Should states be able to nullify federal law and supreme court decisions?

[Norah]

In your opinion should states be able to overturn federal law and/or supreme court decisions that would affect state's law? If so should it be one state, two states, a % of the country's states, or the majority of the country's states?

In my opinion I think that if congress passes a law that the states find to be unconstitutional or if the supreme court makes a ruling that a state finds to be unconstitutional, or a violation of a state's law, that if 10% of the country's states came together and deemed it unconstitutional that the law should be overturned. The 10% is just a starting point for the conversation but I do think that it would add one more piece of checks and balances to counter a rogue court or a bad decision by congress. What do you think?

 

[Legion Troll]

In your opinion should states be able to overturn federal law and/or supreme court decisions that would affect state's law? If so should it be one state, two states, a % of the country's states, or the majority of the country's states?

In my opinion I think that if congress passes a law that the states find to be unconstitutional or if the supreme court makes a ruling that a state finds to be unconstitutional, or a violation of a state's law, that if 10% of the country's states came together and deemed it unconstitutional that the law should be overturned. The 10% is just a starting point for the conversation but I do think that it would add one more piece of checks and balances to counter a rogue court or a bad decision by congress. What do you think?

Read the Constitution of the United States of America and see if your opinion is realistic.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[Norah]

Read the Constitution of the United States of America and see if your opinion is realistic.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

I know that currently federal law supersedes state law but that's not really my question. An amendment could be passed that could change how those checks and balances work and give more power to the states, and if that was the case then that's what this topic is asking. What % would it need to be or how would it need to work if you agreed? This was a big topic in the early days of our country and it pitted people like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams against people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for many years. It's a legitimate topic and a historical one too in my opinion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

12 citizens have the power to nullify federal laws, if only they chose to be educated enough to know how.

 

[Legion Troll]

I know that currently federal law supersedes state law but that's not really my question. An amendment could be passed that could change how those checks and balances work and give more power to the states, and if that was the case then that's what this topic is asking. What % would it need to be or how would it need to work if you agreed? This was a big topic in the early days of our country and it pitted people like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams against people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison for many years. It's a legitimate topic and a historical one too in my opinion.

Perhaps you can start a movement to amend the Constitution with Mr. SmarterthanFew. If you don't get enough votes for ratification, he can offer to kill some peace officers and federal agents.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[Norah]

Perhaps you can start a movement to amend the Constitution with Mr. SmarterthanFew. If you don't get enough votes for ratification, he can offer to kill some peace officers and federal agents.


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

These debates took place between our founding fathers and aren't things to be mocked or thought of as meaningless. We have the power to amend the constitution and to protect it if it's being abused.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

apparently you feel just like a cop....where the rules/laws don't apply to you?

 

[Legion Troll]

These debates took place between our founding fathers and aren't things to be mocked or thought of as meaningless. We have the power to amend the constitution and to protect it if it's being abused.

Am I saying the debates between the founding fathers were meaningless, or mocking them?

Weren't these issues decided long ago by the founding fathers? Questioning their judgement seems disrespectful, doesn't it?

The last time states' rights got a lot of traction, the people loyal to the Constitution were attacked by armed traitors, and only because they were shown mercy by the defenders of our nation is the south allowed to call itself American today.

Mr. SmarterthanFew routinely threatens to murder police officers and federal employees because he says he has the power to "protect" the Constitution when he says "it's being abused".

He seems eager to join you in your quest to advance the power of individual states like Texas over the Constitution of the United States of America. Ask him to help you, if you're comfortable with his partnership.





Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[Legion Troll]

apparently you feel just like a cop....where the rules/laws don't apply to you?

Did I say that?

Please point it out if I did.

I'll understand if you can't.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[Norah]

Am I saying the debates between the founding fathers were meaningless, or mocking them?

Weren't these issues decided long ago by the founding fathers? Questioning their judgement seems disrespectful, doesn't it?

The last time states' rights got a lot of traction, the people loyal to the Constitution were attacked by armed traitors, and only because they were shown mercy by the victorious is the south allowed to call itself American today.

Mr. SmarterthanFew routinely threatens to murder police officers and federal employees because he says he has the power to "protect" the Constitution when he says "it's being abused".

He seems eager to join you in your quest to advance the power of individual states like Texas over the Constitution of the United States of America. Ask him to help you, if you're comfortable with his partnership.





Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

No what i'm saying is that the debates they had years ago are still relevant today and that based on which direction the country is leaning towards can result in amending the constitution. The country didn't stay one way from Washington's term up until today, it changed its' focus right after Adams was president for example going into Jefferson's terms in office. Just because something has been one way for a while and just because the federal government has been consolidating more and more power over the years does not mean that the federalist model that has developed into what we have today is the way it must be.

 

[CFM]

Read the Constitution of the United States of America and see if your opinion is realistic.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

It's called the 10th Amendment. When the federal government does things for which no delegated authority exists, it violates the Constitution. I understand why you can't see that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

then i'll just continue your initial thread devolving by exposing how much of a flaming moron you are as you appear to have no clue, notion, or idea of anything you're defecating from your oral cavity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

or maybe those words were too big for a mental midget, such as your idiot self.

 

[Legion Troll]

No what i'm saying is that the debates they had years ago are still relevant today and that based on which direction the country is leaning towards can result in amending the constitution. The country didn't stay one way from Washington's term up until today, it changed its' focus right after Adams was president for example going into Jefferson's terms in office. Just because something has been one way for a while and just because the federal government has been consolidating more and more power over the years does not mean that the federalist model that has developed into what we have today is the way it must be.

Would you advocate remaking our government by force of arms?


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Read the Constitution of the United States of America and see if your opinion is realistic.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

Is that the most you have to offer on the topic? Why bother answering at all?

 

[CFM]

Is that the most you have to offer on the topic? Why bother answering at all?

Someone had to tell him what to say.

 

[Legion Troll]

then i'll just continue your initial thread devolving by exposing how much of a flaming moron you are as you appear to have no clue, notion, or idea of anything you're defecating from your oral cavity.

Why are you devolving into insults?

Please stop so that this thread isn't moved to the War Zone.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

 

[CFM]

Why are you devolving into insults?

Please stop so that this thread isn't moved to the War Zone.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.

His comment doesn't meet the definition of insult. What he said is true. Why are you afraid to acknowledge the truth?

 

[tsuke]

not sure about federal law but 100% in agreement with supreme court decisions. Provided of course it is only for civil litigation. There are too many things involved with criminal litigation to do this.

The supreme court is set for life. So the justices who sit there may not reflect the cultural values of the country anymore. I think if 75% of governors agree that something should be overturned then it should.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Why are you devolving into insults?

why did you start?