Comments on: Nullification May Be On The Ballot In Arizona

By: Arizona Goes Tenther With Nullification Amendment Vote |

Arizona Goes Tenther With Nullification Amendment Vote | — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 11:40:25 +0000

[...] of Nullification that was called upon by Jefferson and Madison has been called upon in Arizona. As the Tenth Amendment Center reports, Arizonan and Business man Jack Biltis has delivered around 320,000 signatures to the Arizona [...]

By: dmellon

dmellon — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:47:59 +0000

I have posted blog on http://www.teaparty911.com/blog/a-tenth-amendment-constitutional-crisis/ that covers some of the thoughts that we all agreed on during this series of comments. In the blog I advocate starting a tenth amendment constitutional crisis. I have quoted and reference some Supreme Court decisions that make the case for the tenth amendment being the correct vehicle for nullifying Obamacare. I have not seen the arguments made before so it might be old hat to you’all on the tenth amendment center. That is the only site I have blogging rights on so that is why it is there.

I don’t know if it is appropriate to place the address of another site and suggest reader go there but I see the administrator is listening so if not appropriate he can remove this post and hopefully accept my apologies.

By: RandyConn

RandyConn — Sun, 15 Jul 2012 03:57:40 +0000

Public Law 86-70 AN ACT June 25, 1959 To amend certain laws of the United States in light of the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union, and for other purposes. [H. R. 7120] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Alaska Omnibus Act”. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS SEC. 3. Any Territorial law, as that term is defined in section 8(d) of the Act of July 7, 1958 (72 Stat. 339, 344), providing for the admission of the State of Alaska into the Union- (a) which provides for the regulation of commerce within Alaska by an agency of the United States, and (b) the application of which to the State of Alaska is continued solely by reason of such section 8(d), shall cease to apply to the State of Alaska on June 30, 1961, or on the effective date of any law enacted by the Legislature of the State of Alaska which modifies or changes such Territorial law, whichever occurs first.

By: MikeYoung

MikeYoung — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 22:59:15 +0000

This is a way to show the Federal Government that the State Governments are Supreme to the Federal Government also. The States created the Federal Government and gave them specific enumerated powers, and since the Federal Government is working outside of those enumerated powers this is how he States can show Supremecy to the Federal Government. by rejecting or not enforcing and not allowing to be enforced the laws the States determine to be detrimental to the citizens of their states. and refusing to allow those laws to be enforced by either State or Federal Employees.

By: dmellon

dmellon — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:04:58 +0000

@Michael Boldin With regard to 3. above, I know you think I am wrong but we don’t know who is wrong until we see what happens. If that amendment every gets added to the Arizona constitution then I believe it will be challenged in court and and every court will agree it is not consistent with the federal constitution and it will be declared null. It will be removed from the constitution and that will be the end of it.

If you think I am wrong then your position I assume is that states have the power to add amendments like that to their constitutions so that it will become a permanent part of the Arizona constitution.

We will see. I hope your position prevails but I doubt it will.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:14:51 +0000

@dmellon so just a quick thumbs up, thumbs down, and then you can research more or eventually other articles can be shared with you.

1. Stop saying the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to judge constitutionality.
they don’t have the authority to change the constitution. that’s generally what they do, though. no one should be saying they NEVER have the authority to judge mind you…

2. Do say its authority is lesser than that of the people or the states that created the constitution.
certainly.

3. Do not think a single state or a few can alter its constitution and make it superior to federal law.
they most certainly can.

4. Do believe that a majority of states acting collectively can exercise their superior power to judge constitutionality of laws.
yes and no.

5. Do believe that a majority of states acting collectively can use the tenth amendment to nullify any law that gives a power to the federal government that we did not grant in the constitution.
yes and no.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:11:10 +0000

@dmellon thanks for the feedback – and many of your statements here are wrong. So much info that you’re attempting to share that it’s not proper to address in a comment stream. They are mostly, however, answered in our online course, Nullification: Answering the Objections.

Appreciate the feedback though!

By: dmellon

dmellon — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 16:02:34 +0000

OK I’m done. I am not trying to be negative, I am trying to make the point that to be effective we should follow the principles that were established by the founders. Stop saying the Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority to judge constitutionality. Do say its authority is lesser than that of the people or the states that created the constitution. Do not think a single state or a few can alter its constitution and make it superior to federal law. Do believe that a majority of states acting collectively can exercise their superior power to judge constitutionality of laws. Do believe that a majority of states acting collectively can use the tenth amendment to nullify any law that gives a power to the federal government that we did not grant in the constitution.

I haven’t made this last point about the power of the majority as our founders saw it but I could maybe later if anyone is interested.

By: dmellon

dmellon — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:38:45 +0000

Here is one reference to Madison being against the ability of a single state to nullify federal law. The Federalist # 44 by Madison. In section 2 where he discusses the supremacy clause, which says federal law that is constitutional shall be the supreme law of the land, he asks “suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State Constitutions had been left compleat by a saving clause in their favor”. In other words suppose Arizona could have a clause in its constitution that was supreme to that of the federal constitution. He goes on paraphrased, If this were the case treaties or national law of great and equal importance to the States would be valid in some and have no effect in others.

I’ll give the whole paragraph that follows the above thoughts. ” In fine the world would have seen for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster in which the head was under the direction of the members.”

By: dmellon

dmellon — Sat, 14 Jul 2012 15:17:26 +0000

Left out something important in Madison’s remarks . By last resort he means among the three branches of government that is the courts decision cannot be overruled by the president or congress.