This dreaded clause was placed into the fourteenth amendment which basically destroys a states ability to interfere with the fourteenth amendment since any state law that attempts to do so will simply be overridden by a federal law that was made in pursuance of that particular power. The same clause also exist for amendments thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-six which makes it impossible for states to interfere or legitimately enforce those particular amendments because any federal law that does so would be superior to a state law that attempts to do the same thing. This means that states can’t enforce these amendments in any meaningful way since any federal law that does so would override any state law made with the same power and this may seem like an argument against state nullification but it actually provides the strongest justification for state nullification.
When the people who wrote those amendments gave that power to the federal government they established that the power to enforce the constitution legislatively does exist. It can not be denied that such a power exists because it is plainly written into it so the only question left is who has that power. Is it the states or the federal government? It is clearly given to the federal government for those amendments listed above but where it was not delegated to the federal government it is squarely reserved to the states. The federal government only has the power to enforce those particular amendments but where that power was not delegated to the federal government and/or where it is not prohibited by the constitution then that power rightfully belongs to the states. The power to enforce the constitution has not been denied to the states by the constitution and the federal government only has that power for a few sections of the constitution which means that under the tenth amendment states have the legal ability to enforce the constitution where it has not been granted to the federal government.
One of the most damaging arguments against nullification is that it is a back-door attempt to deny people the right to vote but it is not possible for any state to legislatively deny people basic voter protections guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment because the fourteenth amendment granted the federal government the power to enforce that amendment with appropriate legislation. This should silence all detractors of nullification that bring about absurd talking points that tenthers are trying to deny people their right to vote because any attempt by a state will be overridden by the federal government’s own legislation. Federal law has supremacy in this scenario so it is not possible to use nullification for that purpose.
I personally suspect that the whole reason why this clause was added was to make sure that the newly re-admitted southern states would not try to interfere with a person’s right to vote. This clause may give some credence to those who say that states can’t legislatively enforce the constitution (or what we call nullification) but this is only true for the fourteenth amendment and other amendments that have a similar clause. In cases, such as the fourteenth amendment, where the federal government has the power to enforce with appropriate legislation the federal government will have the last say but in every other section of the constitution it does not. That power was not delegated to the federal government and where that power does not exist it falls to the states. This means that states have the power to enforce the constitution with appropriate legislation where it hasn’t been delegated to the federal government (or prohibited to them by the constitution) which means that individual states have the power to enforce the constitution with appropriate legislation which gives them the final say over those areas of the constitution.
This is the strongest justification for state nullification because we can easily say that the federal government has the power to enforce the constitution with appropriate legislation for the fourteenth amendment but it is not possible to say that such a power exist for every other aspect of the constitution. There is no text, sentence, or clause that gives the power to the federal government to properly enforce the first amendment, the second amendment, the fourth amendment, and almost every other area of the constitution which means it must belong to the states themselves. This allows states to use that power to enforce the constitution as they see fit for any section of the constitution where it was not delegated to the federal government which allows them to void any federal law that they believe violates the constitution.
Perverse, moronic, false, Satanic and a lie, sir.
"Congress shall have the power to enforce" was pure belt and suspenders meant to cancel any of your damned foolish Nullification. It was excess verbiage because the CONSTITUTION gives the FEDERAL EXECUTIVE the power to enforce the Constitution.
Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."
The "executive Power" is the power to enforce the laws. The Laws include the Constitution. Therefore, Federal marshals and other properly constituted and authorized law enforcement agents of the Federal government act on behalf of the President and through the President, Congress, to enforce the laws of the United States and its Constitution.
Smokey and John Law, acting as state troopers and cops, have primary responsibilities to their state constitution and municipal laws, which under the Constitution itself presuppose and defer to the Constitution. And when they derelict their duty, as so many do, they are criminally negligent.
Arizona Smokeys who stop and frisk Hispanics whose ancestors held title to land before and after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and have since the Mexican War have been loyal citizens of the United States are not enforcing the Constitution.
Jagoff New York City cops who Mace women in the face are not enforcing the Constitution.
Racist cops beating and murdering civil rights demonstrators were not enforcing the Constitution.
Have you even read the Constitution?
You seem to claim that the Fourteenth is secured by the belt and suspenders clause (where I mean by "belt and suspenders" extra words that are unnecessary) but where the b & s clause does not occur, the states enforce. I guess this means that in the case of a violation of the First Amendment that doesn't cross state lines, Federal marshals would have to defer to John Law even if John Law was derelict in his understanding or performance, which John Law, Barney Fife, and Deputy Dawg often are.
Racist creeps love this line of reasoning. It was used to Nullify the Fourteenth Amendment from 1876 to 1954: the only case in which the Fourteenth was properly applied to protect civil rights in that near-century was Yick Wo, in which a Chinese laundryman got his rights.
Meanwhile, BLACKS WERE BEING TAKEN FROM JAIL AND LYNCHED WITH IMPUNITY WHILE JOHN LAW SAT ON HIS FAT ASS IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
The fact is that the states and the cities do not want to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, because in American states and cities, local good ole boy elites operate a closed crap game designed to exclude blacks and women. So they figure, let Federal Marshals do it whilst we have our Congresscritter cut allocations for the FBI and Secret Service!
These Nullification web sites are funded by the wealthy in order to undo the will of the American people expressed in 2008, and also in 2000 and 2004, in all probability, given the closeness of those elections and Republican vote fraud. They betray a stunning ignorance of the Constitution and American history.