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

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

  • Total voters
    11
Jarod said:
You cant. You want me to explain to her how to get a Constitutional Amendment passed?
Click to expand...

I can, Counselor, because you are personally known to me, and as I correctly stated, you are a member of the Bar in good standing, which is a matter of public record.

But by all means, let's agree to consider your qualifications as read.

Now, with the understanding that you do not practice Constitutional law as a specialty, please proceed.

Please explain to young Norah how the process works, and why her idea regarding the nullification of judicial rulings runs counter to our system of government.


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.
 
Firstly, I'm comfortable with the ammendment process as it is. I see no reason to change it.

Regarding a dispute between state and fed over authority, states (singly or with others in concert) is already available and done.
There remains the situation where the SCOTUS final decision is seen as flawed or just wrong. In this event an amendment is the remedy to allow the constitution to be made clear and reflect the majority view. You could view Prohibition as an example of this.
In most cases this us a slow and deliberate process and probably should be. In others, politics cloud and degrade the process.
And if this becomes sufficiently onerous, that's why we have the 2nd amendment, to remind the government who it answers to.
 
Celticguy said:
Firstly, I'm comfortable with the ammendment process as it is. I see no reason to change it.
Regarding a dispute between state and fed over authority, states (singly or with others in concert) is already available and done. There remains the situation where the SCOTUS final decision is seen as flawed or just wrong. In this event an amendment is the remedy to allow the constitution to be made clear and reflect the majority view. You could view Prohibition as an example of this. In most cases this us a slow and deliberate process and probably should be. In others, politics cloud and degrade the process. And if this becomes sufficiently onerous, that's why we have the 2nd amendment, to remind the government who it answers to.
Click to expand...

Correctly stated.
 
Cowgirl Tuff said:
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?
Click to expand...

I find states having this type of power could lead to certain portions of our citizenry being discriminated against.

What, for instance, if Texas decided it didn't want to educate women, and 10% of the other states decided the same, should Texas be allowed to discriminate against women along with those other states?

States' rights over Federal law sound like a good thing, till they don't. It is a very slippery slope.
 
That slope's been slipped.

What happened the last time the states' rightists thought they could make their states' law take precedence over the national government?



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.
 
Rana said:
I find states having this type of power could lead to certain portions of our citizenry being discriminated against.

What, for instance, if Texas decided it didn't want to educate women, and 10% of the other states decided the same, should Texas be allowed to discriminate against women along with those other states?

States' rights over Federal law sound like a good thing, till they don't. It is a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

Look at what's happening now with the religious freedom laws and the big businesses that have said they will no longer do business in those states. That's on an issue affecting gays. Leaving aside the fact that no state would pass a law saying women couldn't be educated any state that did would be hit with HUGE economic boycotts.
 
Rana said:
I find states having this type of power could lead to certain portions of our citizenry being discriminated against.

What, for instance, if Texas decided it didn't want to educate women, and 10% of the other states decided the same, should Texas be allowed to discriminate against women along with those other states?

States' rights over Federal law sound like a good thing, till they don't. It is a very slippery slope.
Click to expand...

so you'd be ok with the federal government abolishing all state laws on guns so that they conformed with the US Constitution?
 
SmarterthanFew said:
so you'd be ok with the federal government abolishing all state laws on guns so that they conformed with the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

Is that what she said?

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 would appear Legion Fag is having another temper tantrum and is trying to prove a point to the Mods. Maybe he will storm off again. That would make three times I know of.
 
Legion Troll said:
I can, Counselor, because you are personally known to me, and as I correctly stated, you are a member of the Bar in good standing, which is a matter of public record.

But by all means, let's agree to consider your qualifications as read.

Now, with the understanding that you do not practice Constitutional law as a specialty, please proceed.

Please explain to young Norah how the process works, and why her idea regarding the nullification of judicial rulings runs counter to our system of government.


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.
Click to expand...

Fool, you don't know me.
 
It looks like Legion Troll had decided to switch gears and start trolling lefties now. He's fighting with GayRod, Zipperhead and Leonpussy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top