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

[Jarod]

I beg to differ, but it's OK if you want to deny it.

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 simply find your claims silly, but march on.. You have lost credibility with me, but it's not a big deal.

 

[Legion Troll]

I simply find your claims silly, but march on.. You have lost credibility with me, but it's not a big deal.

I guess you've forgotten you sent me a PM with all your info a long time ago.

The upshot is, I know that you are an attorney, and wanted to vouch for you. Sorry if that was uncomfortable.

 

[Jarod]

I guess you've forgotten you sent me a PM with all your info a long time ago.

The upshot is, I know that you are an attorney, and wanted to vouch for you. Sorry if that was uncomfortable.

If you say so... I don't really care as long as the crazy's don't get my info. Why would I have sent you my info?

 

[Legion Troll]

If you say so... I don't really care as long as the crazy's don't get my info. Why would I have sent you my info?

Since you don't remember, we'll say no more about it. Nobody will get your info from me.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Since you don't remember, we'll say no more about it. Nobody will get your info from me.

Thanks for sending it to me. You can trust me

 

[Legion Troll]

Thanks for sending it to me. You can trust me

Now, that was funny.

Actually, a lot of you have PM'ed info to me over the years.

Of course, you didn't always know it was me you were confiding in, exactly.

But in accordance with JPP rules, I am bound to confidentiality.


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.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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?

Im sorry Norah but that's an insanely bad idea.

First, it's a rehashing of the "States Rights" and "Nullification" arguments that were put to rest in 1865. Secondly it would turn our Constitution into so much toilet paper.

We live in a Republic and in a Republic people have rights. No where in our Constitution are the States granted the sole power to interpret which laws are constitutional and which are not.

The consequences of what you suggest is to convert our nation from a Republic, into a confederacy.

Guess what, it's been tried twice before and failed badly. The first time it failed it led our founding fathers to devise a democratic Republic based on self governance that has a strong central government.

What your suggesting is an aristocracy of good ole boys whom if they cannot have all things there way in all ways then they shall take their ball home and not play.

So yea...one of the worst ideas ever.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

rRead your history Nora. It's been tried before. The consequences are a weak and ineffective central government. Each State could literally go it's own way in anything. Law, banking, cuurrency, foreign policy, commerce, national defense, etc, and it leaves no bulwark in which to protect individual rights broadly.

The consequences of such an amendment would be catastrophic and it is essentially unpatriotic as such an amendment would severe the ties that bind our States as a nation and would mean the end of America as a nation.

So you might want to consider such a reactionary notion as a colossally bad idea.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

How is our constitution being abused? By expanding the scope of Liberty?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

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.

No but undermining the Constitution with an extremely bad idea our founding fathers tried and abandoned because it failed miserably is no solution.

What it really demonstrates is the fatal flaw of social conservatives ability to adapt to change and when I say " fatal" I mean it literally.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure." Thomas Jefferson

I would not want to "remake" the government, but I would like to get us back to how this country was meant to be run which is by following the constitution and not following men.

So what makes you the final arbiter of what our country was meant to be?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I don't think blood is necessary right now, but I do think that there is a lot of cowardice and complacency among many Americans right now when it comes to standing up for what this country is all about and not letting the document that has made this country stand apart from all other to be ignored and looked at as meaningless. Would you say that this country is currently operating for the sake of the constitution or for the sake of men?

I think our Constitution is working as it was meant to. Is a huge factor in why we are a dominant world power and your view represents the complaints and resentments of those whose failed ideas have lost in the market place of ideas and are unable to adjust to change and progress.

Reverting back to ideas of the past that have been tried and failed is no solution to our nations problems and it sure as hell is no way to lead a nation forward.

 

[Jarod]

Since you don't remember, we'll say no more about it. Nobody will get your info from me.

Well, if you say so. I doubt its true, but if it is... thanks for confidentiality, I simply feel like one of these psycho's might show up at my doorstep some day angry.

Generally I don't care, I share my cell phone and personal info freely, but this place attracts some whackos. I don't care if ILA has my info for example, hes a whacko but also a pussy.

 

[Legion Troll]

Well, if you say so. I doubt its true, but if it is... thanks for confidentiality, I simply feel like one of these psycho's might show up at my doorstep some day angry. Generally I don't care, I share my cell phone and personal info freely, but this place attracts some whackos. I don't care if ILA has my info for example, hes a whacko but also a pussy.

You can rely on me, Counselor. I am often entrusted with sensitive, confidential matters, and have never breached the public trust.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You can rely on me, Counselor. I am often entrusted with sensitive, confidential matters, and have never breached the public trust.

Yea right and I can trust my Labrador retriever with my t-bone steak.

 

[Legion Troll]

Yea right and I can trust my Labrador retriever with my t-bone steak.

That's awesome. Did you train him, or did he come from a kennel in Michigan?


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]

Now, that was funny.

Actually, a lot of you have PM'ed info to me over the years.

Of course, you didn't always know it was me you were confiding in, exactly.

But in accordance with JPP rules, I am bound to confidentiality.


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.

Well I know I haven't. I have never given anyone personal information about myself for this very reason.

But I am sure you will claim otherwise

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So what makes you the final arbiter of what our country was meant to be?

That US Constitution you are so find of talking about. Remember it is a living document so it means whatever we want it to mean. Stop being so conservative. Sheesh

 

[Leonthecat]

That US Constitution you are so find of talking about.

LOL, loser

 

[anatta]

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?

think federalism (balances of power).
While fed'l law is supreme the current problem is not so much that -it's the incursion of fed'l powers into state purviews.
In order to understand why the EPA's WOTUS ( Waters of the United States) are now trying to claim local pondwater as "tributary"
of interstate waterways -one has to understand how federalism has changed ..And it's not in a good way.

Federalism in the USA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

American Federalism Past , Present and Future
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/federalism.html

Federalist Society
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/

it's not "states rights". It's "state's purviews !

Xth Amendment
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."