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…Details
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?Details
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.Details
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.
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)
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)
§ 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)
Writes Ilya Somin at Volokh: Federal District Judge Henry Hudson’s opinion refusing to dismiss Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Obama health care plan has several interesting aspects. The suit focuses primarily on a challenge to the “individual mandate” element of the plan, which requires most American citizens and legal residents to purchase a…Details
“To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the more dangerous as they are in the office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal. I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves”
~ Thomas Jefferson
As We the People approach our responsibilities regarding Elective control, it would serve us well to spend some time to study, listen, research and ask some deeper, perhaps, constitutional questions of the candidates that are offering to represent us. If we ever hope to begin to reverse the madness of out of control, tax and spend, corrupt and dishonest state and federal governments, it is indeed our duty to do our best to insure that we are not repeating the same process and expecting different results.Details
Well, of course it is…but Dom Armentano makes an interesting case that under status quo, it’s not – but yet – still horribly immoral and wrong. Here’s an excerpt: To find the mandates in Obama Care illegal and, indeed, to roll back the bulk of economic regulation on business, would require a radical rethinking of…Details
Well, “proof” is defined by perspective, right? All the proof I need on this one is just one man’s name.
Jack is a “leading constitutional scholar” from Yale. What does that mean? He advocates the living constitution. You know the one – the kind of constitution that morphs and changes based on the whims of politicians, judges, and Jack himself.
I consider him one of the worst of the worst in this field. And, what did he have to say about the DOMA case?Details