The question for Ovide Lamontagne and Peter Bearse – where do you stand on the political spectrum and what is your stance on New Hampshire’s HCR6 and 10th Amendment?
Agreed Josh Eboch the Federal courts being nothing more then a branch of the same overstepping Federal government (actually appointed and only impeachable/accountable to and by the same government) can not be regarded as a legitimate arbitrator of the the extent of the same governments power.
This is fact not only self-evident in the logic of human nature but proven by the same court again and again by proof of their own arrogant rulings over our history.
Either nullification involves ignoring the same Courts on all cases involving the extent of federal power not specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution or there is and can be no check on the same Federal government, and thus No Constitutional law based restriction.
When any law is depended upon its violator's willfully honesty in interpenetration and adherence to such law there is and can be with regard to human nature and the test of history demonstratively no law at all.
All law is depended upon the enforcement of the non-violating party's upon the violating party's.
If a judge or police man has violated the law then it is incompetent upon all other party's to impose that law upon them. If the U.S. Supreme court in cahoots with it's federal appointee (congress and the president) have violated the law by extending their own power beyond the constitutionally defined bounds then it is incompetent upon the only other parties the people and their states who's rights have been usurped to enforce that constitution upon them.
There is to be quite frank no other possible way to impose limits(law). Lawlessness prevails when one man or group of men(such as the federal government) decides the law not only for all others but for themselves.
That is why the Federal government did not make or empower the Federal Constitutional law which defined their own limits, the people and their states did. and for the same reason the people and their states have the duty and responsibility to impose that law upon the federal government when it does not willfully follow it on it's own.
That is nullification and it no more requires the same Federal Governments consent(U.S. supreme court ruling) then a policeman requires the consent of a criminal. Simply put the U.S. supreme court like all other branches of the federal government and everyone else IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW! Therefore they can not rule themselves effectively immune to it either by means of selective interpretation nor blatant violation.
Hey you guys, FYI. Type in the law that never was.com and read all info on 16th.
Also, have a look at Mack/Printz Supreme Court Decision in 1997.
Sherrif Mack coming to Cincinnati, OH area in March.
