who said we can't nullify federal law?

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
who cares, Madison says we can.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

Thomas Jefferson said:

“… but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” '6'

James Madison commented on the above:

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” '7'

6 The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,8th Resolution.

7 Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.
 
And shakespeare said that some woman was like a summer's day. You know what? Means the same thing, nothing. Madison is long dead and doesn't even get to vote anymore.

You can quote him or Stalin or Augustus Ceaser or Moses or John Wayne. Same level of caring.
 
Disillusioned said:
And shakespeare said that some woman was like a summer's day. You know what? Means the same thing, nothing. Madison is long dead and doesn't even get to vote anymore.

You can quote him or Stalin or Augustus Ceaser or Moses or John Wayne. Same level of caring.
Click to expand...

Why don't you post your location in you stats since you are clearly not an American. That being the case, STFU.
 
Rune said:
Why don't you post your location in you stats since you are clearly not an American. That being the case, STFU.
Click to expand...
Translation: "You don't think the founding father's are god's prophets, you hate america."

Response: Really?... You're following after with STY's near religious devotion to a bunch of dead opportunists? I always wonder why Americans have trouble with the "respect Mohammed" thing that the muslims have going on, If we put a wig on him and put him on the declaration, Americans would join in and burn anybody who said something bad.

Oh and as somebody whose location reads "Vinland" you should probably deal with the log in your own eye before going after my splinter.
 
Disillusioned said:
Translation: "You don't think the founding father's are god's prophets, you hate america."

Response: Really?... You're following after with STY's near religious devotion to a bunch of dead opportunists? I always wonder why Americans have trouble with the "respect Mohammed" thing that the muslims have going on, If we put a wig on him and put him on the declaration, Americans would join in and burn anybody who said something bad.

Oh and as somebody whose location reads "Vinland" you should probably deal with the log in your own eye before going after my splinter.
Click to expand...

Vinland is in America, dickhead but you wouldn't know that would you? and NOTHING you said was relevant.
 
America tested nullification in the 1830s in South Carolina. It was determined that nullification is not constitutional.
 
your link wont work for me op.


go get the statement in context so I can see what Jefferson was really talking about
 
SmarterthanYou said:
who cares, Madison says we can.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2013/01/31/james-madison-rebukes-nullification-deniers/

Thomas Jefferson said:

“… but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” '6'

James Madison commented on the above:

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” '7'

6 The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,8th Resolution.

7 Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.
Click to expand...



Ok I got it to work.


now tell me why you think these powers have not been delegated?
 
Jefferson and Madison were both responding to the ultra-unconstitutional acts passed under Adams in response to Jeffersonian criticism of the government. Specifically, the passage of the Sedition Act which made it a crime to criticize the government. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution was more radical than Madison's Virginia Resolution, but together they put forth a concept called "nullification." They argued that since the states ordained the constitution, that they could determine right from wrong and ignore any unconstitutional laws. This is seen as the origins of the legal argument for secession.
 
federal laws that are in line with the constitution you CAN NOT nullify with Jeffersons approval huh.

Now if you defy federals laws on say guns then you are not finding him agreeing with you.
 
I believe both men later came to regret the resolutions, as they saw that they could be used to argue against any piece of unpopular legislation, and not simply major violations of civil liberties.
 
I think they were saying you can nullify something extra constitutional.


That is still true.

Defy a law you say is unconstitutional and then the courts deside wether the law was constitutional.


Once the courts deside it then you have to adheare to the courts findings
 
The courts in this country have already determined guns are a right and that gun laws are constitutional.


there is no there there
 
Well, that method has always been somewhat frowned upon as well. That is, however, the path most people are looking to take on current issues such as marijuana legalization. Pass a state law which forces the federal government to take the state to court.
 
Jury nullification is indeed an old tradition. It was very common throughout American colonial history. One of the valid objections to the Constitution by some antifederalists was that it would likely end jury nullification as a longstanding tool against tyranny.
 
Threedee said:
Well, that method has always been somewhat frowned upon as well. That is, however, the path most people are looking to take on current issues such as marijuana legalization. Pass a state law which forces the federal government to take the state to court.
Click to expand...


Yes it is the intention of the laws that are pro pot.

If any state defies any of the new gun laws that end up being created they will not be tolerated by the feds.

It will come to a head very quickly unlike the pot defiance
 
Not really. Neither position will really force a federal battle until they cross the line and pass a law which appears to penalize the federal government.
 
evince said:
Yes it is the intention of the laws that are pro pot.

If any state defies any of the new gun laws that end up being created they will not be tolerated by the feds.

It will come to a head very quickly unlike the pot defiance
Click to expand...

Why are you making this about gun laws?
 
I'm guessing because of LEOs who have declared they will not enforce federal gun laws that they consider unconstitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top