• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Secession?

From FOX

SHEP SMITH: Opponents of the health care law have come up with a new tactic to try block the whole thing. You'll recall 27 states, all of them with Republican leadership, are suing over the health care reform claiming it's unconstitutional. The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court eventually, but Republican lawmakers in Idaho say there is another way, a process called nullification that could, in theory, could allow them to override federal law. A few states have tried it over the years, but it's not worked. ...

SHANNON BREAM: It's a centuries-old maneuver that some states claim allow them to simply say, "Hey, I think what the federal government is asking our state to do is unconstitutional so we're not going to recognize that federal law."

SMITH: Other states are trying this same thing, right?

BREAM: Yeah, at our last count at least 12 states are considering some form of legislation just like Idaho's. Just yesterday a state house committee in Pennsylvania passed a bill that would essentially nullify just the individual mandate part of the federal health care law. A number of these states have already signed onto the court battles over this law, and lawmakers say this idea of nullification is just one more way they are going after it.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...lification-as-way-to-block-health-care-reform
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
And in case we need to spell it out, this bit:



conflicts with Article III Sections 2 which grants this authority exclusively to the federal judiciary which is defined in Section 1.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your reading of article III. One of the big power grabs in the history of the judiciary is the effective statement in Marbury vs. Madison that the SCOTUS had the authority to nullify an act of one of the other branches if it was unconstitutional; prior to that, there was effectively no official way for the constitutionality of an act to be judged,.... and many of the founders considered that each branch should be its own judge (i.e. the executive would refuse to enforce a law that it considered unconstitutional, while the judiciary would simply refuse to support that law in its decisions).

So not only is there nothing in article III that makes the judiciary the nullifier of illicit laws, but there's certainly nothing in it that makes the judiciary the exclusive nullifier. (Indeed, I think the question is still open as to whether the Fed is compelled to abide by a law that it considers to be unconstitutional absent a court ruling compelling it.) In theory, the states should also be able to nullify a law that violated the constitution, except that that violates the supremacy clause....
 
C_Felix said:
Okay..
So, the MO proposed amendment is kinda interesting...basically a state veto.
Click to expand...

I misread the MO proposal. I don't see how it differs from the power the states already have to repeal federal law by ratifying a constitutional amendment.
 
drkitten said:
I don't agree with your reading of article III. One of the big power grabs in the history of the judiciary is the effective statement in Marbury vs. Madison that the SCOTUS had the authority to nullify an act of one of the other branches if it was unconstitutional; prior to that, there was effectively no official way for the constitutionality of an act to be judged,.... and many of the founders considered that each branch should be its own judge (i.e. the executive would refuse to enforce a law that it considered unconstitutional, while the judiciary would simply refuse to support that law in its decisions).

So not only is there nothing in article III that makes the judiciary the nullifier of illicit laws, but there's certainly nothing in it that makes the judiciary the exclusive nullifier. (Indeed, I think the question is still open as to whether the Fed is compelled to abide by a law that it considers to be unconstitutional absent a court ruling compelling it.)
Click to expand...

I suppose it's a bit of a philosophical question as to whether or not the judiciary had the authority prior to Marbury or whether Marbury established that authority. If you read it the way I do, the constitution said the judicial power is the power to resolve all disputes (that makes it an exclusive authority) arising under the constitutional, U.S. laws, and treaties. That judicial power is invested in the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts (again, this language doesn't allow for the authority to vest elsewhere).

While I realize the concept of "judicial review" and "unconstitutionality" didn't formally exist before Marbury, it wasn't a totally new idea, and I think it's clearly there in Article III Section 2. (The judicial power contains the authority to resolve disputes regarding the constitution itself.)

From the Wiki article on Marbury, I grabbed this quote:
"no scholar to date has identified even one participant in the ratification fight who argued that the Constitution did not authorize judicial review of Federal statutes. This silence in the face of the numerous comments on the other side is revealing."
Click to expand...

And anyway, we don't have to worry about the what the interpretation of Article III was prior to Marbury, since it is long established law at this point.

drkitten said:
In theory, the states should also be able to nullify a law that violated the constitution, except that that violates the supremacy clause....
Click to expand...

Except that Marbury does make the judicial power clear. But I agree this proposed law is in direct conflict with the Supremacy Clause.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I misread the MO proposal. I don't see how it differs from the power the states already have to repeal federal law by ratifying a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the only difference is in the size of the supermajority required. We can already ratify amendments with 3/4 of state legislatures approving it, and this amendment would allow states to repeal federal laws with a 2/3 of the states supermajority.
 
More anti-federal government legislation pending in Arizona:

Other pending legislation seeking to challenge or limit federal authority:

- SB 1308 and HB 2562 setting up interstate compacts to honor each other's birth certificates segregating children who are considered U.S. citizens from those who are not;

- SB 1309 and HB 2561 defining Arizona citizenship, part of the move to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants;

- SB 1328 saying Arizonans do not have to comply with a federal law or rule if they allow a federal employee or member of Congress not to comply;

- SB 1391 creating an interstate firearms freedoms act guaranteeing the right of citizens to bear arms free of federal regulation;

- SB 1393 declaring the state has exclusive right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions;

- SB 1394 protecting the right to emit carbon dioxide from human-caused activity;

- SB 1545 allowing the production of nuclear fuel in Arizona free from federal regulation;

- SCR 1016 requiring approval from the legislatures of half the states to increase the federal debt;

- HB 2077 requiring any federal agency coming into a county to conduct official business to first register with the sheriff;

- HB 2471 barring the appropriation of any state funds to comply with a federal mandate unless the federal government provides a report to show the mandate is constitutional;

- HB 2472 allowing the state to acquire federal property by eminent domain unless the federal government first got legislative permission to obtain the land in the first place;

- HB 2537 permitting the House speaker and Senate president to sue over or defend last year's SB 1070 imposing new state laws on illegal immigration;

- HB 2544 requiring presidential candidates to provide certain proof of citizenship before they can appear on the ballot in Arizona;

- HCR 2015 calling for a constitutional convention to adopt an amendment to require consent of three-fourths of the states to increase federal debt;

- HCR 2022 proposing a constitutional convention to require a balanced federal budget.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Alferd_Packer said:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2...lification-as-way-to-block-health-care-reform
Click to expand...

It's amazing to me that anyone is even talking about nullification. I mean, that's been settled for quite some time now.

I reckon that the folks pushing for it are relying on their constituencies having no knowledge of history. And hey, if the courts strike them down, it's just another opportunity to rant about "activist judges".

I gotta lump those folks in with the "gold standard" loons.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
More anti-federal government legislation pending in Arizona
Click to expand...

Sweet Moses in the basket, these people have absolutely lost it.

I imagine it's a motley mix of true-believers and opportunists pushing this bill of goods.

At least it gives me some modicum of pride that the citizens and leaders of my state are not the stupidest in the union.

On the down side... once you get the torch-and-pitchfork crowd all lathered up with that kind of rhetoric, it's a formidable task to calm them down again, and sometimes it can't be done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom