• 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.

Whitaker supports state's rights to nullify federal law

Andy_Ross

Penultimate Amazing
Andy_Ross
Joined
Jun 2, 2010
Messages
67,093
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html



New Civil War then?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
New Civil War then?
Click to expand...

Nah.

We're already doing it with drug law and immigration law. States' Rights is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue.

Hopefully, instead of Civil War, it will lead to a general trend of the federal government getting out of the business of governing the states, and sticking to its core responsibility of governing the union. With some luck, we could even end up with an amendment applying the "strict scrutiny" standard to the Commerce Clause.
 
Last edited:
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce." But I'm skeptical that CNN finding some line in a speech from 2013 means that AG Whitaker will start to argue against his own interest in maintaining federal power?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html



New Civil War then?
Click to expand...

Gee, I though that issue was settled at Appotmatox....
 
theprestige said:
Nah.

We're already doing it with drug law and immigration law. States' Rights is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue.

Hopefully, instead of Civil War, it will lead to a general trend of the federal government getting out of the business of governing the states, and sticking to its core responsibility of governing the union. With some luck, we could even end up with an amendment applying the "strict scrutiny" standard to the Commerce Clause.
Click to expand...
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce." But I'm skeptical that CNN finding some line in a speech from 2013 means that AG Whitaker will start to argue against his own interest in maintaining federal power?
Click to expand...
He can hardly be held to what his opinion was when Obama was President. Trump is President now (you won't hear that on CNN, but he is) and Whitaker has risen without trace to be his AG. A completely different situation.
 
I don't understand the leap in logic. My wife and I set up our marriage. I assure you, I do not have the power to nullify one of our rules for each other because I disagree with it
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html



New Civil War then?
Click to expand...
This is a non-issue. One of the many reasons why I urge non-Americans not to form their opinions on US politics via the legacy media.

Sanctuary cities do not comply with Federal law.

A new civil war then?

Feel free to add your own commentary, thread starter.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
Click to expand...

ok
 
Baylor said:
This is a non-issue. One of the many reasons why I urge non-Americans not to form their opinions on US politics via the legacy media.

Sanctuary cities do not comply with Federal law.
A new civil war then?

Feel free to add your own commentary, thread starter.
Click to expand...
Because you allow them not to. States rights and all that. ;) Perhaps if you had, oh I dunno, a set of federal laws that all states adhered to, maybe this won't happen??

PS. I'm not American. And I'll form my opinions from MANY sources, not just "legacy" as you describe it. Although they happen to be the honest sources. because you do know where Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch came from, right? And what he did for a living here before he became head of Fox, right? ;)
 
carlitos said:
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce."
Click to expand...

The problem is much older than that. That pot case was really just an affirmation of Wickard v. Filburn. That's the case you really need to overturn if you want to scale back abuse of the commerce Clause.
 
Norman Alexander said:
PS. I'm not American. And I'll form my opinions from MANY sources, not just "legacy" as you describe it. Although they happen to be the honest sources. because you do know where Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch came from, right? And what he did for a living here before he became head of Fox, right? ;)
Click to expand...

If Fox is dishonest, it doesn't then follow that their competitors are honest. Hell, even deliberate deception aside, plain old incompetence is endemic to the media.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Because you allow them not to. States rights and all that. ;) Perhaps if you had, oh I dunno, a set of federal laws that all states adhered to, maybe this won't happen??
Click to expand...
The stunning political commentary I've come to expect from this place.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html



New Civil War then?
Click to expand...
I am fine with Iowa going down the drain.
 
Norman Alexander said:
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
Click to expand...

Absent some serious threat to the union itself, the health of Iowans is entirely Iowa's business, not the federal government's.

Likewise education, though I expect that a good argument for federal education standards, and perhaps funding, could be made with regard to strict scrutiny. It would be nice if someone in favor of such a thing could make the necessary argument, rather than simply appealing to rhetorical questions.

Roads are obviously state business, not union business. The exception being an interstate highway system, which again probably could be justified under strict scrutiny.

National security and national defense are obviously union business.
 
theprestige said:
Absent some serious threat to the union itself, the health of Iowans is entirely Iowa's business, not the federal government's.
Click to expand...

There's an argument for a federal role in dealing with communicable diseases (hence the CDC), since that's an interstate problem that doesn't respect borders. But that's only a fraction of health care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom