Navigation

Archive | Judiciary

New England Nullification Tradition Marches On

By on March 10, 2011 in Announcements, Big Brother, Big Government, Commentary, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Drug War, Economics, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Government, Judiciary, Law, Liberty, Nullification, Originalism, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

Though many living in New England today might be loathe to admit it, there is a long history of nullification being used in the region to defy unconstitutional federal edicts. This week, the town of Sedgwick, Maine voted to carry on that proud tradition by nullifying certain federal agricultural regulations.

They did so through what might be the most legitimate form of democratic expression left in America: the New England town meeting. (Which have been held in the Sedgwick town hall since 1794.)

According to one report, the residents of Sedgwick voted to enact a law that not only permits

“Sedgwick citizens…to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing,”

but declares that Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Supreme Muddled Thinking: Justice Breyer gets the 2nd Amendment Wrong

By on December 13, 2010 in Constitution, Founding Principles, Judiciary 5

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer demonstrated some typically muddled progressive reasoning on Fox News Sunday, contending the founders would have supported modern gun control laws and sided with the dissenters in the 2008 case D.C. v. Heller.

In a nutshell, Breyer says the framers (James Madison in particular) put the Second Amendment in the Constitution, but they didn’t really mean it.

He argues that the Second Amendment was included simply to ensure ratification of the Constitution, but that the framers didn’t really philosophically believe in protecting the individual right to bear arms.

He buoys his argument by claiming “most historians” agree.

“If you’re interested in history, and in this one history was important, then I think you do have to pay attention to the story,” Breyer said. “If that was his motive historically, the dissenters were right. And I think more of the historians were with us.”

As if Breyer really has any idea what “most” historians think.

But I digress.

In fact, Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that an armed citizenry provides a check against overreaching government. And any fair reading of the founders reveals a fear of centralized power and that they advocated for an armed citizenry to provide balance and protect liberty. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Federal judge: Challenge to ObamaCare mandate can go to trial

By on October 14, 2010 in Health Care, Judiciary, Law 1

Possibly the biggest story of the day, even though it’s barely getting coverage:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that parts of a lawsuit by 20 states seeking to void the Obama administration’s health care overhaul can go to trial, saying he wants hear additional arguments from both sides over whether the law is unconstitutional.

In a written ruling, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson said it needs to be decided whether the plan violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to have health insurance or be penalized through taxes and by overburdening the states by expanding their Medicaid programs. Another federal judge in Michigan threw out a similar lawsuit last week…

The administration’s attorneys had told Vinson last month that without the regulatory power to ensure young and healthy people buy health insurance, the health care plan will not survive. They also argued it’s up to an individual taxpayer — not the states — to challenge the section requiring health insurance when it takes effect in 2015.

The mandate will get before the supreme court, most likely.  Would someone like Elena Kagan rule that government power is limited?  Eh.  Doubt it.

Or, maybe like the Michigan case last week – it’ll just get thrown out somewhere else.

Or – they just rule that the mandate is bad – but validate the unconstitutional rest of it.

There is no good outcome of this lawsuit, in my opinion.

Continue Reading

It’s Time to Nullify Federal Court Decisions

By on October 4, 2010 in Judiciary, Law, Nullification 1

As a supporter of laws like SB1070 and other state and local efforts to curb illegal immigration I am disturbed by the trend that federal courts are now weeding through state laws and deciding if they are constitutional or not. Whether or not you support state efforts to curb illegal immigration you have to agree that the courts have lost all prudence in this matter. They now want to chop through state laws and decide what is permissible for them to have and not have.

Pardon me but don’t the courts only have one function and that is to weigh the facts and punish those who break the law. The way a court system works is that the government brings the accused before it where they weigh the facts presented by the state in order to decide if the accused broke the law. They then meet out punishment based on what the law says.

Notice I said they don’t decide punishment because that has already been decided by the law. In fact, everything the court does is decided by law. The courts have this power because of the constitution and the same constitution gives them the power to judge the law as well as the facts. This is stated in Article III section 2 of the constitution. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

The Courts are Part of the Problem

By on September 12, 2010 in Judiciary 2

Thomas E. Woods speaks on the topic of Nullification at the Nullify Now conference (http://www.nullifynow.com) in Fort Worth, TX. Tom will be a keynote speaker on 10-10-10 (in celebration of the 10th amendment!) in Orlando, Florida. Get your tickets to Nullify Now! Orlando here – http://www.nullifynow.com/orlando/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

“The federal government will not – and should not be expected to – limit itself. That ain’t gonna happen.”

Continue Reading

Courts aren’t the final arbiter

By on August 12, 2010 in Constitution, Judiciary, Law 4

Opponents of state sovereignty and the states’ power to nullify unconstitutional law argue that federal courts have held nullification unconstitutional.

Jillian Rayfield, in a brilliantly unbiased article *insert sarcastic tone* on TMPDC.com writes:

This “tenther” group touts state sovereignty and nullification — the idea that a state can override a federal law it deems unconstitutional (a notion that has been consistently rejected in federal courts). (Emphasis added)

But doesn’t it seem a little fox guarding the henhouseish to deem a branch of the federal government the final arbiter of what is or isn’t Constitutional? Can we really expect agents of the federal government to protect the states and the people from federal tyranny? Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Gay Marriage and Immigration

By on August 5, 2010 in Constitution, Judiciary 3

I have many problems with the US constitution, but it is the legal regime we are told we live under. Marriage, to take one example, is mentioned nowhere in the constitution, and therefore is no business of the federal congress, the federal courts, nor any other arm of the DC leviathan. The feds, according to their own constitution, have only the powers they are specifically given. Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage, nor throw out a voters’ ban on welfare for illegal aliens, to take an earlier example. On the other hand, the Massachusetts. federal judge who ruled that marriage is none of the federal government’s business, and therefore Massachusetts may enact it, despite the defense of marriage act, had a strong case. He is ignored, however, while the crazed California judge is heralded.

Unfortunately, in the American system, there are only states rights. This was a mistake. There should also be town rights, county rights, etc. as Jefferson noted. If San Francisco wants gay marriage, so be it. If Dubuque does not, so be it.

Government took over marriage, a matter for the Church and subsequently other private bodies, in the 18th century, with the expected negative results. But having taken it over, it ought to be decentralized, not nationalized. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Discussion: Original Jurisdiction

By on August 3, 2010 in Judiciary, Law 1

All of the information below is referenced by Publius-Huldah’s Blog, which uses it to conclude,

ONLY the US Supreme Court has Constitutional Authority to Conduct the Trial of the Case Against Arizona & Governor Brewer.

US Constitution, Article 3, Section 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (emphasis added)

Federalist 81 (Hamilton)

Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union.   The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.  ” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns.   All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation.   Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them.   In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal. (emphasis added)

US Code: TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 81 > § 1251

§ 1251. Original jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.
(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens. (emphasis added)

Federalist 78 (Hamilton) Continue Reading →

Continue Reading