listen

Sparta, TN

#22 Feb 27, 2013
I know American History wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that the issue of Nullification was settled by Andrew Jackson in 1832, right?
Not so sure about this. I don't think it was finalized.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/24c.asp
The South Carolina Nullification Controversy

By the late 1820's, the north was becoming increasingly industrialized, and the south was remaining predominately agricultural.

In 1828, Congress passed a high protective tariff that infuriated the southern states because they felt it only benefited the industrialized north. For example, a high tariff on imports increased the cost of British textiles. This tariff benefited American producers of cloth — mostly in the north. But it shrunk English demand for southern raw cotton and increased the final cost of finished goods to American buyers. The southerners looked to Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina for leadership against what they labeled the "Tariff of Abominations."

Calhoun had supported the Tariff of 1816, but he realized that if he were to have a political future in South Carolina, he would need to rethink his position. Some felt that this issue was reason enough for dissolution of the Union. Calhoun argued for a less drastic solution — the doctrine of "nullification." According to Calhoun, the federal government only existed at the will of the states. Therefore, if a state found a federal law unconstitutional and detrimental to its sovereign interests, it would have the right to "nullify" that law within its borders. Calhoun advanced the position that a state could declare a national law void.

The members of the South Carolina legislature defended the rights of the states against the federal government.

In 1832, Henry Clay pushed through Congress a new tariff bill, with lower rates than the Tariff of Abominations, but still too high for the southerners. A majority of states-rights proponents had won the South Carolina State House in the recent 1832 election and their reaction was swift. The South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification was enacted into law on November 24, 1832. As far as South Carolina was concerned, there was no tariff. A line had been drawn. Would President Jackson dare to cross it?

Jackson rightly regarded this states-rights challenge as so serious that he asked Congress to enact legislation permitting him to use federal troops to enforce federal laws in the face of nullification. Fortunately, an armed confrontation was avoided when Congress, led by the efforts of Henry Clay, revised the tariff with a compromise bill. This permitted the South Carolinians to back down without "losing face."

John Calhoun Against the Force Bill (First Day) 15 February 1833
John Calhoun didn't pull any punches when he argued against the Force Bill of 1833. The bill, supported by President Jackson, would have allowed the military to enforce the Tariff of Abominations. The federal government soon revised the tariff so the military action that the Force Bill permitted was avoided, but not before Calhoun's tirade before the Senate.
listen

Sparta, TN

#23 Feb 27, 2013
listen wrote:
Bill comes up for debate on 2/26/13. Call Brian Kelsey (Senate Judiciary Committee) & demand he vote yes to support this. If he does not support it & move it forward it will die in committee. Calls can be made over the weekend also.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/02/...
This bill was a tie vote, therefore didn't move forward as of now.
waitasec

Cookeville, TN

#24 Feb 27, 2013
Barry wrote:
Probably a non issue. Federal law supersedes state law.
If obama signs and congress approves a International Gun Treaty it will put the United Nations in control of our guns.
Better read your constitution!
waitasec

Cookeville, TN

#25 Feb 27, 2013
Mud Slinger wrote:
Tn Attorney General Robert Cooper says that federal law trumps state laws and that it is unconstitutional for the state of Tn to nullify federal gun laws. So, if the federal level votes for gun control then Tn has gun control laws to follow!!!

www.wpln.org Look under news.
FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT TRUMP. Damn do believe everything you hear? Find out for yourself!
Low information voter!
Joe

Cookeville, TN

#26 Feb 28, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>
You lose any legitimacy when you try to call someone out for using a generalizing term by using one yourself. Obama could have ended all of it by releasing them though, correct? As far as Romney goes, no I dont care to see his tax returns for that matter I could care less about Obama's tax returns. The question here, which you will side step, is why does the "most transparent" president ever feel the need to lock every record back to grade school up?
I didnt know my educational background was in question here as it has nothing to do with the question posed to you. Like most, you choose not to answer but deflect to something that has 0 to do with the topic. Its not even a good or fair comparison I do not lead the nation. Same question to you, do you ever feel you are wrong?
Why is Obama's educational background relevant? It's not, is it? There is no constitutional requirement, is there? But when pointing out that Obama graduated with honors from Harvard Law School and his political pistachio constitution guy was self taught, one of the posters questioned the legitimacy of Obama's education. And you defended him. You don't want to see taxes but you do want to see college records. Did you want McCains, Romneys, Bush, etc.... Hell no you didn't. The right has tried to tear him down and have failed miserably. With unemployment at 8%, the economy barely limping, and Romney still couldn't beat him. What does that say about the GOP message. America ain't buying it anymore. He gets more and more popular every time the GOP holds our country hostage. The majority has spoken. It's time for the obstructionist minority to stop obstructing. You've done more damage than you will ever admit.
Do I ever feel I am wrong? Yup, I sure do. When proven wrong, by myself or others. I've not seen that proof on this thread. Did you have a nickname like Odumbo for Bush? Delegitimize? No, not at all. LOL
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#27 Feb 28, 2013
waitasec wrote:
<quoted text>
FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT TRUMP. Damn do believe everything you hear? Find out for yourself!
Low information voter!
Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, commonly called the supremacy clause, establishes the supreme authority of federal law over all other laws. The concept of nullification has never even been a legitimate argument since Article III of the Constitution gives the right to declare federal laws unconstitutional to the federal courts, and only the federal courts. This section specifically prohibits states from declaring federal law unconstitutional, precluding so-called "nullification". If you are so certain that the states can do it, give one example of it happening (other than prior to the Civil War, and we all know how that worked out!).
listen

Sparta, TN

#28 Feb 28, 2013
The "Supremacy Clause" only applies to laws that are constitutional - federal government trumps state government.

However, if the law is unconstitutional, state government trumps federal government.

Now, do you see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government control over gun rights?

Nope, neither do I.
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#29 Feb 28, 2013
listen wrote:
The "Supremacy Clause" only applies to laws that are constitutional - federal government trumps state government.
However, if the law is unconstitutional, state government trumps federal government.
Now, do you see anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government control over gun rights?
Nope, neither do I.
You apparently can't read too well. Article III takes care of the issue of constitutionality by giving the authority to declare a law unconstitutional to only the federal courts. States are specifically precluded from doing so. If a law is declared by the courts to be unconstitutional, it simply is null and void and has no legal standing or effect. It cannot be enforced. It's impossible for a situation to even exist where a state could "trump" federal law as you say.

I fully support the Second Amendment and oppose pretty much everything that is happening in that arena right now. However, I also know what the Constitution says about the supremacy of federal law and believe that people, especially elected officials, should be putting their efforts in the right place. Any proposed state legislation to nullify a federal law only makes us look like a bunch of stupid rednecks.
listen

Sparta, TN

#30 Feb 28, 2013
I can comprehend what I read. Can you?

What is it? State nullification.

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Says Who?

Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.

But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

What’s the Argument for It? Find out here:
www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#31 Mar 1, 2013
listen wrote:
I can comprehend what I read. Can you?
What is it? State nullification.
State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Says Who?
Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were “duty bound to resist” when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn’t invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.
What’s the Argument for It? Find out here:
www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/
Yea, dumb ass, they discussed the issue and wrote the constitution with the court provisions to prevent any such overreaching by the executive branch. Now, I'm still waiting for your example of when a state has legally "nullified" a federal law.
waitasec

Cookeville, TN

#32 Mar 1, 2013
CURMUDGEON wrote:
<quoted text>Yea, dumb ass, they discussed the issue and wrote the constitution with the court provisions to prevent any such overreaching by the executive branch. Now, I'm still waiting for your example of when a state has legally "nullified" a federal law.
Can't post without cursing and calling others vile names, definite liberal!
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#33 Mar 1, 2013
waitasec wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't post without cursing and calling others vile names, definite liberal!
Can't post without whining when called out for failing to provide any facts whatsoever to support your claims. Definite tea-bagger conservative! But I'm used to it. Every time you ask a tea-bagger to provide evidence to support their absurd claims, they respond with "mommy, he called me a bad name!!!!" Pretty pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you have no response.
Twang

Cookeville, TN

#34 Mar 1, 2013
waitasec wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't post without cursing and calling others vile names, definite liberal!
Cursing and calling others vile names is liberal? How about "libtard"? How about "liberal diarrhea cancer". That's one of my favorite "liberal" nicknames! What a buffoon you are. What's your business? Why won't you tell us? Maybe getting gov. money to support it? Inquiring minds want to know! Wouldn't be the first teabagger to complain about gov subsidies while accepting them, ala Michelle Bachmann the teabagging queen.
listen

Sparta, TN

#35 Mar 1, 2013
CURMUDGEON wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, I'm still waiting for your example of when a state has legally "nullified" a federal law.
1798 - "Alien & Sedition Acts". Virginia & Kentucky nullified it.

The power of nullification is constitutional and belongs to the states. That more states do not exercise it is likely simply a question of EDUCATION. A great many legislators are lawyers. Lawyers are all taught "constitutional law" in law school. Lawyers that don't recognize "nullification" are either ignorant to the fact, or slept thru class. The goal is to EDUCATE state legislators about this vastly under-used state power.
(Key word here is EDUCATION)
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#36 Mar 2, 2013
listen wrote:
<quoted text>
1798 - "Alien & Sedition Acts". Virginia & Kentucky nullified it.
The power of nullification is constitutional and belongs to the states. That more states do not exercise it is likely simply a question of EDUCATION. A great many legislators are lawyers. Lawyers are all taught "constitutional law" in law school. Lawyers that don't recognize "nullification" are either ignorant to the fact, or slept thru class. The goal is to EDUCATE state legislators about this vastly under-used state power.
(Key word here is EDUCATION)
I said LEGALLY nullified. You bring up a 1700's case as an example???? How ridiculous! You want us to believe that nullification is legal in light of the fact there are no historical examples. And yes lawyers are taught constitutional law since that is the law of the land. And in case you have missed all that we have been talking about (apparently so!), this IS a constitutional law question. And you want us to believe that you know something that all the legislators and legal beagles of the world have somehow missed. I guess you're anxiously awaiting your appointment to the Supreme Court. I can't imagine how they have overlooked you in the past!
Barry

San Jose, CA

#37 Mar 2, 2013
Federal Appeals court is higher then ANY state law.

Court Rules There is No Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon
In a sweeping ruling, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Case: Peterson v. Martinez.

Do NOT ignore what the democrats and obama are doing. They figure they have a mandate from the people..
listen

Sparta, TN

#38 Mar 2, 2013
CURMUDGEON wrote:
<quoted text>
I said LEGALLY nullified. You bring up a 1700's case as an example???? How ridiculous! You want us to believe that nullification is legal in light of the fact there are no historical examples. And yes lawyers are taught constitutional law since that is the law of the land. And in case you have missed all that we have been talking about (apparently so!), this IS a constitutional law question. And you want us to believe that you know something that all the legislators and legal beagles of the world have somehow missed. I guess you're anxiously awaiting your appointment to the Supreme Court. I can't imagine how they have overlooked you in the past!
Much irate are 'ya ?!

The 1798 case was a legal nullify. Look it up!

Nullification - vastly underused STATE power. Look it up!

Liberalism - chronic mental disability. Look it up!
listen

Sparta, TN

#39 Mar 2, 2013
Barry wrote:
Federal Appeals court is higher then ANY state law.
Court Rules There is No Right to Carry a Concealed Weapon
In a sweeping ruling, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public. Case: Peterson v. Martinez.
Do NOT ignore what the democrats and obama are doing. They figure they have a mandate from the people..
Yes, I also agree with this.^^^

The courts ruled on "conceal carry", but did not rule on "open carry", even tho in most states it is within the same permit.
CURMUDGEON

Cookeville, TN

#40 Mar 2, 2013
listen wrote:
<quoted text> Much irate are 'ya ?!
The 1798 case was a legal nullify. Look it up!
Nullification - vastly underused STATE power. Look it up!
Liberalism - chronic mental disability. Look it up!
Irate? No, just amused. And still waiting for the examples. If you are correct, obviously there are lots of examples out there. Oh that's right! You're the only one who knows, so no one has ever done this in the last 200+ years. And knowing the laws makes one a liberal? You don't use facts or information of any sort to jump to your conclusions, do you?
listen

Sparta, TN

#41 Mar 2, 2013
CURMUDGEON wrote:
<quoted text>
And still waiting for the examples.
I gave you one good example. I will not do your research.
NULLIFICATION - VASTLY "UNDERUSED" POWER GIVEN TO THE STATES. Key word here - UNDERUSED!
What part of this don't you understand??

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Cookeville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Halloween Central 8 min why why why 7
Cookeville, Monterey meet about Rail-Trail 16 min give me your money 4
TN Who do you support for Governor in Tennessee in... (Oct '10) 22 min TN Voter 150,336
Harassment At Dogwood Park....Again. 1 hr Explanation 12
CHS Football 1 hr CHS Football Supp... 12
Wine, liquor on November ballot 1 hr Steve 23
Massage 3 hr Out of town 1
•••
•••
•••

Cookeville Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Cookeville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Cookeville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Cookeville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••