Nullification

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Nullification

What are the forums thoughts on this?

Personally i think its a fantastic doctrine and am glad we are seeing a renaissance of sorts in this type of thought

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
?

 

 

                        Could you elaborate on exactly what you want nullified?

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 I think that he may mean

 I think that he may mean jury nullification. That might play out differently in Canada that it does in the US though.

 

Let me use the OJ murder trial as the example here. Everyone knows that he did it but the jury decided not to convict him. I also need an additional example which is a stupid law though.
 

Let's say that someone is on trial for breaking a stupid law. Despite all the evidence against him, the jury does not convict him. That would be a nullification.

 

In the US, the jury has the last word. If they do no convict, that is the end of the matter.

 

So if a law happens to be stupid and gets nullified a bunch of times at trial, then it becomes a law that most prosecutors will not bother with. It will be a law, just not one that actually matters.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If we are talking legalese

 If we are talking legalese I imagine we are talking about constitutional nullification doctrine which has been reborn regarding Bamacare. Nullification is the idea that states can nullify federal laws that they deem unconstitutional. As a states rights advocate, I can see the appeal of nullification as the federal government has seized way more power than is constitutional. However, I think nullification should only be done as a last resort and only if a state is actually willing to attempt secession for a few reasons.

 

First, it is quite clear that SCOTUS is the constitutional tool to determine power disputes between the federal and state governments. Even though a strong argument can be made that SCOTUS has failed to uphold its duty, it is hypocritical to use an unconstitutional approach to protect the Constitution. States simply are not given the power in the Constitution to rule federal laws unconstitutional. That power is given specifically to SCOTUS. 

 

Second, nullification has a long history of complete failure. SCOTUS has ruled against it multiple times and even the strongest states rights supporters on the Court are unlikely to challenge precedent to that extent (and give up their own power).

 

Third, if nullification were constitutional it would create quite a mess. It is pretty easy to pass a law on the state level. Imagine 50 states all accepting and rejecting different federal laws, for all practical purposes you might as well ditch the feds completely and have an outright confederacy. 

 

If a state does attempt nullification, it will be found unconstitutional. What is it going to do? Ignore SCOTUS? The the federal government would be forced to send in federal agents to enforce the law. Then what does the state do? The next step is to shoot or arrest the federal agents and things can get out of hand really quick. The other option would be to formally secede from the US and leave the ball to the feds to see if they let the state go or start a war. Personally, I have always thought that Lincoln was wrong and states do have the right to secede but I don't really care to see it tested again. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
well the supreme court isnt

well the supreme court isnt the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law, as jefferson pointed out the supreme court is part of the federal govt so is hardly a fair arbiter, the states as parties to the constitution and creators of the federal govt have the final say, and as we can see the SCOUTUS has been little more than a rubber stamp for the federal govt

nullification can be and has been used to great effect throughout our history, and it certainly is constitutional

the states were given wide powers under the constitution, the federal govt very few

anyone interested in the subject id highly recommend thomas woods book entitled nullification, it gives the arguments and the evidence and totally annihilates the arguments put forth by leftist nationalists like rachel maddow that nullification is a tool of slavery and such nonsense

also:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

 

 

 

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
also yes jury nullification

also yes jury nullification is a great thing as well


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4565
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:well the

atomicdogg34 wrote:

well the supreme court isnt the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law, as jefferson pointed out the supreme court is part of the federal govt so is hardly a fair arbiter, the states as parties to the constitution and creators of the federal govt have the final say, and as we can see the SCOUTUS has been little more than a rubber stamp for the federal govt

Except that it has asserted that power and its rulings have been generally accepted and enforced for 200 years, so for all practical purposes it is.  

 

atomicdogg34 wrote:

nullification can be and has been used to great effect throughout our history, and it certainly is constitutional

Really? On what basis and in what manner? For all practical purposes nullification has been recognized as unconstitutional by both the federal government and SCOTUS. You might argue on an academic level that it is consistent with the Constitution but to actually use it states have to be willing to face down both the feds and SCOTUS. If you had a large enough majority of the states, I could see it working but if you have that large of a majority you could probably pass a constitutional amendment.

 

Historically, nullification only worked to the extent that the executive branch was unwilling to actually enforce SCOTUS or a compromise was brokered under the threat of federal force. Which leads me back to my previous post. If a state really wants to try for nullification it better be ready for US Marshals to come in to enforce SCOTUS. If you aren't ready or willing to deal with that eventuality, you are better off using other tactics. Especially with our current President, because I don't think he would be sympathetic to the states for a heartbeat. If the feds don't back down, nullification has the potential to get really ugly, especially if many states do not support the attempt.

 

Given the right conditions I could be persuaded to support nullification but given the right conditions I could be persuaded to use force against federal agents. I just don't think you should attempt the former unless you are willing to go all the way. Kind of like pulling a gun on someone, you shouldn't do it unless you are completely willing to pull the trigger. A state attempting nullification without the willingness to use force to back it up does nothing to support its cause and likely will end up ceding more power to the feds when it backs down. I think the worst thing that could happen to the states is an instance of attempting nullification and backing down when confronted by the feds which would only serve to further solidify the federal governments power over the states.

 

What states CAN do to help dismantle federal power is to stop accepting its money. Much of the power from the feds comes in the form of money that is voluntarily accepted with strings attached. For example, my governor here in Ohio refused to accept federal funds for a high speed rail, which helped scuttle the project and the federal strings that came with it. States can and should refuse to accept money for highways, schools, stimulus etc. Unfortunately, such moves are extremely unpopular because the state is passing up on "free money", but the money is hardly free when the feds use it to usurp more power. I think starting by refusing federal money for anything would be a much better first step and ultimately more effective if a state government could do it without being thrown out of office the following election. The golden handcuffs have proved to be more devastating to states power than the iron ones and I believe more devastating to freedom in general. Unless we start turning down the gold, we will eventually find that we have no freedoms left, and that goes for states and individuals.

 

If you can get a state to start actively refusing federal money, then nullification might be a possibility if (when) the federal government attempts to assert its power. But I doubt you could find a state that would have the balls to even go that far. Outright nullification of any federal law seems like a pipe dream to me, even if you are talking about Bamacare. No state is going to be willing to nullify it and provide the force to back it up.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:well the

atomicdogg34 wrote:

well the supreme court isnt the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the law, as jefferson pointed out the supreme court is part of the federal govt so is hardly a fair arbiter, the states as parties to the constitution and creators of the federal govt have the final say, and as we can see the SCOUTUS has been little more than a rubber stamp for the federal govt

nullification can be and has been used to great effect throughout our history, and it certainly is constitutional

the states were given wide powers under the constitution, the federal govt very few

And today the federal gov't enjoys wide (read: nearly unlimited) powers, the state govt very few. (Apparently, federal education funding has succeeded in cutting the balls off states)

Kinda ironic, don't ya think...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 321
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
well that was exactly

well that was exactly jeffersons point, if the federal govt (and the SCOTUS being part of the federal govt) is the sole arbiter of its powers than it shouldnt be a surprise when they expand beyond their intended scope, the argument that the SCOTUS and the feds have said such and such doesnt answer the question really, it only begs the question

 

nullification has been used for such purposes as fighting the fugitive slave act of 1850 for instance (in wisconsin), id imagine such a principle would have been handy when FDR decided to intern japanese americans during WW2, and a myriad of other other instances

 

id highly suggest a read of dr. tom woods book on the subject, it lays out the case as well as provides all the evidence needed

 

also theres this:

 

http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/

 

Proof FDR was a tyrant and a POS: Executive Order 9066

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
-Ron Paul