Nullification: Interview with a Zombie

[Chris]

Unconstitutional federal law should be resisted. Some history of nullification.

[Chris]

[Ethereal]

Liberals are perfectly okay with effective nullification of federal laws they don't personally like, like marijuana laws and illegal immigration. But the second you violate a federal law they do like, they accuse you of being a terrorist or a traitor or something along those lines.

[Newpublius]

Liberals are perfectly okay with effective nullification of federal laws they don't personally like, like marijuana laws and illegal immigration. But the second you violate a federal law they do like, they accuse you of being a terrorist or a traitor or something along those lines.

Very true, sadly the issue of federalism is merely a politically expedient one for many.

[Crepitus]

Liberals are perfectly okay with effective nullification of federal laws they don't personally like, like marijuana laws and illegal immigration. But the second you violate a federal law they do like, they accuse you of being a terrorist or a traitor or something along those lines.

So? The same thing can be said for libertarians and conservatives.

Everybody's biased in there own favor.

[Ethereal]

So? The same thing can be said for libertarians and conservatives.

No, the same thing cannot be said for libertarians. They do not argue that federal laws should be obeyed simply because they are federal laws. Rather, they judge the law according to its underlying moral legitimacy. Liberals flip-flop between legal positivism and moral absolutism like a fish out of water.

[Crepitus]

No, the same thing cannot be said for libertarians. They do not argue that federal laws should be obeyed simply because they are federal laws. Rather, they judge the law according to its underlying moral legitimacy. Liberals flip-flop between legal positivism and moral absolutism like a fish out of water.

Lol, all you did was couch it in more favorable terms. Still means the same thing.

[Ethereal]

Lol, all you did was couch it in more favorable terms. Still means the same thing.

No, it does not.

Libertarians consistently rely on moral absolutism to make their arguments, whereas liberals flip flop between moral absolutism and legal positivism depending on which law is being discussed.

One is a consistent adherence to stated principles and the other is self-serving opportunism and phoniness.

[Crepitus]

No, it does not.

Libertarians consistently rely on moral absolutism to make their arguments, whereas liberals flip flop between moral absolutism and legal positivism depending on which law is being discussed.

One is a consistent adherence to stated principles and the other is self-serving opportunism and phoniness.

Yeah, it means the same thing. You like the laws you like, and you don't like the ones you don't. Do you think liberals and conservatives aren't applying the same (entirely subjective) judgements when they make their choices?

[Chris]

Actually, crep, he's given you two arguments now while all you do is repeat your opinion never substantiating it.