07-10-2015, 09:01 PM
The thinking behind this item appears to be quite flawed, imho. Could it be that it was brought up simply because Same-Sex Marriage won at the SCOTUS level? Why else? Now those unhappy with the decision are frothing at the mouth and are wanting to change the Constitution (Mind You!) and are pathetically up in arms about it. It's a reminder of the old "It's my marriage and only I get to enjoy it and I won't share it with you or others!" syndrome. So enjoy your marriage, no one wants to join in it but you now need to also simply allow others in the G & L community to do the same as per the law. After you absorb that fact simply move on with your own life and marriage and please leave others alone.

How foolish and indeed naive to even think of changing the U.S. Constitution just to remain "King of the Hill" and retain all rights and privileges to marriage all to yourself, despite the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Had it been anything else but S-SM this would not even have been brought up nor would it be an issue. Not even with the abortion issue. Not even with the Citizens United issue. But with the Gay Marriage issue, fogy men with draconian 16th Century thinking are breathing out fire and firing fireworks out through their nose and fogy women are in panic raising their skirts up over their heads. That is the greatest example of pathetic thinking if there ever was any. It puts America to shame actually. To think that just because some want to undo the Same-Sex Marriage Law, they would stoop this low as to want such a drastic change to American Law is beyond comprehension. But That Simply Will Not Happen. With over 62% of Americans, including Evangelicals, now feeling quite comfortable with Same-Sex Marriage, they would be hard-pressed to support such a travesty of a move as this.

Please folks, use your time for better things. America does not need further division in this country. We need cohesion. Let's instead work towards that end for the betterment of all! Thank you.
Let's not and say we did, OK. Real Americans do not sit in a big circle and sing "kumbayah" with the enemy, which are all Liberals.

TrueBlue
07-10-2015, 09:12 PM
Let's not and say we did, OK. Real Americans do not sit in a big circle and sing "kumbayah" with the enemy, which are all Liberals.
Real Americans have balls unlike many conservatives.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

Boris The Animal
07-10-2015, 09:15 PM
Real Americans have balls unlike many conservatives.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!

No, Real Americans don't want this country twisted and contorted into some Euroweenie Socialist paradise. Oh and BTW, you'll never get your dream of one party Leftist rule, Traitor!!!

Dr. Who
07-10-2015, 09:16 PM
Chris, despite the fact that there is so much dirty air being blown from bigots over the recent SCOTUS Same-Sex Marriage ruling do you even need to ask that?

And it is a very simple question to answer. Or do you and Don not know the answer whether or not this stuff has been brought about due to the SCOTUS ruling? It's really that simple. Answer either "Yes, it has." or "No, it hasn't." Give us a truthful answer, Chris. As of this moment no one is coming forward with that answer which makes me believe even more that it is very possible that this proposal has come about due to the S-SM ruling as a means to try to overturn it. But again, please correct me if I'm wrong so that we will all know. Can you or Don do that, Chris?

And why is Don, who originally posted this item, strangely silent in answering my question?


============================
--------------------------------------------------------
HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!


Tru, nullification only bears on federal legislation or law that affects the states, not SCOTUS rulings. In a sense nullification examines the Constitution and if it finds legislation or law to be unconstitutional vis-a-vis the states, it nullifies that legislation. However the theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, which has traditionally upheld the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution which confers upon the Federal Courts the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore the recent decision has no bearing on nullification since there has been no Federal law or legislation passed. Had there been a will to do so, DOMA could have been invalidated by nullification.

Boris The Animal
07-10-2015, 09:19 PM
Tru, nullification only bears on federal legislation or law that affects the states, not SCOTUS rulings. In a sense nullification examines the Constitution and if it finds legislation or law to be unconstitutional vis-a-vis the states, it nullifies that legislation. However the theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, which has traditionally upheld the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution which confers upon the Federal Courts the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore the recent decision has no bearing on nullification since there has been no Federal law or legislation passed. Had there been a will to do so, DOMA could have been invalidated by nullification.So you would support an all encroaching Federal Government running every aspect of our lives?

Dr. Who
07-10-2015, 09:24 PM
So you would support an all encroaching Federal Government running every aspect of our lives?
Boris, I'm not advocating here, just explaining the meaning of nullification, how it applies, and the legal ramifications with respect to SCOTUS. Nullification is not without it's pitfalls, Constitutionally.

Boris The Animal
07-10-2015, 09:26 PM
Boris, I'm not advocating here, just explaining the meaning of nullification, how it applies, and the legal ramifications with respect to SCOTUS. Nullification is not without it's pitfalls, Constitutionally.There have been rumblings of a Constitutional Convention. And that needs to happen. We cannot keep on this leftward lurch into oblivion forever.

Dr. Who
07-10-2015, 09:32 PM
There have been rumblings of a Constitutional Convention. And that needs to happen. We cannot keep on this leftward lurch into oblivion forever. May I assume you are referring to an Article V convention?

Bob
07-10-2015, 09:36 PM
However, the SCOTUS does have the right to reverse themselves at any point in time during a case. Also, the SCOTUS cited the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as the basis for their ruling on Same-Sex Marriage. That Amendment applies to Gays and Lesbians also the court ruled. Why is that such a problem for you?

Same reason you refuse to help polygamists and others banned in marriage laws.

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 09:38 PM
May I assume you are referring to an Article V convention?

The problem with an Art V convention is that their are not enough conservative states to get any improvements made.

Let both parties crash the economy and then we can start over.

Dr. Who
07-10-2015, 09:45 PM
The problem with an Art V convention is that their are not enough conservative states to get any improvements made.

Let both parties crash the economy and then we can start over.
Beyond that, no one really knows what an Article V convention would produce, since there has never been one held. It could be nightmare of conflicting issues and take so much time that it might fail to accomplish anything.

Peter1469
07-10-2015, 10:13 PM
Beyond that, no one really knows what an Article V convention would produce, since there has never been one held. It could be nightmare of conflicting issues and take so much time that it might fail to accomplish anything.

It is essentially based off the Constitutional Convention, and when it was called they were only suppose to tweak the Articles. They tossed the Articles and started over.

Chris
07-11-2015, 07:47 AM
Nice try but that won't work, Chris. We are not talking about steaks or water or other edibles. We are talking about the law and court rulings. Therefore, my assertion that this has to do with the latest SCOTUS ruling must be held valid until disproved with facts.


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!



We're not talking about same-sex marriage either. Get it?

We are talking law, what the law allows. No, we aren't talking court rulings. The court didn't legislate law so there's no law to be nullified, nor would that be affected by a convention, unless the convention resulted in more than a new amendment.

And, no, you need to demonstrate your assertion, not shift the burden to others to disprove.


You, here's the thing, we could classify members in many ways, one classification would be into those into topical issues like yourself, and others more interested in more timeless issues of law and economics and history, nullification going back to the 1700s. If Don has posted this under rants or latest happenings or US politics, then, yes, it might be seen as a comment on some topical issue; but he didn't, he posted on the serious side, and you're just trolling what could be a serious discussion with an agenda you're stuck on.

Don's reply to you above supports this view.

Chris
07-11-2015, 07:57 AM
Tru, nullification only bears on federal legislation or law that affects the states, not SCOTUS rulings. In a sense nullification examines the Constitution and if it finds legislation or law to be unconstitutional vis-a-vis the states, it nullifies that legislation. However the theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, which has traditionally upheld the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution which confers upon the Federal Courts the right to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Therefore the recent decision has no bearing on nullification since there has been no Federal law or legislation passed. Had there been a will to do so, DOMA could have been invalidated by nullification.


Precisely.

It has been tested though. In response to the Tariff of 1832, Calhoun argued the states were sovereign and could nullify, Webster cited the Supremacy Clause. North Carolina went ahead and nullifies, and President Jackson proclaimed it illegal, and even Madison who had earlier supported nullification, turned and rejected it. A compromise tariff ended the standoff. --My summary of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis.

Chris
07-11-2015, 09:21 AM
While the video addresses nullification of federal law, the Peters case involved an attempt at nullifying a court decision: "The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 in the case of United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809).[41] The Court rejected the idea of nullification. The Pennsylvania legislature had passed an act purporting to nullify a federal court's decision. The Pennsylvania statute stated that the federal court had acted unconstitutionally because it did not have jurisdiction, and that the federal court's judgment "was null and void." The Supreme Court held that the Pennsylvania legislature did not have the power to nullify the federal court's judgment, stating: "If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals."" @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#The_Peters_case

1751_Texan
07-11-2015, 09:35 AM
Same here!

Jury trials are the best way to actively protect liberty in the present.

Aggressively reject "guilty" charges for non-crimes like drug use/possession, firearms possession, sex work, and other non-violent offenses.

Jury nullification is not the same nullification the OP addresses.

State nullification is a theory that the state can write and pass state legislation that nullifies a federal law.

That is analogous to your county writing laws that nullify State law. And cities writing ordinances that nullify county and state laws.

There is no provision in any Constitution State or Federal That gives that right.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 09:50 AM
Jury nullification is not the same nullification the OP addresses.

State nullification is a theory that the state can write and pass state legislation that nullifies a federal law.

That is analogous to your county writing laws that nullify State law. And cities writing ordinances that nullify county and state laws.

There is no provision in any Constitution State or Federal That gives that right.

With regards to state nullification of federal laws the Constitution does not have to provide for it.

The Constitution does not grant the federal government unlimited power over the states. The federal government's power over the states is, helpfully, enumerated. (See, Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const). In addition to that the federal government, since the 14th Amendment, has more authority regarding the protections of the BoR as they apply in the States.

Technically, when the federal government is acting outside of those areas, States can nullify that action. But the federal courts will try to weasel around to usurp state authority.

Counties however don't have that ability; States have sovereign authority over their territory with the exception of a few cities that have been granted their own sovereign powers by their state.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 10:51 AM
Then why'd you mention it only goes back to Obama?

Madison still supported nullification of unconstitutional laws, or what he called interposition, Virginia Resolution of 1798:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Dude! It doesn't matter! Neither are law and I already posted Jackson's repudiation of nullification.

Pull your head out of the sand and look around. Sure, nullification and/or secession were brought up now and then over the decades, but became open talk among the tea party and libertarians after Obama was elected and blossomed into a right wing nutcases explosion after Obamacare was passed.

Therein lies the problem. The inmates are trying to take over the asylum.

Like I said, you want change? Get your beloved Libertarians and tea parties elected to change things the right way, not by foot stomping. Of course, that'll never happen because you guys will never be more than a hand full of cry babies.

Chris
07-11-2015, 10:57 AM
Dude! It doesn't matter! Neither are law and I already posted Jackson's repudiation of nullification.

Pull your head out of the sand and look around. Sure, nullification and/or secession were brought up now and then over the decades, but became open talk among the tea party and libertarians after Obama was elected and blossomed into a right wing nutcases explosion after Obamacare was passed.

Therein lies the problem. The inmates are trying to take over the asylum.

Like I said, you want change? Get your beloved Libertarians and tea parties elected to change things the right way, not by foot stomping. Of course, that'll never happen because you guys will never be more than a hand full of cry babies.

It's been talked by libertarians since the movement began back in the 50s. You're the one with head in sand looking only at the recent surface of history.

Nice inflammatory ad hom though, just doesn't substitute for rational argument.

TrueBlue
07-11-2015, 11:37 AM
Jury nullification is not the same nullification the OP addresses.

State nullification is a theory that the state can write and pass state legislation that nullifies a federal law.

That is analogous to your county writing laws that nullify State law. And cities writing ordinances that nullify county and state laws.

There is no provision in any Constitution State or Federal That gives that right.
Yet in their penchant to try to rise above the fray when the going gets rough for them, many naive people believe that the states can simply usurp Federal law which is incorrect as you've just explained. Thank you.


==============================
------------------------------------------------------

WCPT Radio, Chicago
http://8663.live.streamtheworld.com/WCPTAM_SC

Chris
07-11-2015, 11:55 AM
Jury nullification is not the same nullification the OP addresses.

State nullification is a theory that the state can write and pass state legislation that nullifies a federal law.

That is analogous to your county writing laws that nullify State law. And cities writing ordinances that nullify county and state laws.

There is no provision in any Constitution – State or Federal – That gives that right.


Why the 10th amendment does. Powers not granted the federal government are left to the states and the people. Such powers would include any acts of the federal government it is not granted. --And jury nullification is the same thing at the level of the people.

1751_Texan
07-11-2015, 12:25 PM
With regards to state nullification of federal laws the Constitution does not have to provide for it.

The Constitution does not grant the federal government unlimited power over the states. The federal government's power over the states is, helpfully, enumerated. (See, Art. 1, sec. 8, US Const). In addition to that the federal government, since the 14th Amendment, has more authority regarding the protections of the BoR as they apply in the States.

Technically, when the federal government is acting outside of those areas, States can nullify that action. But the federal courts will try to weasel around to usurp state authority.

Counties however don't have that ability; States have sovereign authority over their territory with the exception of a few cities that have been granted their own sovereign powers by their state.

By what means? A state writes and passes a law. Then what. Does the state also recognize the actions of the federal government or the federal or state courts to counter the state's legislative action?

Does the state legislature itself adhere to it own state's supreme court if the court rules against the law?

What gives a state's legislature dominion over all other branches of government is the real question. By what power does the a state legislature attain that authority?

1751_Texan
07-11-2015, 12:37 PM
Why the 10th amendment does. Powers not granted the federal government are left to the states and the people. Such powers would include any acts of the federal government it is not granted. --And jury nullification is the same thing at the level of the people.

1] There is a difference in Jury nullification and the OP's example of state legislation nullifying federal law or State Nullification.

2] the 10th amendment does not give rights to the states that are expressly given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Article III gives a blue print as to the authority of the federal government and the federal courts over state laws. The US Constitution sets a hierarchy of the rule of law.


http://www.civiceducationva.org/images/hierarchy.jpg

Chris
07-11-2015, 12:50 PM
1] There is a difference in Jury nullification and the OP's example of state legislation nullifying federal law or State Nullification.

2] the 10th amendment does not give rights to the states that are expressly given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Article III gives a blue print as to the authority of the federal government and the federal courts over state laws. The US Constitution sets a hierarchy of the rule of law.


http://www.civiceducationva.org/images/hierarchy.jpg



Yes, I understand there's a difference, one would nullify a law altogether in a state, and the other only nullify an instance of its application. But the idea is the same.


The Constitution doesn't grant rights at all. Let's get that straight.

The 10th reserves to the states and people those powers not granted the federal government. The federal government and the Constitution are law of the land within the enumerated powers. Outside those, the states retain power. Thus if the federal government creates such an unconstitutional law the states do have the power to nullify.

Rule of law means everyone follows the same laws from king to knave, President to citizen. It doesn't imply hierarchy at all but the opposite.

The Sage of Main Street
07-11-2015, 12:54 PM
I put the video up to show what needs to be done along the lines of "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary" "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism"

A long train of abuses, not because someone is upset with the SCOTUS about their ruling on "gay" marriage although I do think that the ruling was outside their aegis along with so many other things. The Declaration of Independence is not relevant to the Constitution, especially since Jefferson was purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:22 PM
The Declaration of Independence is not relevant to the Constitution, especially since Jefferson was purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention.

Oh, but it is. The Declaration lays the moral foundation for the legal Constitution.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:25 PM
However, the SCOTUS does have the right to reverse themselves at any point in time during a case. Also, the SCOTUS cited the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as the basis for their ruling on Same-Sex Marriage. That Amendment applies to Gays and Lesbians also the court ruled. Why is that such a problem for you?




None of this is relevant to the topic.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:26 PM
Why is that necessary?

Because the federal government is nothing more than a corrupt instrument of oppression for the corporate oligarchy. States and communities need to band together and oppose it.


Why not elect a bunch of Libertarians and let them change things the way intended?

Because the electoral process is designed to marginalize third party candidates, and because the system itself is not amenable to change.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:28 PM
Does the Constitution lie?

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This is the convention the video speaks of.
I did not say the Constitution lied. I said the artist who made the video lied.

"or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,"

This is a convention of states to propose amendments. It is no more a constitution convention or con-con than a meeting of representatives or senators to propose amendments.

The artist had to know this. So he is a propagandist, a fraud, a liar.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:29 PM
Right, and the video offers two ways to remedy that.
The only valid way is the convention of states.

The other is fluff.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:30 PM
No. Why go the nullification or constitutional convention route when we have all these Libertarian and Tea Party reps?

And do you really think there's enough votes for a constitutional convention?

There might be one actual libertarian in the Congress right now (Justin Amash), but that is besides the point.

Many libertarians reject the political system as immoral and corrupt and do not want to legitimate it through participation in its rituals. Many libertarians would rather effect social change outside the system.

1751_Texan
07-11-2015, 01:30 PM
Yes, I understand there's a difference, one would nullify a law altogether in a state, and the other only nullify an instance of its application. But the idea is the same.


The Constitution doesn't grant rights at all. Let's get that straight.

The 10th reserves to the states and people those powers not granted the federal government. The federal government and the Constitution are law of the land within the enumerated powers. Outside those, the states retain power. Thus if the federal government creates such an unconstitutional law the states do have the power to nullify.

The powers [Not rights] not delegated [not granted] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The 10th amendment means that the body of the constitution delegated powers to the federal government [Articles I, II, III, V, VI, and VII] and prohibited powers to the states [Article IV]...One has to read the Articles of the constitution to see what is delegated and prohibited to each the Constitution, the federal government and the states.

The 10th amendment grants no rights to he states.


Rule of law means everyone follows the same laws from king to knave, President to citizen. It doesn't imply hierarchy at all but the opposite.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:31 PM
Side note @Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128). I'm aware this talk isn't new. It's been around ever since Obama got elected.

Nullification has been around since the constitution was ratified, from the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions to the abolitionists' use of nullification to resist the fugitive slave act.

But from the perspective of an Obama supporter, everything that goes against Obama is exclusively about Obama and has no justification or rationale outside Obama.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:31 PM
I did not say the Constitution lied. I said the artist who made the video lied.

"or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments,"

This is a convention of states to propose amendments. It is no more a constitution convention or con-con than a meeting of representatives or senators to propose amendments.

The artist had to know this. So he is a propagandist, a fraud, a liar.


That's just what it's called. And I'm not interested in arguing about words. The 1787 convention started out revisionary.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:32 PM
So you would support an all encroaching Federal Government running every aspect of our lives?
He or she already does.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:34 PM
It's obvious that it did not say anything about what I'm asking about otherwise we would know their full intent and I wouldn't have to ask. We're entitled to know. That is why I have to ask again and no one is willing to answer my question directly. Now why is that?

Simply answer: "Yes. It is designed to undo the Same-Sex Marriage ruling." Or "No, it has absolutely and unequivocally nothing to do with Same-Sex Marriage." That's all that needs to be said.

And to try to undo a SCOTUS law or ruling simply because a select few don't like it most certainly can be called "crud!"


===========================
------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Gay Haters only make a mockery of themselves in the process of showing themselves to be egregious, uncaring and nasty fools.

I can only speak for myself.

My support of nullification would be to resist laws that criminalize non-violent offenses like drug use, gun possession, sex work, etc.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:34 PM
The problem with an Art V convention is that their are not enough conservative states to get any improvements made.

Let both parties crash the economy and then we can start over.
If we try and fail we can go the revolution route. It is a poor option. Revolutions always take on a life of their own. There are darned few indispensable men these days.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:37 PM
Nice post. But it is mostly a lie. Why distract from the only constitutional way to resolve our problems with the federal government?

I smell a rat.

Jury trials are codified in the constitution, as are state's rights, so your smell seems like it could use some adjusting.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:37 PM
By what means? A state writes and passes a law. Then what. Does the state also recognize the actions of the federal government or the federal or state courts to counter the state's legislative action?

Does the state legislature itself adhere to it own state's supreme court if the court rules against the law?

What gives a state's legislature dominion over all other branches of government is the real question. By what power does the a state legislature attain that authority?
The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:39 PM
However, the SCOTUS does have the right to reverse themselves at any point in time during a case. Also, the SCOTUS cited the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause as the basis for their ruling on Same-Sex Marriage. That Amendment applies to Gays and Lesbians also the court ruled. Why is that such a problem for you?


============================
--------------------------------------------------------

HETEROSEXUALS: Don't Interfere With Gay Marriage Unless YOU Too Are Homosexual Where It Would *Directly* Affect *You*!



So if states are required to federalize marriages, then you would also support the federalization of conceal carry licenses as well?

In other words, under this legal theory you're espousing, Newton, Connecticut would be legally obligated to recognize conceal carry licenses from Texas?

Don
07-11-2015, 01:40 PM
The problem isn't with the constitution. The problem is with politicians who ignore or twist the meaning of the constitution. Lets say they add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Sounds good right? But the people who have proposed such an amendment have already said that there would have to be exceptions for emergencies. The politicians would either ignore it like they do now or just declare every pet project an emergency. Or maybe the SCOTUS politicians who do it for them. Or maybe the executive would just go around it with executive orders.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:42 PM
The Declaration of Independence is not relevant to the Constitution, especially since Jefferson was purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention.
Jefferson was in France as our ambassador/Minister. I suppose that is purposeful. LOL

You are aware, aren't you, that the number of transcontinental air flights was extremely limited in the late 1780s, aren't you?

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:43 PM
The powers [Not rights] not delegated [not granted] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The 10th amendment means that the body of the constitution delegated powers to the federal government [Articles I, II, III, V, VI, and VII] and prohibited powers to the states [Article IV]...One has to read the Articles of the constitution to see what is delegated and prohibited to each the Constitution, the federal government and the states.

The 10th amendment grants no rights to he states.


The Constitution grants no rights period. You've got to get that right first.


The powers [Not rights] not delegated [not granted] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

You're playing with words, and I'm not really sure why. Rights are powers, the words are interchangeable. Delegate and grant are synonymous.


Start here: To begin with power/rights reside with the people, natural rights according to the Declaration. The people, if you accept social contract theory, granted/delegated certain rights/powers to the states. The people, still accepting social contract theory, and the states granted/delegated in the Constitution certain rights/powers to the federal government--the people and states restricted the states in Article IV--and further restricted those federal rights/powers in the Bill of Rights protecting the people and states.

Now any rights/powers not granted/delegated the federal government in the Constitution exercised by the federal government are extra- or unconstitutional. The states, and the people, retain the right/power to nullify any of those extra- or unconstitutional powers.


(I don't accept social contract theory, btw, but that above is the standard argument.)

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:44 PM
Jury nullification is not the same nullification the OP addresses.

State nullification is a theory that the state can write and pass state legislation that nullifies a federal law.

That is analogous to your county writing laws that nullify State law. And cities writing ordinances that nullify county and state laws.

There is no provision in any Constitution State or Federal That gives that right.

Nullification is broad legal theory that encompasses everything from jury trials to state's rights.

I prefer to emphasize jury trials, since they can effectively nullify any law at its point of enforcement, but I also support the use of state's rights, which you erroneously and laughable try to dismiss as not existing.

Basically, anything that serves to nullify immoral laws that violate the liberty of an individual is fine by me.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:46 PM
The powers [Not rights] not delegated [not granted] to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The 10th amendment means that the body of the constitution delegated powers to the federal government [Articles I, II, III, V, VI, and VII] and prohibited powers to the states [Article IV]...One has to read the Articles of the constitution to see what is delegated and prohibited to each the Constitution, the federal government and the states.

The 10th amendment grants no rights to he states.
The states agreed to give up a small amount of their sovereignty to a federal government so that the federal government could provide for the common defense, ensure free trade between the states and precious few other specific, enumerated things. For those of you who are unaware the granting of rights flowed from the states to the federal government. There is no reason for the Constitution to grant rights to the states. The States created the federal government, not the other way around.

A few of you do not appear to understand the nature of your governments.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:46 PM
Dude! It doesn't matter! Neither are law and I already posted Jackson's repudiation of nullification.

Pull your head out of the sand and look around. Sure, nullification and/or secession were brought up now and then over the decades, but became open talk among the tea party and libertarians after Obama was elected and blossomed into a right wing nutcases explosion after Obamacare was passed.

Therein lies the problem. The inmates are trying to take over the asylum.

Like I said, you want change? Get your beloved Libertarians and tea parties elected to change things the right way, not by foot stomping. Of course, that'll never happen because you guys will never be more than a hand full of cry babies.

Just because you're ignorant of libertarians' long support of nullification does not mean it hasn't been around for decades.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:46 PM
The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution.

From the people of the state.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:48 PM
That's just what it's called. And I'm not interested in arguing about words. The 1787 convention started out revisionary.
It is not called a constitutional convention. Words are all we have.

We can disagree about fixing the Articles of Confederation. I have no interest in arguing it.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:48 PM
The Declaration of Independence is not relevant to the Constitution, especially since Jefferson was purposely excluded from the Constitutional Convention.

There would be no USC without the DOI.

The idea that any legal document can retain its legitimacy without some prior moral law to base it on is barbarism.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:48 PM
The problem isn't with the constitution. The problem is with politicians who ignore or twist the meaning of the constitution. Lets say they add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Sounds good right? But the people who have proposed such an amendment have already said that there would have to be exceptions for emergencies. The politicians would either ignore it like they do now or just declare every pet project an emergency. Or maybe the SCOTUS politicians who do it for them. Or maybe the executive would just go around it with executive orders.


Right, the Constitution itself defines what is and is not constitutional. What is not constitution is nullifiable.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:50 PM
Jury trials are codified in the constitution, as are state's rights, so your smell seems like it could use some adjusting.
Your points are not relevant. You do not adequately understand the origins of the American federal government and its relationship to the states that created it. The things you are interested in are essentially immaterial and peripheral to the core of the problem.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:51 PM
The problem isn't with the constitution.

I have to disagree.

The document suffers from a fatal deficiency of informed consent, which is a necessary prerequisite for the legitimacy of any legal document.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:52 PM
The problem isn't with the constitution. The problem is with politicians who ignore or twist the meaning of the constitution. Lets say they add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. Sounds good right? But the people who have proposed such an amendment have already said that there would have to be exceptions for emergencies. The politicians would either ignore it like they do now or just declare every pet project an emergency. Or maybe the SCOTUS politicians who do it for them. Or maybe the executive would just go around it with executive orders.
No. The problems are with the Constitution. It has never been a perfect document. It cannot be. That is why it required men (and women) of character and honor. We have very few of them. The Constitution must be amended to recognize that the nation is run by criminals and charlatans. A dozen amendments should fix most of the sources of difficulties.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:53 PM
Article III.

Section. 2.

...The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:54 PM
Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:55 PM
"The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution."

From the people of the state.
Duh! The State Constitutions are approved by the voters. But the authority is derived from the Constitution.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 01:55 PM
Your points are not relevant. You do not adequately understand the origins of the American federal government and its relationship to the states that created it. The things you are interested in are essentially immaterial and peripheral to the core of the problem.

My points are entirely relevant, and your empty, contrarian assertions do nothing to alter that fact.

And the origin of the federal government is quite clear. It was created by a small minority of landed aristocrats who never bothered to obtain the consent of the people the document was designed to govern in the first place.

In other words, it has the same moral legitimacy and authority as a bum's napkin. The only reason anyone abides by it is because they are afraid to be killed or imprisoned.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 01:57 PM
My points are entirely relevant, and your empty, contrarian assertions do nothing to alter that fact.

And the origin of the federal government is quite clear. It was created by a small minority of landed aristocrats who never bothered to obtain the consent of the people the document was designed to govern in the first place.

In other words, it has the same moral legitimacy and authority as a bum's napkin. The only reason anyone abides by it is because they are afraid to be killed or imprisoned.
They are not relevant in the least. Your understanding of history is "wonderfully" flawed.

Chris
07-11-2015, 01:58 PM
"The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution."

Duh! The State Constitutions are approved by the voters. But the authority is derived from the Constitution.


I don't recall approving mine.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:03 PM
I don't recall approving mine.
Poor memory? Alabama has amended its at least twice since I moved here.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:04 PM
They are not relevant in the least. Your understanding of history is "wonderfully" flawed.

And yet you cannot provide any explanation to substantiate your empty assertions, which is a good indication that you are incapable of such.

The idea that anyone, anywhere is morally obligated to abide by a document that they never consented to abide by is barbaric and illogical.

If that were the case, then any group of men with sufficient power and wealth would be morally justified in ruling over others in any manner they pleased, so long as they fashioned some kind of document that permitted them to do so.

Cigar
07-11-2015, 02:06 PM
Can I Nullify the last Superbowl Winner? :laugh:

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:07 PM
No man or woman possesses any authority or power over another individual that they did not voluntarily consent to give them.

Virtually every central government in history is predicated upon the unjust assumption that one group of people has the moral right to rule over another group of people absent their express consent, which is, of course, a logical and moral absurdity.

Don
07-11-2015, 02:07 PM
If that were the case, than any group of men with sufficient power and wealth would be morally justified in ruling over others in any manner they pleased, so long as they fashioned some kind of document that permitted them to do so.

And if they had no morals they would do what they do now. "God damn the constitution."

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:10 PM
And yet you cannot provide any explanation to substantiate your empty assertions, which is a good indication that you are incapable of such.

The idea that anyone, anywhere is morally obligated to abide by a document that they never consented to abide by is barbaric and illogical.

If that were the case, then any group of men with sufficient power and wealth would be morally justified in ruling over others in any manner they pleased, so long as they fashioned some kind of document that permitted them to do so.
It is clear that you do not have any idea how our form of government arose. That is sufficient to discount your poor ramblings.

I suggested a way for another who posts here to overcome his or her fundamental lack of an education. Arrogance prevented action. No doubt you will have the same issue. If you have an interest I propose you have a period of study whose beginning date occurs early in the build up to the revolution and ends after the Constitution was ratified by the states and the first Congress met to debate, approve and forward to the states the Bill of Rights for ratification.

Until then I will largely ignore your mumblings.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 02:13 PM
By what means? A state writes and passes a law. Then what. Does the state also recognize the actions of the federal government or the federal or state courts to counter the state's legislative action?

I am not sure what your question is. I will assume you are asking by what means does a state nullify a federal law or requirement (like ordering the state to spend money on X). There is no real accepted procedure. The theory is that if a State believes a new federal requirement is outside of the authority of the federal government, the State just says that, "this law / requirement has no effect in our State as it is outside of the federal government's authority. Then the president asks his Attorney General to sue the state and then we see the federal courts blow the state off even if the said law / requirement is clearly outside of the authority of the central government. (Although I think there have been a few wins for states- but in those instances the states challenged the law in court first rather than attempt nullification. And challenge the law first helps with burden of proof law in court.)


Does the state legislature itself adhere to it own state's supreme court if the court rules against the law?

How would such a case get to a state supreme court? If it did, the state legislature would be bound by it. I am not sure which law you are referring too. The law the State is nullifying, or the "law" (more likely a proclamation) nullifying the federal law or requirement.


What gives a state's legislature dominion over all other branches of government is the real question. By what power does the a state legislature attain that authority?

Over other state branches of government? Whatever the state constitution provides. They all likely have similar separation of powers as does the federal government. You may be focusing on the state legislator instead of the state. Nullification would be an executive action although it could be instigated by the legislature.

Over other federal branches of government? None.

Nullification would be an act of the sovereign- the governor. If the state legislature desired something to be nullified they pass a bill and the governor acts or not.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:17 PM
It is clear that you do not have any idea how our form of government arose. That is sufficient to discount your poor ramblings.

I suggested a way for another who posts here to overcome his or her fundamental lack of an education. Arrogance prevented action. No doubt you will have the same issue. If you have an interest I propose you have a period of study whose beginning date occurs early in the build up to the revolution and ends after the Constitution was ratified by the states and the first Congress met to debate, approve and forward to the states the Bill of Rights for ratification.

Until then I will largely ignore your mumblings.

Once again, you haven't provided a single substantive counter to any of the points and facts I raised. You simply dismissed them out of hand and then declared your intent to evade my arguments.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:20 PM
Once again, you haven't provided a single substantive counter to any of the points and facts I raised. You simply dismissed them out of hand and then declared your intent to evade my arguments.
And we are once again back to the central issue. Your arguments are irrelevant and peripheral. There is no point discussing them until you clear up your significant knowledge gap.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:31 PM
And we are once again back to the central issue. Your arguments are irrelevant and peripheral. There is no point discussing them until you clear up your significant knowledge gap.

Another self-serving evasion utterly devoid of substance and thought.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 02:32 PM
I can only speak for myself.

My support of nullification would be to resist laws that criminalize non-violent offenses like drug use, gun possession, sex work, etc.

Most of those laws are local state laws.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:36 PM
The USC was fashioned by a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful Americans who never even considered, let alone attempted to obtain, the consent of the people it was designed to govern.

But the idea of "consent of the governed" has been totally trashed over the years and is not even an important consideration in any discussion of politics.

It's simply dismissed out of hand by arrogant, condescending types like Mr. V without any kind of explanation or logic to support it.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:37 PM
Most of those laws are local state laws.

Those ought to be nullified as well.

Chris
07-11-2015, 02:37 PM
But even those, in truth, were passed by a few, and that was way before any of us came along. That we have government of, for and by the people, at any level, is at best theory. If we're to have a government, a state, then I can understand abiding by that theory, or trying to since the whole point of this thread is it's not working out too well.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:37 PM
Another self-serving evasion utterly devoid of substance and thought.
We are done until you fill that enormous education gap.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:42 PM
The USC was fashioned by a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful Americans who never even considered, let alone attempted to obtain, the consent of the people it was designed to govern.

But the idea of "consent of the governed" has been totally trashed over the years and is not even an important consideration in any discussion of politics.

It's simply dismissed out of hand by arrogant, condescending types like Mr. V without any kind of explanation or logic to support it.
This is the stuff spoken by the all knowing ignorant. It is kook stuff. Get past the incredible education failure evidenced in your first statement and we can move on to the grayed out second sentence which has some merit. Your third sentence will clear itself up once you know something.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:42 PM
We are done until you fill that enormous education gap.

There is no "education gap". There is just your evasive and self-serving assertions that lack any explanation or logic to support them.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:44 PM
There is no "education gap". There is just your evasive and self-serving assertions that lack any explanation or logic to support them.
Clearly there is. If you do this right it will take you about a year. I will wait.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:45 PM
This is the stuff spoken by the all knowing ignorant. It is kook stuff. Get past the incredible education failure evidenced in your first statement and we can move on to the grayed out second sentence which has some merit. Your third sentence will clear itself up once you know something.

If my position was as weak as you claim, then you would have demonstrated it already by citing contradictory evidence and identifying flaws in my logic.

Instead, you bandy about opinionated assertions that are devoid of any evidence or logic and pretend like you've proven something.

It's the very definition of arrogant and self-serving debate. You really ought to fix that.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:46 PM
Clearly there is. If you do this right it will take you about a year. I will wait.

You're just making excuses because you cannot refute a single thing I said.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 02:52 PM
Apparently, we don't need to provide actual rebuttals to people's arguments anymore. We can just label them "irrelevant" and accuse the other person of lacking "education" without actually demonstrating that such is the case. That should make for some interesting and worthwhile debates... :rollseyes:

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 02:52 PM
If my position was as weak as you claim, then you would have demonstrated it already by citing contradictory evidence and identifying flaws in my logic.

Instead, you bandy about opinionated assertions that are devoid of any evidence or logic and pretend like you've proven something.

It's the very definition of arrogant and self-serving debate. You really ought to fix that.
The simple fact that you have no idea how our form of government arose invalidates your opinion.

"The USC was fashioned by a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful Americans who never even considered, let alone attempted to obtain, the consent of the people it was designed to govern."

You are simply wrong. You are too stubborn or too stupid to admit it. This knowledge gap it too big to be resolved on a message board. It requires study and reflection.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 03:40 PM
The simple fact that you have no idea how our form of government arose invalidates your opinion.

"The USC was fashioned by a tiny minority of wealthy and powerful Americans who never even considered, let alone attempted to obtain, the consent of the people it was designed to govern."

You are simply wrong. You are too stubborn or too stupid to admit it. This knowledge gap it too big to be resolved on a message board. It requires study and reflection.

If I were wrong, then you would have demonstrated it already by providing some kind of evidence- and logic-based rebuttal.

Instead, you have simply repeated your opinionated assertions and dismissals as if they were gospel, but I doubt anyone on this forum belongs to the church of Mr. Veritis, so you will have do something more substantial than bandy about self-serving assertions.

You can start by addressing the FACT that the only people who had anything approaching a legal right to influence the process of drafting and ratifying the USC were landed, white males, and that only a very tiny minority of those landed, white males were directly and materially involved in its creation, namely, the most powerful land owners, bankers, and lawyers in the country.

And once you've finished with all those FACTS, then you can explain how one generation can legally contract for future generations? Do Alexander Hamilton and James Madison possess some magical powers that grant them the authority to dictate to generations unborn how they are to be governed?

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 03:43 PM
Those ought to be nullified as well.

In many local courts small time marijuana cases are nullified by juries. Some places gave up prosecuting them because they couldn't get convictions even with confessions.

I am 100% for jury nullification.

Don
07-11-2015, 03:46 PM
In many local courts small time marijuana cases are nullified by juries. Some places gave up prosecuting them because they couldn't get convictions even with confessions.

I am 100% for jury nullification.

Me too but in some areas or courts its probably not a good idea to say you found a defendant not guilty because you disagreed with the law he was charged under.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 03:46 PM
In many local courts small time marijuana cases are nullified by juries. Some places gave up prosecuting them because they couldn't get convictions even with confessions.

I am 100% for jury nullification.

It's the most democratic way to effectuate change on the spot, in my opinion. Without an involved and informed citizenry providing checks on the government, there is no real self-government.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 03:47 PM
Me too but in some areas or courts its probably not a good idea to say you found a defendant not guilty because you disagreed with the law he was charged under.

Yes, it's best to keep your motivations a secret, so the powers that be cannot find an excuse to overturn the democratic will of the people.

Chris
07-11-2015, 03:47 PM
If I were wrong, then you would have demonstrated it already by providing some kind of evidence- and logic-based rebuttal.

Instead, you have simply repeated your opinionated assertions and dismissals as if they were gospel, but I doubt anyone on this forum belongs to the church of Mr. Veritis, so you will have do something more substantial than bandy about self-serving assertions.

You can start by addressing the FACT that the only people who had anything approaching a legal right to influence the process of drafting and ratifying the USC were landed, white males, and that only a very tiny minority of those landed, white males were directly and materially involved in its creation, namely, the most powerful land owners, bankers, and lawyers in the country.

And once you've finished with all those FACTS, then you can explain how one generation can legally contract for future generations? Do Alexander Hamilton and James Madison possess some magical powers that grant them the authority to dictate to generations unborn how they are to be governed?



Have to agree.

MV, if you have an argument, present it. Simply repeating someone is wrong with the suggestion there's something wrong with them for it, is not an argument. So out with it, or give it a rest.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 03:56 PM
The problem with an Art V convention is that their are not enough conservative states to get any improvements made.

Let both parties crash the economy and then we can start over.

Precisely why there will never be one. People like Chris and Boris can stomp their feet all they want, but that's the reality.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 04:00 PM
We're not talking about same-sex marriage either. Get it?

We are talking law, what the law allows. No, we aren't talking court rulings. The court didn't legislate law so there's no law to be nullified, nor would that be affected by a convention, unless the convention resulted in more than a new amendment.

And, no, you need to demonstrate your assertion, not shift the burden to others to disprove.


You, here's the thing, we could classify members in many ways, one classification would be into those into topical issues like yourself, and others more interested in more timeless issues of law and economics and history, nullification going back to the 1700s. If Don has posted this under rants or latest happenings or US politics, then, yes, it might be seen as a comment on some topical issue; but he didn't, he posted on the serious side, and you're just trolling what could be a serious discussion with an agenda you're stuck on.

Don's reply to you above supports this view.
Chris, even you're smart enough to realize that this nullification silliness crawled out of the cellar right after the past two SCOTUS rulings.

The conservative and homophobe foot stomping has gotten so bad earthquake sensors are being set off.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 04:01 PM
Precisely why there will never be one. People like Chris and Boris can stomp their feet all they want, but that's the reality.

A constitutional convention is totally unnecessary and a red herring. Nullification of federal laws via states rights and jury trials is all that is needed to reclaim democratic control over the governing process.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 04:02 PM
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128), even you're smart enough to realize that this nullification silliness crawled out of the cellar right after the past two SCOTUS rulings.

The conservative and homophobe foot stomping has gotten so bad earthquake sensors are being set off.

Why do libertarians have to answer for what conservatives are doing? We're NOT the same, you know.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 04:05 PM
It's been talked by libertarians since the movement began back in the 50s. You're the one with head in sand looking only at the recent surface of history.

Nice inflammatory ad hom though, just doesn't substitute for rational argument.


You Libertarians have been troublemakers for decades. Here's a newsflash. Nobody cares what you want. None of this was incorporated into the Constitution and the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled against your baseless arguments for over 200 years.

Give up.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 04:07 PM
You Libertarians have been troublemakers for decades.

If by "troublemakers" you mean "defenders of liberty and civil rights", then absolutely.


Here's a newsflash. Nobody cares what you want.

Then why are states like Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana? And why are states all across America relaxing their gun laws?


None of this was incorporated into the Constitution and the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled against your baseless arguments for over 200 years.

Give up.

The bill of rights is libertarian, as is the Declaration of Independence, so clearly there is some legal basis for what we are saying.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 04:17 PM
Why do libertarians have to answer for what conservatives are doing? We're NOT the same, you know.
I
That's the problem. Libertarians have a "platform", but little representation. So they have to pretend to be Republicans or tea partiers to gain any legitimacy, but it still doesn't work. Americans possessing more than the pseudo-intellectualism of Libertarians realize that this nation was founded not on the writings of Jefferson or Madison, but on the Constitution.

Your best bet would be to get Tom Perkins and Ron Paul to buy an island somewhere and start over.

magicmike
07-11-2015, 04:23 PM
If by "troublemakers" you mean "defenders of liberty and civil rights", then absolutely.



Then why are states like Colorado and Washington legalizing marijuana? And why are states all across America relaxing their gun laws?



The bill of rights is libertarian, as is the Declaration of Independence, so clearly there is some legal basis for what we are saying.

Repeal of Marijuana laws are popular, that's why. Silly notions like disbanding 70% of the federal government and transferring that power to the states is just that, silly. Hell, states can't even manage their own roads, schools, health care and pension plans.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 04:25 PM
That's the problem. Libertarians have a "platform", but little representation. So they have to pretend to be Republicans or tea partiers to gain any legitimacy...

I'm not pretending to be a Republican or a tea partier.


but it still doesn't work. Americans possessing more than the pseudo-intellectualism of Libertarians realize that this nation was founded not on the writings of Jefferson or Madison, but on the Constitution.

The "nation" was "founded" when the continental congress declared its Independence.


Your best bet would be to get Tom Perkins and Ron Paul to buy an island somewhere and start over.

We have the right under the constitution to express ourselves and to attempt to effectuate change in our political system through peaceful means, so you are just going to have to get used to having us around... :laugh:

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 04:27 PM
Repeal of Marijuana laws are popular, that's why.

More popular than federal supremacy, it would seem.


Silly notions like disbanding 70% of the federal government and transferring that power to the states is just that, silly.

Even though America rose to worldwide prominence under a similar model.


Hell, states can't even manage their own roads, schools, health care and pension plans.

Democrat municipalities like Detroit and Chicago certainly struggle with good government, but that is their problem.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 04:34 PM
Me too but in some areas or courts its probably not a good idea to say you found a defendant not guilty because you disagreed with the law he was charged under.

I wouldn't brag about it, but I don't think that there is any legal recourse. It was a prime reason for civilian juries in the first place- beginning in England although there is was a jury of your peers- i.e. other lords.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 04:36 PM
Precisely why there will never be one. People like Chris and Boris can stomp their feet all they want, but that's the reality.

Don't forget me second part. Without serious economic reform it is a certainty.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 05:13 PM
He or she already does.
You never stop do you? How does explaining something like nullification and it's treatment by the federal courts turn into advocacy? I have yet to offer any opinion on this issue, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions.

America has a codified Constitution. It goes without saying that any federal legislation must comply with those areas and powers reserved to the federal government alone. The Supreme Court of the U.S. was empowered to interpret the constitutionality of both federal and state legislation, to ensure that neither oversteps the boundaries of the powers either reserved to the federal government or those reserved to the states. Nullification is a legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that State has deemed unconstitutional. However the power to interpret the Constitution was never reserved to the States, it was reserved to SCOTUS by virtue of the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution. The notion that because the States formed the Union through agreement or compact, gives them the ultimate authority to arbitrarily limit federal law through interposition, is not supported in the Constitutional document that each State ratified. No such proviso was incorporated into the Constitution. Hence the Supreme Court's rejection of any State's notion of a presumptive right to nullification.

donttread
07-11-2015, 05:14 PM
Same here!

Jury trials are the best way to actively protect liberty in the present.

Aggressively reject "guilty" charges for non-crimes like drug use/possession, firearms possession, sex work, and other non-violent offenses.

Ahh, the victimless crimes that drive our prison industrial complex

donttread
07-11-2015, 05:15 PM
The thinking behind this item appears to be quite flawed, imho. Could it be that it was brought up simply because Same-Sex Marriage won at the SCOTUS level? Why else? Now those unhappy with the decision are frothing at the mouth and are wanting to change the Constitution (Mind You!) and are pathetically up in arms about it. It's a reminder of the old "It's my marriage and only I get to enjoy it and I won't share it with you or others!" syndrome. So enjoy your marriage, no one wants to join in it but you now need to also simply allow others in the G & L community to do the same as per the law. After you absorb that fact simply move on with your own life and marriage and please leave others alone.

How foolish and indeed naive to even think of changing the U.S. Constitution just to remain "King of the Hill" and retain all rights and privileges to marriage all to yourself, despite the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Had it been anything else but S-SM this would not even have been brought up nor would it be an issue. Not even with the abortion issue. Not even with the Citizens United issue. But with the Gay Marriage issue, fogy men with draconian 16th Century thinking are breathing out fire and firing fireworks out through their nose and fogy women are in panic raising their skirts up over their heads. That is the greatest example of pathetic thinking if there ever was any. It puts America to shame actually. To think that just because some want to undo the Same-Sex Marriage Law, they would stoop this low as to want such a drastic change to American Law is beyond comprehension. But That Simply Will Not Happen. With over 62% of Americans, including Evangelicals, now feeling quite comfortable with Same-Sex Marriage, they would be hard-pressed to support such a travesty of a move as this.

Please folks, use your time for better things. America does not need further division in this country. We need cohesion. Let's instead work towards that end for the betterment of all! Thank you.

You are a one trick pony aren't you?

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 05:19 PM
No. The problems are with the Constitution. It has never been a perfect document. It cannot be. That is why it required men (and women) of character and honor. We have very few of them. The Constitution must be amended to recognize that the nation is run by criminals and charlatans. A dozen amendments should fix most of the sources of difficulties.
Well that's first thing that you've said that presents an argument. Congrats. I agree that the document is not perfect, but the only way to legal change is through amendment.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:21 PM
If I were wrong, then you would have demonstrated it already by providing some kind of evidence- and logic-based rebuttal.

Instead, you have simply repeated your opinionated assertions and dismissals as if they were gospel, but I doubt anyone on this forum belongs to the church of Mr. Veritis, so you will have do something more substantial than bandy about self-serving assertions.

You can start by addressing the FACT that the only people who had anything approaching a legal right to influence the process of drafting and ratifying the USC were landed, white males, and that only a very tiny minority of those landed, white males were directly and materially involved in its creation, namely, the most powerful land owners, bankers, and lawyers in the country.

And once you've finished with all those FACTS, then you can explain how one generation can legally contract for future generations? Do Alexander Hamilton and James Madison possess some magical powers that grant them the authority to dictate to generations unborn how they are to be governed?
This is where your error begins. The Constitution was ratified by 3/4ths of the states after a great deal of debate. So are you a liar, a scoundrel or simply uneducated as I surmise?

Come back when you actually know something.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:23 PM
It's the most democratic way to effectuate change on the spot, in my opinion. Without an involved and informed citizenry providing checks on the government, there is no real self-government.
Jury nullification makes NO change. It finds one defendant not guilty in one trial.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:25 PM
Have to agree.

MV, if you have an argument, present it. Simply repeating someone is wrong with the suggestion there's something wrong with them for it, is not an argument. So out with it, or give it a rest.
Neither you nor he/she know the history. Without it both of you will err as you both do. Fixing ignorance is not something readily done on a message board.

What you do is up to you. I will continue to respond.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:26 PM
A constitutional convention is totally unnecessary and a red herring. Nullification of federal laws via states rights and jury trials is all that is needed to reclaim democratic control over the governing process.
This will have no effect.

Peter1469
07-11-2015, 05:33 PM
SCOTUS has no authority over a state law case that does not contain a federal question (general statement; not meant to apply to this discussion).


You never stop do you? How does explaining something like nullification and it's treatment by the federal courts turn into advocacy? I have yet to offer any opinion on this issue, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions.

America has a codified Constitution. It goes without saying that any federal legislation must comply with those areas and powers reserved to the federal government alone. The Supreme Court of the U.S. was empowered to interpret the constitutionality of both federal and state legislation, to ensure that neither oversteps the boundaries of the powers either reserved to the federal government or those reserved to the states. Nullification is a legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that State has deemed unconstitutional. However the power to interpret the Constitution was never reserved to the States, it was reserved to SCOTUS by virtue of the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution. The notion that because the States formed the Union through agreement or compact, gives them the ultimate authority to arbitrarily limit federal law through interposition, is not supported in the Constitutional document that each State ratified. No such proviso was incorporated into the Constitution. Hence the Supreme Court's rejection of any State's notion of a presumptive right to nullification.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:37 PM
Precisely why there will never be one. People like Chris and Boris can stomp their feet all they want, but that's the reality.

Mike, stop stomping, you're giving me a headache.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:40 PM
Chris, even you're smart enough to realize that this nullification silliness crawled out of the cellar right after the past two SCOTUS rulings.

The conservative and homophobe foot stomping has gotten so bad earthquake sensors are being set off.


It's been with the country since its beginning. Its been a libertarian argument since its beginnings.

Nice inflammatory ad hom, but it's not an argument.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:41 PM
Why do libertarians have to answer for what conservatives are doing? We're NOT the same, you know.

Does Mike like to stereotype?

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 05:43 PM
SCOTUS has no authority over a state law case that does not contain a federal question (general statement; not meant to apply to this discussion).
Yes, that's what I thought I said, but thanks for the clarification. SCOTUS has only ever become involved in cases that involved matters involving federal jurisdiction.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:43 PM
You Libertarians have been troublemakers for decades. Here's a newsflash. Nobody cares what you want. None of this was incorporated into the Constitution and the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled against your baseless arguments for over 200 years.

Give up.


It's libertarian.

If nobody cares, why are you foot stomping?

It's not in the Constitution because it's left to the states and the people.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:45 PM
I
That's the problem. Libertarians have a "platform", but little representation. So they have to pretend to be Republicans or tea partiers to gain any legitimacy, but it still doesn't work. Americans possessing more than the pseudo-intellectualism of Libertarians realize that this nation was founded not on the writings of Jefferson or Madison, but on the Constitution.

Your best bet would be to get Tom Perkins and Ron Paul to buy an island somewhere and start over.



It's libertarian. And that's a wonderful straw man argument. Like how you make it up just to knock it down. If you only had a real argument here, I'd love to address it.

Chris
07-11-2015, 05:47 PM
This is where your error begins. The Constitution was ratified by 3/4ths of the states after a great deal of debate. So are you a liar, a scoundrel or simply uneducated as I surmise?

Come back when you actually know something.

3/4ths of the states' _____, what? Who were they?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:49 PM
Boris asked you, "So you would support an all encroaching Federal Government running every aspect of our lives?"

I said you already do.


You never stop do you? How does explaining something like nullification and it's treatment by the federal courts turn into advocacy? I have yet to offer any opinion on this issue, so I'll thank you not to make assumptions.
Your positions have consistently supported the federal takeover of every facet of our lives.


America has a codified Constitution. It goes without saying that any federal legislation must comply with those areas and powers reserved to the federal government alone.
Right. My first concern is your lack of understanding for how the Constitution was formed. Do you know yet? Do you understand that sovereign states got together and agreed to give up just a little bit of their sovereignty to create an extremely limited federal government with tightly controlled powers and responsibilities? I do not believe that you do. Nor do I believe others here do. I believe that at least three of you view the States and the people as vassals to an all powerful federal leviathan. A monster. A beast.


The Supreme Court of the U.S. was empowered to interpret the constitutionality of both federal and state legislation, to ensure that neither oversteps the boundaries of the powers either reserved to the federal government or those reserved to the states.
In my opinion this is completely and profoundly untrue.

Article III section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi);--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

What has to occur? There must be a controversy involving the federal government, or between two states, or between a citizen in one state and another state, or between citizens of two different states. The controversy must involve the constitution or federal law. All other cases involve the seizure of powers never granted to a court. We see that happening more and more.


Nullification is a legal theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that State has deemed unconstitutional. However the power to interpret the Constitution was never reserved to the States, it was reserved to SCOTUS by virtue of the Supremacy Clause and Article III of the Constitution. The notion that because the States formed the Union through agreement or compact, gives them the ultimate authority to arbitrarily limit federal law through interposition, is not supported in the Constitutional document that each State ratified. No such proviso was incorporated into the Constitution. Hence the Supreme Court's rejection of any State's notion of a presumptive right to nullification.
I don't really care about nullification beyond jury nullification. It is a moot issue.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 05:53 PM
Well that's first thing that you've said that presents an argument. Congrats. I agree that the document is not perfect, but the only way to legal change is through amendment.
Yes. The Article V process is the only lawful way. But every time the Supremes meet or Obama makes his own laws the Constitution has been amended.

We cannot expect the Congress to use their half of the article V process to fix the problems they are a major part of. So the state legislators have to use their part of Article V to propose the amendments and get them to the states for ratification.

I can only present arguments to people who understand enough of how the world works to "get it". In this case perhaps you do.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:00 PM
3/4ths of the states' _____, what? Who were they?
Some states ratified quickly, others had to hold several conventions to accept the Constitution — though all eventually did. This page lists the votes of each state's conventions.September 17, 1787: The Constitutional Convention adjourns.
September 28, 1787: The Congress agrees to send the Constitution to the states for debate and ratification.
December 7, 1787: Delaware (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_de.html) ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.
December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_pa.html) ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.
December 18, 1787: New Jersey (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nj.html) ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.
January 2, 1788: Georgia (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ga.html) ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.
January 9, 1788: Connecticut (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ct.html) ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.
February 6, 1788: Massachusetts (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ma.html) ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.
March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.
April 28, 1788: Maryland (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_md.html) ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.
May 23, 1788: South Carolina (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_sc.html) ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.
June 21, 1788: New Hampshire (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html) ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.
June 25, 1788: Virginia (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html) ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.
July 26, 1788: New York (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html) ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.
August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.
November 21, 1789: North Carolina (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nc.html) ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.
May 29, 1790: Rhode Island (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html) ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.

Twelve of 13 voted for.

Why do you insist that I give you public idiot lessons? This is sixth grade stuff. This is also why I believe that you, the doctor and the ether haven't sufficient education to have these discussions. You should care enough to resolve your glaring education hole.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 06:02 PM
Boris asked you, "So you would support an all encroaching Federal Government running every aspect of our lives?"

I said you already do.


Your positions have consistently supported the federal takeover of every facet of our lives.


Right. My first concern is your lack of understanding for how the Constitution was formed. Do you know yet? Do you understand that sovereign states got together and agreed to give up just a little bit of their sovereignty to create an extremely limited federal government with tightly controlled powers and responsibilities? I do not believe that you do. Nor do I believe others here do. I believe that at least three of you view the States and the people as vassals to an all powerful federal leviathan. A monster. A beast.


In my opinion this is completely and profoundly untrue.

Article III section 2:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi);--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

What has to occur? There must be a controversy involving the federal government, or between two states, or between a citizen in one state and another state, or between citizens of two different states. The controversy must involve the constitution or federal law. All other cases involve the seizure of powers never granted to a court. We see that happening more and more.


I don't really care about nullification beyond jury nullification. It is a moot issue.
You dismiss the leading statement: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. You further disregard this: In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Most cases only reach SCOTUS after they have already been adjudicated in the lower courts.

Chris
07-11-2015, 06:02 PM
ome states ratified quickly, others had to hold several conventions to accept the Constitution — though all eventually did. This page lists the votes of each state's conventions.September 17, 1787: The Constitutional Convention adjourns.
September 28, 1787: The Congress agrees to send the Constitution to the states for debate and ratification.
December 7, 1787: Delaware (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_de.html) ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against.
December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_pa.html) ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against.
December 18, 1787: New Jersey (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nj.html) ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against.
January 2, 1788: Georgia (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ga.html) ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against.
January 9, 1788: Connecticut (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ct.html) ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against.
February 6, 1788: Massachusetts (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ma.html) ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against.
March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against.
April 28, 1788: Maryland (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_md.html) ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against.
May 23, 1788: South Carolina (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_sc.html) ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against.
June 21, 1788: New Hampshire (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nh.html) ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. Minimum requirement for ratification met.
June 25, 1788: Virginia (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html) ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against.
July 26, 1788: New York (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ny.html) ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against.
August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed.
November 21, 1789: North Carolina (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_nc.html) ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against.
May 29, 1790: Rhode Island (http://www.usconstitution.net/rat_ri.html) ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against.

Twelve of 13 voted for.

Why do you insist that I give you public idiot lessons? This is sixth grade stuff. This is also why I believe that you, the doctor and the ether haven't sufficient education to have these discussions. You should care enough to resolve your glaring education hole.



Ignoring your idiotic ad hom, what you've just done is demonstrate Ethereal's point. Essentially a few hundred elites, rich and/or powerful, created and ratified the Constitution. No one asked the people.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:02 PM
This is where your error begins. The Constitution was ratified by 3/4ths of the states after a great deal of debate. So are you a liar, a scoundrel or simply uneducated as I surmise?

Come back when you actually know something.

And how many of those states involved women and non-whites in the political process? Oh, that's right, none of them did.

But thanks for demonstrating your absolute ignorance of reality.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:16 PM
You dismiss the leading statement: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution. You further disregard this: In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Most cases only reach SCOTUS after they have already been adjudicated in the lower courts.
I laid that out very carefully. A federal law (Law of the US) must be involved as one of the conditions. I bolded and restated each of the conditions. But you have to be able to read and to see. Perhaps you need new glasses.

Contrary to the Constitution you have just argued that the supreme court can hear any case on anything they want to. This is against the Constitution and is tyranny.

You are blind because you choose to be.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:18 PM
And how many of those states involved women and non-whites in the political process? Oh, that's right, none of them did.

But thanks for demonstrating your absolute ignorance of reality.
I just shake my head. Thanks you are too ignorant to have a discussion with. You are also a liar. Cool beans.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:21 PM
Ignoring your idiotic ad hom, what you've just done is demonstrate Ethereal's point. Essentially a few hundred elites, rich and/or powerful, created and ratified the Constitution. No one asked the people.
Once again you lie. You backtrack. You dissemble. And you are wholly ignorant. The lying is the worst part. Some people might actually believe you.

I believe your lies are evil and anti-American.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 06:21 PM
Yes. The Article V process is the only lawful way. But every time the Supremes meet or Obama makes his own laws the Constitution has been amended.

We cannot expect the Congress to use their half of the article V process to fix the problems they are a major part of. So the state legislators have to use their part of Article V to propose the amendments and get them to the states for ratification.

I can only present arguments to people who understand enough of how the world works to "get it". In this case perhaps you do.
Constitutional Amendment requires Congress persons to consider more than their personal fortunes and partisanship. It has to be a cooperative effort and there is no sign that cooperation between the parties at that level is likely to happen any time soon.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:25 PM
I just shake my head. Thanks you are too ignorant to have a discussion with. You are also a liar. Cool beans.

Yet again, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence in support of your empty assertions.

Clearly, it is you who is the liar, and a coward as well.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:26 PM
Once again you lie. You backtrack. You dissemble. And you are wholly ignorant. The lying is the worst part. Some people might actually believe you.

I believe your lies are evil and anti-American.

You're the one who is lying like an evil coward, so stop projecting your inadequacies on to other posters, because it makes you look like a deluded moron.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:28 PM
Constitutional Amendment requires Congress persons to consider more than their personal fortunes and partisanship. It has to be a cooperative effort and there is no sign that cooperation between the parties at that level is likely to happen any time soon.
No it doesn't. Why do you insist upon being so consistently wrong?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:30 PM
Yet again, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence in support of your empty assertions.

Clearly, it is you who is the liar, and a coward as well.
I am done with you. I understand now that your problem is not a lack of education. It is a fundamental dishonesty. There is no need to go any further. You are among the worst sorts of liars.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:31 PM
You're the one who is lying like an evil coward, so stop projecting your inadequacies on to other posters, because it makes you look like a deluded moron.
I get that you are a liar and a fraud. It is not a simple lack of education. This is congenital lying. you cannot help yourself.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:34 PM
I am done with you. I understand now that your problem is not a lack of education. It is a fundamental dishonesty. There is no need to go any further. You are among the worst sorts of liars.

You are just projecting your own faults and shortcomings on to other people because you are spineless idiot who doesn't have a single honest bone in his body.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:34 PM
I get that you are a liar and a fraud. It is not a simple lack of education. This is congenital lying. you cannot help yourself.

More projection from an arrogant, self-deluded moron.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 06:36 PM
I laid that out very carefully. A federal law (Law of the US) must be involved as one of the conditions. I bolded and restated each of the conditions. But you have to be able to read and to see. Perhaps you need new glasses.

Contrary to the Constitution you have just argued that the supreme court can hear any case on anything they want to. This is against the Constitution and is tyranny.

You are blind because you choose to be.
No, the leading statement indicates that SCOTUS can only hear cases that arise under the Constitution. Each case must involve an area of law that has federal jurisdiction. Not unsurprisingly the majority of recent cases have involved civil rights issues. The power over civil rights were never among those enumerated to the States, they were really reserved to the people and then to the Constitution to protect. The view of rights in the 18th century is not the same as that of the 21st century. That is true. However the world has never stood still. The Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution through the eyes and education of 21st century people and the body of case law that it has provided.

Ethereal
07-11-2015, 06:39 PM
Half the population (women) were not even allowed to vote until 1920, yet the dishonest cretin Mr. Veritis wants us to believe that the people were broadly involved in the drafting and ratification of the constitution.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2015, 06:44 PM
No, the leading statement indicates that SCOTUS can only hear cases that arise under the Constitution. Each case must involve an area of law that has federal jurisdiction. Not unsurprisingly the majority of recent cases have involved civil rights issues. The power over civil rights were never among those enumerated to the States, they were really reserved to the people and then to the Constitution to protect. The view of rights in the 18th century is not the same as that of the 21st century. That is true. However the world has never stood still. The Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution through the eyes and education of 21st century people and the body of case law that it has provided.
Right. In general we agree. If the cases involve a federal question the court can consider hearing them. It cannot Constitutionally hear any case it wishes although it frequently does and then creates a mess of things.

What is a civil right?

And what mischief will come from using the rationale of desired dignity? If I have a constitutional case because I believe that I would retain my dignity if the court agrees with me then we have judicial tyranny under the color of law. Where the law is not just we have no law.

And really you do need to get your head out of ... well. You do need to learn that the federal government did not create the states. This lack of fundamental understanding frustrates me in dealing with you. The Constitution was not created by the states to determine what the states could do. the constitution laid out the very tightly restricted areas the federal government had a role in.

The states do not have enumerated powers in the Constitution. the federal government does. Learn it.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 06:48 PM
No it doesn't. Why do you insist upon being so consistently wrong?
Really? If they can barely agree on the day to day issues, how can they possibly agree on Amendments to the Constitution? Perhaps you are alluding to a Constitutional Convention which would require a legitimate petitioning by 2/3 of the States on the same issue. Again, good luck with that. Not to say it is impossible, but unlikely.

Dr. Who
07-11-2015, 07:07 PM
Right. In general we agree. If the cases involve a federal question the court can consider hearing them. It cannot Constitutionally hear any case it wishes although it frequently does and then creates a mess of things.

What is a civil right?

And what mischief will come from using the rationale of desired dignity? If I have a constitutional case because I believe that I would retain my dignity if the court agrees with me then we have judicial tyranny under the color of law. Where the law is not just we have no law.

And really you do need to get your head out of ... well. You do need to learn that the federal government did not create the states. This lack of fundamental understanding frustrates me in dealing with you. The Constitution was not created by the states to determine what the states could do. the constitution laid out the very tightly restricted areas the federal government had a role in.

The states do not have enumerated powers in the Constitution. the federal government does. Learn it.
My apologies, I misspoke, make that powers reserved to the federal government. At the end of the day, there are certain areas of the law that are reserved to the feds, not the states. Those areas of law come under the purview of SCOTUS, like it or not. As someone working in an industry that has it's contracts reinterpreted by courts on a daily basis, I do understand the frustration. We also raise the specter of original intent and all that - a generally useless argument with the courts - they only interpret what any such contract says and what those words mean in the contemporary context, irrespective of history. The same situation occurs with the Constitution, although there is more effort made to interpret what 18th century language meant in its context, at the end of the day, when it comes to issues of rights, the concept of rights are not those of the 18th century, but those recognized in the 20th and 21st century. At any rate, perhaps I am a legalist, but I prefer the impartiality of the law, to the emotions of people who would trample the rights of others to preserve their historical notion of an ideal world.

Chris
07-11-2015, 08:28 PM
Once again you lie. You backtrack. You dissemble. And you are wholly ignorant. The lying is the worst part. Some people might actually believe you.

I believe your lies are evil and anti-American.


You're sputtering and spitting. Are you angry? I guess I would be if I disproved my own argument.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 09:48 AM
Really? If they can barely agree on the day to day issues, how can they possibly agree on Amendments to the Constitution? Perhaps you are alluding to a Constitutional Convention which would require a legitimate petitioning by 2/3 of the States on the same issue. Again, good luck with that. Not to say it is impossible, but unlikely.
Article V has two routes, one through the Congress and the second through the state legislatures. Neither one is a Constitutional Convention. Nice try though.

It takes 34 states to petition the Congress. Four have done so. Thirty to go.

We cannot expect the Congress, a major part of the problem of federal tyranny, to fix itself. So the Article V convention of states to propose amendments offers one last lawful opportunity to restore the nation to liberty by repairing the enormous damage done to the Constitution by lawless politicians. There is no doubt that it will be difficult. But do not worry. Many of us are arming up. The use of force of arms is always the last resort against tyrants.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 09:50 AM
You're sputtering and spitting. Are you angry? I guess I would be if I disproved my own argument.
Disappointed. Although you have been dishonest before. One cannot disprove a willful lie. Because you are the liar you will never admit it. Once I believed your error was based in an education gap. Now I know it is dishonesty instead. I see no value in continuing with someone I know is lying.

Chris
07-12-2015, 09:58 AM
Disappointed. Although you have been dishonest before. One cannot disprove a willful lie. Because you are the liar you will never admit it. Once I believed your error was based in an education gap. Now I know it is dishonesty instead. I see no value in continuing with someone I know is lying.

If all you've got is ad hom you've got nothing at all. You lose.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 09:59 AM
My apologies, I misspoke, make that powers reserved to the federal government. At the end of the day, there are certain areas of the law that are reserved to the feds, not the states.
Those areas were intentionally very narrow. Today they are all encompassing. This is the foundation of judicial tyranny and the end of government of, by and for the people.


Those areas of law come under the purview of SCOTUS, like it or not. As someone working in an industry that has it's contracts reinterpreted by courts on a daily basis, I do understand the frustration.
This is why we will require an Article V convention of states to repair the enormous damage that has already been done. Where the Constitution offered only a small, weak role for the judiciary it has become a de facto oligarchy of five.


We also raise the specter of original intent and all that - a generally useless argument with the courts - they only interpret what any such contract says and what those words mean in the contemporary context, irrespective of history. The same situation occurs with the Constitution, although there is more effort made to interpret what 18th century language meant in its context, at the end of the day, when it comes to issues of rights, the concept of rights are not those of the 18th century, but those recognized in the 20th and 21st century. At any rate, perhaps I am a legalist, but I prefer the impartiality of the law, to the emotions of people who would trample the rights of others to preserve their historical notion of an ideal world.
Understanding original intent is seldom that difficult. That no longer happens. Today we have policy pronouncements and downright lying in the place of Constitutional analysis. Take for example SCOTUScare. Twice the justices rewrote the law. Twice they acted lawlessly. They should have been impeached. Instead they are lauded. So we are no longer under law nor the Constitution.

If you believe there are new rights the proper way to enshrine them is through the Amendment process. Rights protect the people from the government.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 10:01 AM
If all you've got is ad hom you've got nothing at all. You lose.
Chris, I do not mind being done with you. You lied. You did so wilfully. You are dishonest and likely always will be.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 10:03 AM
Half the population (women) were not even allowed to vote until 1920, yet the dishonest cretin Mr. Veritis wants us to believe that the people were broadly involved in the drafting and ratification of the constitution.
Here is the basis of your lie. You use today's standard to judge what was done in the 1780s. Then you lied about what actually took place. I believed you were in error until you exposed that you willfully, intentionally lied. I cannot trust you.

Chris
07-12-2015, 10:10 AM
Chris, I do not mind being done with you. You lied. You did so wilfully. You are dishonest and likely always will be.

The fact you're still addressing me belies you're saying you're done with me.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 10:13 AM
The fact you're still addressing me belies you're saying you're done with me.
No. I am done. I wanted to make it clear why I am done. If you should ever choose to be truthful I will re-engage.

Chris
07-12-2015, 10:26 AM
No. I am done. I wanted to make it clear why I am done. If you should ever choose to be truthful I will re-engage.

Posting you're done, for the nth time now, belies the fact you're not.

So one must consider, are these self-annihilating, false statements of yours lies? One would have to consider motive.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 10:37 AM
Posting you're done, for the nth time now, belies the fact you're not.

So one must consider, are these self-annihilating, false statements of yours lies? One would have to consider motive.
You may have the last word.

1751_Texan
07-12-2015, 11:22 AM
The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution.

Then there would be no need for a state to legislate nullification. If the State's constitution provides state's immunity from federal laws all is settled. State Constitutions trump the US Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Peter1469
07-12-2015, 11:26 AM
Then there would be no need for a state to legislate nullification. If the State's constitution provides state's immunity from federal laws all is settled. State Constitutions trump the US Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Outside of the enumerated powers and the application of the BoRs via the 14th Amendment.

1751_Texan
07-12-2015, 11:33 AM
Outside of the enumerated powers and the application of the BoRs via the 14th Amendment.
What's left?

Chris
07-12-2015, 11:37 AM
What's left?

Unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 11:41 AM
This was the question you asked:
"What gives a state's legislature dominion over all other branches of government is the real question. By what power does the a state legislature attain that authority?"

Here is my answer: "The State's legislative authority comes from the State's constitution."


Then there would be no need for a state to legislate nullification. If the State's constitution provides state's immunity from federal laws all is settled. State Constitutions trump the US Constitution. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
You follow up statement is mostly nonsense. Cool beans.

Nullification, other than jury nullification is moot.

Peter1469
07-12-2015, 12:07 PM
What's left?
A heck of a lot of stuff. The BoRs doesn't affect much state legislation if there is equal treatment, no discrimination, etc.

The meat of State legislative power is well outside of the enumerated powers of Article 1, sec. 8.

Dr. Who
07-12-2015, 12:09 PM
Article V has two routes, one through the Congress and the second through the state legislatures. Neither one is a Constitutional Convention. Nice try though.

It takes 34 states to petition the Congress. Four have done so. Thirty to go.

We cannot expect the Congress, a major part of the problem of federal tyranny, to fix itself. So the Article V convention of states to propose amendments offers one last lawful opportunity to restore the nation to liberty by repairing the enormous damage done to the Constitution by lawless politicians. There is no doubt that it will be difficult. But do not worry. Many of us are arming up. The use of force of arms is always the last resort against tyrants.
You had better hope that the FBI is not monitoring this web site, given what you've just stated. Beyond that, it is still unlikely that a majority of States will petition Congress.

1751_Texan
07-12-2015, 12:54 PM
Unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

matched by unconstitutional acts by the states. Why is one master better than another?

The states have mirror state agencies to federal and as many if not more rules, regulations, provisions, licencing, a restrictions as the federal government.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 12:55 PM
You had better hope that the FBI is not monitoring this web site, given what you've just stated. Beyond that, it is still unlikely that a majority of States will petition Congress.
What a goofy statement. Is this how far we have sunk that national police organizations monitor citizens who understand how the world works?

Do you already live on your knees, fearful of speaking the truth because of the midnight knock on the door and the arrival of men with guns and flash-bang grenades? Are you unaware of why we have the Second Amendment? It is to counter an oppressive government. This is where we find ourselves today.

Cower in fear if you must. Your fearful statements tell me that I am far more right than I state. We live under tyrannical rule backed by force. Soft tyranny will become hard tyranny. When that day comes I know which side I shall be on. I suspect I know which side you will be on as well, the oppressive state's side.

Dr. Who
07-12-2015, 01:10 PM
What a goofy statement. Is this how far we have sunk that national police organizations monitor citizens who understand how the world works?

Do you already live on your knees, fearful of speaking the truth because of the midnight knock on the door and the arrival of men with guns and flash-bang grenades? Are you unaware of why we have the Second Amendment? It is to counter an oppressive government. This is where we find ourselves today.

Cower in fear if you must. Your fearful statements tell me that I am far more right than I state. We live under tyrannical rule backed by force. Soft tyranny will become hard tyranny. When that day comes I know which side I shall be on. I suspect I know which side you will be on as well, the oppressive state's side.
I just hope you are aware that advocating alone can land you in jail.
18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385)

Peter1469
07-12-2015, 01:16 PM
matched by unconstitutional acts by the states. Why is one master better than another?

The states have mirror state agencies to federal and as many if not more rules, regulations, provisions, licencing, a restrictions as the federal government.

Federalism. In the US, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, the States had the authority to legislate Life, Health, and Safety issues (legal term of art). That is why I can't really be called a libertarian. States have inherently much more power, within their borders, than the Federal government.

The upside is that people have more power over their state governments than the federal government. Also get get 50 different approaches to local governance. New Hampshire has it Free State Project (https://freestateproject.org/)- libertarians should seriously look into turning that state into something much closer to what they want than anywhere else in the US.

Chris
07-12-2015, 01:25 PM
matched by unconstitutional acts by the states. Why is one master better than another?

The states have mirror state agencies to federal and as many if not more rules, regulations, provisions, licencing, a restrictions as the federal government.


matched by unconstitutional acts by the states.

True, as Peter said about enumerated powers and incorporation of BoRs.


Why is one master better than another?

Each would have their own sovereignty. So would the people.


Do you not think that if the federal government passes an unconstitutional law the states have a right to nullify it? Hypothetically, let's say the federal government passes a law to quarter federal military personal in the homes of the people, something clearly in violation of the Constitution. Do you not think the states would have a right, nay, an obligation to nullify such a law?

The Sage of Main Street
07-12-2015, 01:41 PM
Oh, but it is. The Declaration lays the moral foundation for the legal Constitution. You mean it wasn't your Heirhead idol, von Hayek?

MisterVeritis
07-12-2015, 01:46 PM
I just hope you are aware that advocating alone can land you in jail.
18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385)
And do you see me advocating?

I won't bother to look but the evidence has to be more than foreseeing that an oppressive government that cannot be repaired will be overthrown. Nor can it be so simple as saying I will defend the Constitution from its domestic enemies, even when those enemies are within our government.

If this is all it takes then the oppression has already moved from soft tyranny to hard.