The 10th Amendment: With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the...

BigOlBear

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

BigOlBear wrote:

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

With all the problems we face in the world today, ... (show quote)

Bear, you are right.

But it's a facade to do really bad things, IMHO.

BigOlBear

Dummy Boy wrote:

Bear, you are right.

But it's a facade to do really bad things, IMHO.

Wouldn't you know the thread would start out with you. Sheesh! :roll:

Sicilianthing

BigOlBear wrote:

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

With all the problems we face in the world today, ... (show quote)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, this works fine...
Just need to throw out all those in the
State's Assemblies that do v**e against the Peoples
Protections within the
STATES !

But everyone is just
Sleeping still !

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

BigOlBear wrote:

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

With all the problems we face in the world today, ... (show quote)

Let me give you a question. Do you know who the law enforcement officer is who is the highest ranking officer in the Unitrd States?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

BigOlBear wrote:

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

With all the problems we face in the world today, ... (show quote)

The States have more power then the FED's do, but they are afraid to use it. They have been forced to defend their every move and most just cave in to the FED's just to get alone.

There are two things the States have going for them. Nullification and Interposition. Nullification is when a State refuses to enforce an unconstitutional law in their state. Some of them are doing that with parts of ACA now. Then there is interposition. That is when Congress passes a law that they are allowed to pass by the Constitution, but is so harmful that it will do nothing but hurt the people. They interpose themselves between the government and the people to try and protect them from the law and to get the government to change it so it is not a hardship on the people.

This lady is a Constitutional lawyer and while I don't like a lot of lawyers, I do respect the ones that are honest and trying to do an honest job. I think this lady has done more to educate people about the Constitution then most people I have read.

If you really want to read something on it, then you can go here; http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/interposition/

***************************************************

"It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large!!! All other powers are reserved to the several States and The People."

She goes on to say;

"The fourth Founding Principle in our Declaration is this: When government takes away our God given rights, We have the Right & the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government. Nullification is thus a natural right of self-defense:

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 d******n, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them 6 [boldface mine]

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

Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 28 (5th para from end):

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success

Hamilton then shows how The States can rein in a usurping federal government:

the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority

Do you see?

But the nullification deniers do not see because, in addition to their apparent unfamiliarity with the original source writings on nullification (as well as The Federalist Papers), they reject, or do not understand, the Founding Principle that Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution and come from God. Nullification is not a paltry constitutional right! It has a hallowed status it is that natural right of self-defense which pre-dates & pre-exists the Constitution."

While the article is her's, the bold face is mine.

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/convention-of-states-project/

Now my last question is, Do you REALLY want an Article V convention called?????? If you are the least bit interested in having one called, or are thinking about it, then I would advise you to read this first before you throw in your v**e to have one called. If you don't think they already have a new Constitution waiting in the wings for just such an occasion, then you are REALLY not paying attention, because I have read one of them. Just in case you may be interested in reading it, here it is.

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm

MrEd Loc: Georgia

AuntiE wrote:

Let me give you a question. Do you know who the law enforcement officer is who is the highest ranking officer in the Unitrd States?

Last time I checked, it was the county Sharif.

Kevyn

BigOlBear wrote:

With all the problems we face in the world today, it's sometimes hard to prioritize. However, I would put Federal government overreach right up there toward the top. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that a country this large and this diverse is certainly no candidate for a centralized government run from Washington D.C. Fact is, Washington D.C. is broken and it ain't gonna fix itself.

I had gotten Levin's book, The Liberty Amendments and became hopeful that a Convention of the States might be a viable solution. But, since that time, I am learning more and more about "nullification" as a better idea.

So you don't have to look it up, here is the 10th 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."

I'm still learning about this but here's what I've learned so far: State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

An excerpt from Liberty Classroom:

Nullification dates back to 1798, when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, respectively. There we read that the states, which created the federal government in the first place, by the very logic of what they had done must possess some kind of defense mechanism should their creation break free of the restraints they had imposed on it. Jefferson himself introduced the word nullification into the American political lexicon, by which he meant the indispensable power of a state to refuse to allow an unconstitutional federal law to be enforced within its borders.

There are a number of progressives out there who support totalitarianism and who will argue against this potential tool. It's pretty easy to find and dispute these claims. All in all, I see this as a way to salvage our great country but only if concerned citizens educate themselves and work with state legislators to make things happen.

This is certainly not the last word on this subject and I am in hopes that this thread will attract contributors who know more about this than I do as well as people who would like to learn more.

With all the problems we face in the world today, ... (show quote)

The issue of nullification of Federal law by the states was clearly decided by the civil war, in case you don't remember the t*****rs who pushed it got their clocks cleaned by the good guys.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Kevyn wrote:

The issue of nullification of Federal law by the states was clearly decided by the civil war, in case you don't remember the t*****rs who pushed it got their clocks cleaned by the good guys.

There is a difference between secession and nullification. In fact, for your edification and education, nullification does not have to happen at a state level. Nullification can happen at a local level.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

MrEd wrote:

Last time I checked, it was the county Sharif.

You win the prize.

If the county Sheriff is the most senior law enforcement official, where do truly think nullification can begin?

rodulfo-tardo

Progressives are Totalitarian, the N.S.D.A.P., was listed as a Progressive Party, their 1928 Campaign Name was the "Rainbow Coalition" talk of coincidental totalitarianism, what more is there to say?

MrEd Loc: Georgia

AuntiE wrote:

You win the prize.

If the county Sheriff is the most senior law enforcement official, where do truly think nullification can begin?

While it is true that the local law (Sheriff) can nullify a law, normally it is the Governor that will nullify a federal law, but the Sharif will enforce it. He can however nullify a state law if it is unconstitutional in the State Constitution.

MrEd Loc: Georgia

Kevyn wrote:

The issue of nullification of Federal law by the states was clearly decided by the civil war, in case you don't remember the t*****rs who pushed it got their clocks cleaned by the good guys.

Don't look now, but your stupidity is showing again. The Civil War was not fought because the states nullified any laws, Lincoln started the war because of succession.

If you bother to do ANY reading, you would also find out that what he did was unconstitutional and was ruled that by the Supreme Court, but not until after the war was over.

I have told you this before, but it would seem that you are to stupid to learn as you continue to bring this up, but this time we were not even talking about succession, but you really don't know the difference anyway, do you? Some of that GREAT progressive education showing through again.

Now go back to playing in the street and let the adults have a conversation without stupid interruptions from you.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

BigOlBear wrote:

Wouldn't you know the thread would start out with you. Sheesh! :roll:

...did I say something wrong...offensive...derogatory...thoughtless...nonsensical...???

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

MrEd wrote:

While it is true that the local law (Sheriff) can nullify a law, normally it is the Governor that will nullify a federal law, but the Sharif will enforce it. He can however nullify a state law if it is unconstitutional in the State Constitution.

Let me give you an example. Gun law in unnamed state, County Commissioner obtains agreement from fellow Commissioners, County Attorney and, most importantly, the County Sherrif to not enforce the law. Actual fact, the Commissioner started with the Sheriff, then the County Attorney, the the other Commissioners. For nullification to be effective, you must have the County Sheriff in agreement.

It is my opinion, with no basis in fact, that localities can nullify. Again, my opinion only, efforts fail because efforts do not follow the KISS principle. If you start too large, momentum can be overcome by the sheer size of effort. As another weird Aunti thought (not unusual from me), there are times advertising does not pay. Do things door to door, community meeting by community meeting, etc. in a quiet manner can prevent unwanted attention and efforts to derail the issue. Again, these are my personal thoughts and may be baseless.