Skip to main content

View Diary: Mississippi legislature debating creation of committee to nullify "unconstitutional" laws (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the Hat Tip (5+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately, the south has a sad history of trying this cockamamie scheme for generations, going all the way back to the presidency of John Adams.

    It has bitter, direct links to slavery, racism, and segregation and legislators who do not understand that have no business holding the public trust.  

    And anyone who pushes this nonsense has clearly not read the Supremacy Clause.  Either that, or they do and are just chest thumping as a way to raise their profile and gain publicity.  In either case, they should be ashamed of themselves.

    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

    by Adam Blomeke on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:24:06 AM PST

    •  What if it were to give more rights, not take them (0+ / 0-)

      We all know which Federal laws MS would nullify. I have no sympathy for what they would actually do.

      But what about the real violations of the Constitution? The Federal government has no business telling people they can't grow a plant in their home and smoke it. Even J. Edgar Hoover had to admit the Feds had no business with some things: "I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce."

      Would it really be so bad to have Colorado say "No, DEA officer, that's a legal business here"?

      The idea of states providing a buffer against Federal overreach was a perfectly reasonable checks and balances thing until the South ruined it for everybody.

      •  You can "thank" Thomas Jefferson for that (0+ / 0-)

        if you want to.  Google the Kentucky Resolutions.

        But lets be clear, there's a difference between a state suing the Federal Government in court and arguing that a law is unconstitutional, and a state unilaterally declaring a Federal law unconstitutional.  The Supremacy Clause and Article III clearly point to the former as the accepted means of overturning a federal law on constitutional grounds.

        Doing otherwise would result in fifty states having fifty different interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, effectively destroying the whole purpose of having a uniform federal government.  

        A state can no more nullify a federal law based on the 10th Amendment than you(I assume you live in the United States) or I, as "the People" it also reserves powers to.  It is up to the Federal Courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to act as arbiters of the definition of the Constitution.

        My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

        by Adam Blomeke on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:29:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And I quote (0+ / 0-)

          from the Supremacy Clause:

          "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
          That's what's so bad about it.  

          Such an idea is patently unconstitutional.

          States to not get to decide which laws they want to uphold.  

          My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. -- Senator Carl Schurz(MO-1899)

          by Adam Blomeke on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:42:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site