Idaho, 6 Other States, to “Nullify” ObamaCare

posted at 3:30 pm on January 22, 2011 by Howard Portnoy

Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, has announced plans to resort to an obscure 18th century legal remedy that recognizes a state’s right to nullify any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional.

The doctrine, known as nullification, has its roots in the brand of governance practiced by the nation’s founding fathers. It was used as early as 1799 by then-law professor Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France that

nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts … is the rightful remedy.

As a legal theory, nullification is grounded in the assumption that states, and not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter in cases where Congress and the president have “run amok.”

In Idaho, use of the doctrine to invalidate the health care reform bill is being championed by both state Sen. Monty Pearce and Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter speech, who recently told Idaho residents, “we are actively exploring all our options — including nullification.” Pearce plans to introduce a nullification bill in the state legislature early next week.

Idaho is not the only state considering nullification as a remedy. Six others, including Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming, are also considering bills that would in essence nullify the president’s signature on the reform law.

Pearce, who has expressed optimism that the law will pass, becoming the law of the land in Idaho, is quoted by FOX as having saud:

There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare. What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It’s a killer.

One potential fly in the ointment for Idaho and other states considering nullification is the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.” If nothing else, these moves will result in some interesting legal battles

Related Articles

Cross-posted at the Examiner. Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM

You are assuming that states will go rogue. The same people driving nullification will also be supporting the federal governments legitimate constitutional power. IE, the same people who want Obama OUT of our healthcare, are trying to FORCE him to defend our borders.

csdeven on January 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Yeah, these sorts of laws actually give me (and I would imagine, many Americans) more confidence that passing and defending the PPACA is the right thing to do.

Yeah, that’s why you did so well in the midterms.

Eren on January 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM

1. The point is not a you guys.

Yes it was. That’s why I said “you guys.”

2. Wisconsin was not in the Northeast at the time.

It’s still not, to my knowledge.

3. Wisconsin was heavily Whig/Republican at the time.

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.

4. The South was Democrat.

See above.

Ultimately, distinction without a difference. So you’re saying if someone just passes a law that conflicts with Federal law, they’d be ok, as long as they don’t say Nullification?

Tim Burton on January 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Who CA’s law was “ok” or “not ok?” I simply said the optics of “you guys” passing nullification statutes are bad. CA never passed a nullification statute, so I’m not sure how that example is germane to our discussion.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

You’re afraid to get into a detailed debate because you are an ignoramus and you know it.

csdeven

my fear is tremendous, cs.

but I’ll risk repeating that sovereignty is not vested the the several states in our form of government. it originates in the citizenry and is exercised by the national government in accordance to the provisions of the Constitution. The states are enjoined from any action that is not in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions.

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Who strong CA’s law was “ok” or “not ok?” I simply said the optics of “you guys” passing nullification statutes are bad. CA never passed a nullification statute, so I’m not sure how that example is germane to our discussion.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

The biggest thing the left forgets in this particular discussion is that only a tiny minority of the country feels strongly enough about keeping this rotten bill to be willing to actually fight over it, and, as they are the left, they fully expect that ‘fighting’ to be done by other folk on their behalf.

The flip side is that the number of folk REALLY angry over this power grab is far larger and far more angry. While they would not fight to keep it they will most assuredly fight to keep the feds from using force to enact it.

The Feds pretty much know this so…if opposition is widespread enough and loud enough, they will go with the flow and not begin anything they might lose.

JIMV on January 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM

LOL. One more try…

Who said CA’s law was “ok” or “not ok?” I simply said the optics of “you guys” passing nullification statutes are bad. CA never passed a nullification statute, so I’m not sure how that example is germane to our discussion.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Nullification is an absolutely terrible idea, because it would destabilize the entire American system of government.

Uh, we’re already destabilized thanks to the federal government and it’s getting worse.

Look at it from the other side; In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. He complied, but what if he hadn’t? If the president had refused to comply with a Supreme Court order, there would have been massive internal problems, since the system of checks and balances would have basically fallen apart.

Apples and oranges. Nixon was not a soveren state.

If one branch of government is allowed to completely ignore another branch, the system doesn’t work.

Again, apples and oranges.

If precedent is set saying that states can ignore both laws passed by Congress and Supreme Court decisions, then not only is every bit of precedent set since the Civil War ignored, but the union essentially falls apart. Red States ignore laws by Democrat controlled Congress, Blue States ignore laws by Republican controlled Congress. Either America becomes a hodgepodge of basically independent states circa the 1700′s, or there is a second Civil War.

Wrong. Nullification doesn’t allow states to ignore laws because they don’t like who’s in charge of the congress. It protects state soeverenty by allowing states to disregard UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that might be enacted by the feds.

I know most of us on here believe that the federal government is too big and too powerful; but allowing states to ignore Congress and the Supreme Court makes the government completely impotent, which mostly everyone but anarchists would think to be a bad idea, at least from a defense and homeland security perspective.

Actually it would run a lot better since it will reestablish the true rulers are We, the People and not the weasels in DC. It will put the federal government back in their rightful role which is to defend us from invasion, conduct commerce and trade with other countries, and basic things like that.

I’m not even being over-dramatic; the American system only functions because all sides agree on a system of checks and balances. If the states want to get rig of health care reform, they can do it through Congress or the Court. Obama’s health care reform is bad, but there are other avenues than destabilizing our entire system of government to stop it.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Yes, you are being overdramatic. The reason why our system works is because we are a group of states each with our own sovernty and our freedom is respected by the federal government. That hasn’t been happening in quite a long time and this problem has finally come to a head. Time to do a little nullification.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 4:51 PM

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 3:38 PM

Thanks, but won’t need it. This bill (can we even call it that and maintain respect for the meaning of law and legislation?) is so bad in so many ways that the will and means to resist and repeal will simply overwhelm. It is an assault on the integrity of too many systems and concepts — medical, personal, economic, metaphysical. It’s dying. It’s just a matter of whether the death will be clean and swift, or bloody and protracted and cause collateral damage. If democrats are smart (I don’t mean Leftists) they’ll help make it swift.

rrpjr on January 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM

2. Nullification is unconstitutional. Period. The federal courts have the final say on whether a federal law is unconstitutional, not the Idaho state legislature. That is how our system has worked since the Founding.

3. Setting aside the fact that nullification is unconstitutional, as a practical matter, how can a state “nullify” ObamaCare? Tell the IRS they can’t fine the citizens of a state for failing to buy insurance? Walking away from Medicaid? It doesn’t make any sense.

Outlander on January 22, 2011 at 4:14 PM

The reason why it makes no sense to you is because you believe that nullification is unconstitutional since the Supreme court said it was. You’re wrong.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 4:56 PM

please go right ahead and show me how the system of government in the United States is either theoretically or factually based on sovereignty resting in the various states.

I’m willing to risk being hurt…. and like to laugh.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM

…well….

We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

…so…a sovereign people…who, by establishing the Constitution, cede sovereignty to the government created by the Constitution…and, by extension, their states….

…Article 1/Sections 8-10 clarify the powers of Congress (most of which deal with financial matters, by the way)

…then there’s Article 4/Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government….

…with “republican” defined as:

a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives governing according to law

…note “governing according to law”…not according to political expedient, foreign legal precedent or administrative fiat…funny that a government chock-a-block with lawyers should continually get that one wrong….

…then, there’s that pesky Tenth 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.

…”not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”…pretty specific there…not “powers grabbed because nobody bothered to read the bill” or “powers sucked into the federal maw because nobody raised an objection”…nope…pretty specific….

States prior to ratification were sovereign, full stop. What do you propose? A centralized, centrally planned national life (“one party autocracy”), as lately dribbled down to us by Mr. Friedman of the Times?

We’ve a long history of tugging at the threads of the national fabric for one reason or another…slavery or the abolition of it, “national improvements” or state or regional autonomy, and now citizen and state sovereignty…which, if you ask me, is a derned sight closer to the bone that the slavery “debate”….

…the rumblings about nullification and the inevitable political gamesmanship, rhetoric and ultimate cowardice of our elected solons should be a comedy well worth your belly laughs…so I’d redirect your mirth there, sir….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM

You are assuming that states will go rogue. The same people driving nullification will also be supporting the federal governments legitimate constitutional power. IE, the same people who want Obama OUT of our healthcare, are trying to FORCE him to defend our borders.

csdeven on January 22, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Oh, I’m not saying that I think states would automatically secede over health care, only that there are better options than nullification. I agree that obamacare is unconstitutional, which is why the states should either take it to the Supreme Court, or work in Congress to get it repealed. Essentially the two options states have always had. Barring that, there is always the option to amend the Constitution.

The problem I have is that it is a real slippery slope to allow states to ignore Congress and the Court whenever they don’t agree with a law on Constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court is traditionally who decides Constitutional questions, not the states. When the Supreme Court struck down the Chicago handgun ban, I doubt anyone here would have agreed if Illinois disagreed with the Court and ignored the order. Obamacare should be stopped, but only by the means already set out for dealing with bad laws.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 4:58 PM

<blockquoteNullification doesn’t allow states to ignore laws because they don’t like who’s in charge of the congress. It protects state soeverenty by allowing states to disregard UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that might be enacted by the feds.

mizflame98

nullification doesn’t allow for anything as it is itself a nullity. there is a way to have laws declared unconstitutional, but it isn’t found within the authority of state government.

(take a tip from a terrible speller and try spelling it SOVEREIGNTY.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:59 PM

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.
crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I hate it when I miss a fairy tale.

kahall on January 22, 2011 at 5:02 PM

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

…no…until the ratification of the Constitution they were, and since are not. The fount of sovereignty is encapsulated, once again, in the Tenth Amendment.

In other words, we join together to do the things best and most cheaply done together…and reserve the rest to our states and to ourselves….

…which isn’t the tendency of the federal government since Reconstruction…less so since the first Roosevelt…and we’ve become accustomed to it since the second Roosevelt….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM

States prior to ratification were sovereign, full stop Puritan1648

what was the theoretical basis of their sovereignty?

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:05 PM

If we say nullification is allowed, what is to stop liberal states from nullifying military access and recruitment laws? Nullifying federal death penalty laws? Nullifying federal anti-terrorism laws?

I don’t think this is a can of worms we want to open.

AngusMc on January 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Wrong. Nullification doesn’t allow states to ignore laws because they don’t like who’s in charge of the congress. It protects state soeverenty by allowing states to disregard UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws that might be enacted by the feds.

Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court is the body that decides Constitutional issues on whether laws are legitimate. Therefore, nullification as you are describing would, in fact, be states ignoring laws because they don’t like them. Again, there are several ways to get rid of obamacare without giving states free-reign to ignore laws and Supreme Court decisions.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM

there is a way to have laws declared unconstitutional, but it isn’t found within the authority of state government.

…yes…but, since John Marshall, and certainly since Earl Warren, that “way” has been both aggrandized and politicized…see Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)….

…and a beast which has seized power rarely gives it back…after all, the first imperative of any organism is to survive intact, without loss of limb or territory….

(take a tip from a terrible speller and try spelling it SOVEREIGNTY.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:59 PM

…hmmmm…a bit snarky….

…notice that there’s no spell-check on most blogs?

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Actually, the only sovereign here is the US Constitution itself.

anuts on January 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

…no…until the ratification of the Constitution they were, and since are not. The fount of sovereignty is encapsulated, once again, in the Tenth Amendment.

please read the thing…

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.

and look at the statement of mine that you quoted and tell me how the tenth amendment disagrees with my statement.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:14 PM

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

So you are really a Republican? WOW!/

I still am laughing about you giving someone crap about claiming the Obamacare would not mean socialized healthcare. You are sooo dishonest.

CWforFreedom on January 22, 2011 at 5:14 PM

nullification doesn’t allow for anything as it is itself a nullity. there is a way to have laws declared unconstitutional, but it isn’t found within the authority of state government.

(take a tip from a terrible speller and try spelling it SOVEREIGNTY.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:59 PM

Thank you for the spelling correction. The spell check wasn’t showing a correct spelling.
Now…
Just because you say Nullification is unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. I have found two instances where it was used successfully in the favor of the states who enacted it.
1)Nullification Crisis
2)Fugitive Slave Act
The founding fathers gave us the tools to push back against the federal government. As someone already posted, Hamilton pointed it out in the Federalist Papers that Nullification is a valid tool for the states.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

…and, as anyone with any book-larnin’ knows, Mr. Jackson’s response to the nullification threat of his day was enough to weaken the knees of no less a scrapper than John Calhoun.

Here is Andrew Jackson in his own words at the conclusion of a proclamation regarding nullification by South Carolina:

May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which he has favored ours may not, by the madness of party, or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost, and may His wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen, as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.

Done at the City of Washington, this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

ANDREW JACKSON.

By the President,
Edw. Livingston, Secretary of State.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

If a majority of the country and the states thinks the government has overstepped, and that government refuses to stop such actions, folk will nullify…Think the 55mph speed limit at the least. The government pretended to control our driving and we pretended to let them while we all drove exactly as we wanted.

JIMV on January 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.
crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Still using that stale old propaganda eh? You so silly.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court is the body that decides Constitutional issues on whether laws are legitimate.

…I’ve always loved that tidy little judicial fiat…the Court giving itself power…nice trick, I’ve always thought….

Therefore, nullification as you are describing would, in fact, be states ignoring laws because they don’t like them. Again, there are several ways to get rid of obamacare without giving states free-reign to ignore laws and Supreme Court decisions.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM

…alas, laws “they don’t like”…true, true….

…then again, ever noticed how much easier it is to get a nasty, power-centralizing, predatory bit of legislation enacted, compared with the rigamarole one has to endure getting it pulled?

…we wouldn’t want our national life governed by polls and popularity, which is why you have a representative government…but, what if that government is no longer “representative”…being, as it is now, a creature composed of long-serving career legislators and jurists with life-long appointments…all of them dependent upon and active in partisan politics?

…where is the people’s will then?

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM

(take a tip from a terrible speller and try spelling it SOVEREIGNTY.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:59 PM

…hmmmm…a bit snarky….

…notice that there’s no spell-check on most blogs?

Puritan1648

not at all meant to be snark. I spell rather indifferently, type horribly, and have poor eyesight.

mizflame spelled the word three or more times in the same, incorrect manner and I offered, humbly, a hand.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM

The states have several Constitutional remedies against ObamaCare, they just need the will and the backing of the people to pursue them peacefully.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:19 PM

If we say nullification is allowed, what is to stop liberal states from nullifying military access and recruitment laws? Nullifying federal death penalty laws? Nullifying federal anti-terrorism laws?

I don’t think this is a can of worms we want to open.

AngusMc on January 22, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Us not saying it doesn’t make it any less allowed. It’s always been allowed. As for recruitment laws and military access, have you been to Berkley or San Francisco lately?

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:20 PM

thanks for the link, but as I live and type, it’s an absurdity.
despite history and past attempts at using it, the question was settled, and is settled.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:06 PM

Proof by assertion. Are you planning on constructing an argument, or are you just here to blather and troll?

fossten on January 22, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Very interesting

gophergirl on January 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court is the body that decides Constitutional issues on whether laws are legitimate. Therefore, nullification as you are describing would, in fact, be states ignoring laws because they don’t like them. Again, there are several ways to get rid of obamacare without giving states free-reign to ignore laws and Supreme Court decisions.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Your example is an instance of 3 wolves (Branches of Fed Gov.) and a sheep (the states) sitting down at the table and the wolves picks the dinner. The whole purpose of nullification is to level the field for the states. That’s why Marbury v. Madison is a ruling that can be disregarded under nullification. That ruling goes against the constitution and the powers guaranteed to the states.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

mizflame98, nullification was settled after the civil war. attempts to invoke it after that have not been often made or been successful.

there were some amendments to the Constitution after the war that made things a bit clearer concerning the relative powers of the national government and the state governments.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

If nothing else, these moves will result in some interesting legal battles

And in the meantime, people are denied healthcare and women and children die from neglect.

Oh the humanity!

davidk on January 22, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Let’s see, Jefferson is the basis for Separation of Church and State by the SCOTUS in 1947, but in 1958 his Kentucky Resolution views on State Nullification of Federal actions doesn’t appeal to them.

amr on January 22, 2011 at 5:29 PM

BTW all the critics who are up in arms (figuratively of course..;)) about Idaho attempting this nullification are ignoring the first sentence of this blog post,

Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul,

Idaho is acting peaceably and within the system by filing suit in court first asking the third branch of government to address the constitutionality of the statute, and asking the court for relief.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:30 PM

…may His (the Almighty’s) wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate his designs, he has chosen(etc.)
txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:15 PM

…first of all, Andy Jackson was one autocratic, miserable piece of work. Let me get that out in the open. He is supposed to have said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” in connection with the brutal uprooting of Indians inconveiently in the way down South…although the attribution of the quote is in some doubt, it is in character….

…also notice that his loyalty is to “the Union”, as it was expressed in those days…an entity which he seemed to think was the especial handiwork of the Almighty…making it, I suppose, some sort of holy thing on Earth.

…nope…’most anything Andy By-God opposed bears looking into…he was a nasty piece of work…and the machinations surrounding the Ordinance of Nullification of 1832 deserve looking into in today’s conversation about nullification….

…by way of clarity, I’m descended from a long line of Whigs…my great-great grandfather was named William Harrison Denman, while he named his son Henry Clay Denman…so none of us have had much use for Old Hickory….

…and Henry Clay Denman, by the way, voted for Lincoln in 1864…I read it in a yellowed newsclipping of his obituary…so much for crr6′s “great voter shift”….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:31 PM

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Just because there has been amendments to the constitution doesn’t mean nullification is no longer a valid tool. We’re dealing with people who don’t give a rat’s behind about the constitution. They look at Rules for Radicals as their constitution. Do you honestly think that these radicals will be swayed by a constitutional convention considering the regulatory czar will just do end runs around the constitution to get what they want? Nullification protects us from weasels who blatantly ignore our constitution it’s not an outdated tool, it’s one of the sharpest knives in our arsenal.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:33 PM

That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.
crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Well, crrsicks, I was born 50-60 years ago. You do have a bit of a point, tho’.

But if you part your hair differently, you could hide it.

davidk on January 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM

We cannot depend on the courts to save us. It will be up to states to stand against this tyranny from the feds. We are the states! Butch Otter won’t back down and will fight to the last on this. Wish we had a gov with as much backbone here in Mt.

Kissmygrits on January 22, 2011 at 5:37 PM

I applaud this effort of the several states. I hope similar acts of nullification pass in many more states than those listed.

Inkblots on January 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM

mizflame98, I mean to say that nullification is no longer a valid tool because,

1) legally, it never was valid

and

2) imposing nullification by force failed and sufficient force to impose it in future is really, really, unlikely without a bunch of other strange stuff happening first.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM

And in the meantime, people are denied healthcare and women and children die from neglect.

Oh the humanity!

davidk on January 22, 2011 at 5:29 PM

This is serious!

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:31 PM

In his Proclamation, he didn’t say nullification was always wrong, he said that States cannot decide not to follow a tax law and threaten to secede from the Union if the Feds tried to enforce it.
Sorry you don’t care for him, I am partial to Jackson at least as a General, because an ancestor of mine owes his life to him after the War of 1812, so I am a little biased.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:39 PM

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:38 PM

I posted 2 examples where nullification worked and was valid. It’s your problem if you refuse to look at them.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:40 PM

…here’s one other thing to throw into the whole stew of “state sovereinty”…once upon a time, states had power in Washington inasmuch as senators were selected by state legislatures (Article 1/Section 3)….

…remember Mr. Madison’s (et.al.) little compromise, that the House represents the people (by population), while the Senate represents the states.

…now, thanks to Mr. Wilson and his progressive morons, that was thrown out…Seventeenth Amendment, a progressive initiative…sort of like Roosevelt’s Supreme Court packing…can’t get the Senate, in this case, to pass your crappy, unconstitutional rubbish, gut it….

…so, a large part of the sovereignty the states had was lost to them in 1913….

…then, there’s court-directed racial gerrymandering, court-directed nullification of state ballot initiatives and the extra-constitutional regulatory rule of czars and boards and commissions answerable to the Executive….

…a state flexing its atrophied muscles seems a healthy thing….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Us not saying it doesn’t make it any less allowed. It’s always been allowed.

Actually, it has never been allowed and never been legal. It’s been tried, and always failed.

AngusMc on January 22, 2011 at 5:44 PM

“The doctrine, known as nullification, has its roots in the brand of governance practiced by the nation’s founding fathers.”

Not all of them. While Jefferson and Madison were the authors of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves in 1798 in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Not a single other state backed them. Beyond that, many states condemned them. For example, Rhode Island, which was suspicious of the new government under the Constitution and one of the last to ratify it, declared the resolves to be a danger and that only the federal courts could decide the constitutionality of a law. Almost literally, Virginia and Kentucky’s positions on interposition and nullification represented “extremist” constitutional theory.

Beyond any argument about the history of nullification, the idea itself is hare-brained. To allow it would create a crazy-quilt of federal law that would turn the concept of national government and nationwide rule-of-law a joke.

We all agree that ObamaCare is bad medicine, but the proper way to deal with it it what’s being done right now: defeating its supporters in elections, dismantling it in Congress, and fighting it in federal court. And, if need be, calling an Article V amendments convention. But for Idaho and other states to revive the so-called “Principals of Ninety-eight” is a distraction and a dead-end, and downright harmful to the cause by making our side look unserious.

irishspy on January 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM

davidk on January 22, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Who is being denied health care? I don’t have health insurance but I don’t lack health care. I just practice pay-go. My wife went in for an annual gyn. exam yesterday and we paid cash for it. We weren’t denied anything. So do us a favor and quit spreading disinformation. The law you are arguing about doesn’t cover much of anyone until 2014 and it is not about health care but about health insurance.

chemman on January 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Your example is an instance of 3 wolves (Branches of Fed Gov.) and a sheep (the states) sitting down at the table and the wolves picks the dinner. The whole purpose of nullification is to level the field for the states. That’s why Marbury v. Madison is a ruling that can be disregarded under nullification. That ruling goes against the constitution and the powers guaranteed to the states.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Again, who says that Marbury v. Madison can be ignored? Everything that has happened after the Civil War ended in 1865 has in essence affirmed federal supremacy with a system of checks and balances. If in fact as we believe, obamacare is unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. If not, then the unpopularity of the bill will eventually lead to a situation where a Republican-led Congress can repeal it. Once the Republicans gain back Congress, would you like a situation where Blue states can say that laws are unconstitutional and ignore them?

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Nullification protects us from weasels who blatantly ignore our constitution it’s not an outdated tool, it’s one of the sharpest knives in our arsenal.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 5:33 PM

…audiculous has a point…nullification, like secession, were retroactively ruled illegal…at the point of a bayonet, if I might say….

…and “sharpest knives in our arsenal” isn’t quite the point, if — through whatever legislative or judicial fiat — nullification has been made illegal….

…what I think is the point is this: if over 70% of the population want universally imposed healthcare abolished, then the states exploring nullification (most of which are already challenging parts or all of the monstrosity in the courts) are doing what they were elected to do: carry forward the will of the people.

…now, will that leave a minority in the dust? Will that minority not get what they want, when they want it? Sure…but democracy presupposes rule of the majority, n’cest pas?

…after all…some children expect ponies for Christmas…and cry when they don’t get their way….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

That is not quite accurate. They were sovereign and surrendered part of their sovereignity to the federal government and retained the rest. So you could say they are both sovereign and subject depending on what is being discussed.

We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 4:57 PM

Don’t forget the middle words, “in order to form a more perfect UNION” (emphasis mine)

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

No, that would be the Constitution, ratified by the people in the several states.

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Regarding the Nullification Crisis of 1832, I think Jackson was correct: the national government had passed a law within its sphere of power and South Carolina was refusing to respect it. The tariff was ridiculously high but the remedy was to address that in Congress.

Regarding Worcester v. Georgia, that is a tricky case. First, the court treated the Indians inside the states of Georgia and Tennessee as in some sense sovereign. The Cherokee laws violated both state and federal statute and constitutions.

Marshall also wrote the decision is such a way that the opinion was written did not require the federal government to enforce it.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Obama can’t let OCare go. It’s his signature legislation and he will bend any rule, break any law or stretch any precedent to keep it in place. So will his supporters on the Hill. After all, all those House sacrifices will have been in vain. (Not that anyone feels sorry for them it’s just part of the Dem thinking). But since ,more than half of the states are now defying him he will need to save face. Modification, tweaking, call it what you like–that will probably end up being the ‘solution’. Too bad as repeal and a clean new beginning would have been the best one.

jeanie on January 22, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Yes, you are being overdramatic. The reason why our system works is because we are a group of states each with our own sovernty and our freedom is respected by the federal government. That hasn’t been happening in quite a long time and this problem has finally come to a head. Time to do a little nullification.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 4:51 PM

This battle of states rights is one that must be engaged and won. The ruling class and Obama administration in particular are daily pushing the envelope of regulatory edicts, overbearing unconstitutional legislation and executive decrees.
The suit by the Obama Justice Dept. against the sovereign state of AZ for merely trying to enforce its borders when the feds would not is an acknowledgment by the feds that they demand complete compliance and the States have no sovereign Rights.
The founders envisioned a loose alliance of individual states and citizens each with its own rights such that the tyrannical federal govt could not dictate the everyday lives of all citizens and the citizens would have the control over the government most close to them, the states. Through the states control of the federal government. Part of this was lessened when the election of US Senators was taken from the State legislatures and given to a popular election by the people.
The local sheriffs are the vanguard of these rights as they are elected locally by the populace and empowered to enforce state and federal law.
Competition between states is the ultimate exercise of freedom such that we are all not Berkleys nor Billings. Perhaps Billings does not need the same immigration type laws as Tuscon or Pheonix, because the same problems do not exist.

dhunter on January 22, 2011 at 5:51 PM

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

So people are born with their politics. I was born 59 years ago and have been a conservative since I was capable of thinking about issues. The rest of my siblings were democrats. Although recently two of them have shifted to conservative because of the excessive nanny statism of the left.

chemman on January 22, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I posted 2 examples where nullification worked and was valid. It’s your problem if you refuse to look at them.

mizflame98

according to one of your posted links….

1)
South Carolina’s attempt to nullify was met by the US Congress authorizing the use of force against Carolina.
The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance.

this attempt was found to be invalid, slthough it was partially successful as the US was willing to offer concessions rather than kill a lot of people in Carolina.

2) according to the other link…..

In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover’s recapture. Ultimately, in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court

it didn’t work and wasn’t valid. it was overruled.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:52 PM

irishspy on January 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Very good points. Kentucky legislature had to tone that down before issuing it. To be legal, you would have to amend the constitution to explicitly say that if so many states find a federal law to be in violation of the Constitution, then it is void, just as the Supreme Court has done since Marbury.

Madison always insisted that to properly understand what Jefferson was saying about nullification, you had to see he was referring to the ultimate power of the people to rev0lution as a last resort against tyranny.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Don’t forget the middle words, “in order to form a more perfect UNION” (emphasis mine)

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

…which is an assault on he English language if ever there was one…how can something be “more perfect”? If it’s perfect, it’s perfect. There is no provision in English for “perfecter”, as there is none for “perfectest”….

…but, the point to make things more efficient (a better choice of words) than under the Articles of Confederation (especially as regards the payment of Revolutionary War debts) is well taken…but, that still doesn’t make this “perfecter” union all-sovereign…it’s still the people who empowered it….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Once the Republicans gain back Congress, would you like a situation where Blue states can say that laws are unconstitutional and ignore them?

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Yes!
And I would be free to move to the state whose laws most resembled my philosophy as is going on right now with the mass exodus of the inhabitants of over taxed highly indebted democrat ruined states!

dhunter on January 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM

To be legal, you would have to amend the constitution to explicitly say that if so many states find a federal law to be in violation of the Constitution, then it is void, just as the Supreme Court has done since Marbury.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 5:57 PM

I think that is the gist of the repeal amendment they are proposing.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:02 PM

The only way to completely invalidate Obamacare and other overreaching federal laws is through a state’s convened article V convention to amend the constitution where the representatives of the states can define in more detail the definition of the commerce clause so that it will be more restictive in it’s used by the federal government. The same convention could also be used to pass a balanced budget amendment requiring the federal gov’t to have a balanced budget.

paulsur on January 22, 2011 at 6:04 PM

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I do not disagree. Ultimately the people are sovereign, and if there is confusion as to the Constitution, then the people should act to clarify it by Amendment, started either in Congress or the State legislatures

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:05 PM

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

That is not quite accurate. They were sovereign and surrendered part of their sovereignity to the federal government and retained the rest. So you could say they are both sovereign and subject depending on what is being discussed.
txmomof6

I think that your point doesn’t really contradict the quotation of mine.

the states for dang sure are subject to the authority of the federal government…

and the 13 colonies declared the rule of Britain invalid and asserted the rights of the people to be governed as they freely chose. they did not assert the right of Virginia or of Rhode Island to supercede that of Britain.
the fount of sovereignty was in the individual.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM

it didn’t work and wasn’t valid. it was overruled.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 5:52 PM

you forgot the rest of it:

1) The crisis was over, and both sides could find reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to the satisfaction of the South, and the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation. By the 1850s the issues of the expansion of slavery into the western territories and the threat of the Slave Power became the central issues in the nation.[7]

AND

2)In November 1850, the Vermont legislature approved the “Habeas Corpus Law,” requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. This law rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont and caused a storm of controversy nationally because it was a “nullification” of federal law, a concept that had become highly charged in debates over slavery. The famous poet and abolitionist John Greenleaf Whittier had called for such laws and the Whittier controversy heightened angry pro-slavery reactions to the Vermont law. Virginia governor John B. Floyd warned that nullification could push the South toward secession, while President Millard Fillmore threatened to use the army to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act in Vermont. No actual events followed in Vermont, but the rhetoric of this flare-up echoed South Carolina’s 1832 nullification crisis and in Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 Kentucky Resolutions.[8]
“Jury nullification” took effect as local juries acquitted men accused of violating the law. Secretary of State Daniel Webster was a key supporter of the law as expressed in his famous “Seventh of March” speech. He wanted high profile convictions. The jury nullifications ruined his presidential aspirations and his last-ditch efforts to find a compromise between North and South. Webster led the prosecution when defendants were accused of rescuing Shadrach Minkins in 1851 from Boston officials who intended to return Minkins to his owner; the juries convicted none of the men. Webster sought to enforce a law that was extremely unpopular in the North, and his Whig Party passed over him again when they chose a presidential nominee in 1852.[9]

Not only did it work, but in the case of #2 it worked beautifully.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Semantics. States as a collection of people who elect governments are sovereign. There are many areas where the federal government defers to State law, for example how elections are conducted. Go back to the election of 2000 and the focus of the world on a lowly elected official of the State of Florida.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Hey CCC6 what law school are you going to? You’re not getting your money’s worth. The northeastern liberal states WERE THE LAST STATES to use nullification. Mass., Ct., N.H., and Ohio nullified the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Not only did they refuse to enforce it, but Mass. passed laws providing for twice the punishment of the federal law to any Mass. citizen who cooperated with the federal law.The failure of the federal govt to enforce the FSL was one of the chief arguments South Carolina used for secession.

xkaydet65 on January 22, 2011 at 6:13 PM

Ultimately the people are sovereign, and if there is confusion as to the Constitution, then the people should act to clarify it by Amendment, started either in Congress or the State legislatures

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:05 PM

…and yet be realistic…that power has been seized by a load of Beltway Prima Donnas, many of whom seem hostile to the constraints placed upon their air-castle-building by the Constitution…see the kerfuffle over reading the Constitution on the floor of Congress recently…it was, by turns, a stunt and racist….

…we’re beginning to see initiatives to repeal the law, while the 24-hour noise-cycle seems intent on confusing it all by presenting an endless stream of academic and political “also-rans” to opine on the issue ad nauseum…few of them as clear or as informed as the discussion here….

…the legislation to be nullified is little over a year old…it’s still an infant in coerced monstrosity terms…the initiatives being advanced under the law, using conventional redress, are even younger…we’ll see…but nullification is still an interesting option….

…the whole purpose of deliberative government is that we don’t run willy-nilly into anything (as in “pass the bill to see what’s in it”)…we should remember that….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM

The Obama administration’s strategy is to delay the current court case until it becomes a stare decisis sort of thing where it becomes too embedded in the system to change. States can protect themselves by saying they will not comply with what they believe is an unconstitutional law; thus putting the ball in the Federal government’s court; basically making them show it is enforceable. The state can defend at the lowest court level by saying the law is unconstitutional and hopefully get a stay of government action until the matter is decided at a higher leve.

KW64 on January 22, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Again, who says that Marbury v. Madison can be ignored? Everything that has happened after the Civil War ended in 1865 has in essence affirmed federal supremacy with a system of checks and balances. If in fact as we believe, obamacare is unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional. If not, then the unpopularity of the bill will eventually lead to a situation where a Republican-led Congress can repeal it. Once the Republicans gain back Congress, would you like a situation where Blue states can say that laws are unconstitutional and ignore them?

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:47 PM

So, per your theory these Supreme Court Rulings were A-OK since they happened after the Civil War:
-Plessy v. Ferguson
-Buck v. Bell
-Roe v. Wade
-Schenck v. United States
The states can do nothing about it if they find these rulings to be unconstitutional because 9 people in black robes who are accountable to no one says so? Sorry. The founding fathers didn’t set up the system that way.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Semantics. States as a collection of people who elect governments are sovereign.
txmomof6

yeah, to a great deal it is a semantic difference.

I agree with you that states exercised sovereign power. what I say is that they did so in the name of the citizens and by grant of the citizens, the acknowledged sovereign.

they did not hold authority by grace of God, as European monarchs claimed.

other than that small point, I agree with what you’re saying.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM

and yet be realistic…that power has been seized by a load of Beltway Prima Donnas, many of whom seem hostile to the constraints placed upon their air-castle-building by the Constitution…
Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM

I am being realistic, elections have consequences if the people are willing to excercise their power to express their will, as in last November. It just takes time.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Beyond any argument about the history of nullification, the idea itself is hare-brained. To allow it would create a crazy-quilt of federal law that would turn the concept of national government and nationwide rule-of-law a joke.

irishspy on January 22, 2011 at 5:45 PM

What’s truly frightening about this is the very real possibility of liberal states saying “allright wingnuts…two can play that game!” – and promptly ‘nullifying’ whatever laws THEY don’t like. There aren’t many endgames if we go down that path, and all of them are ugly!

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 6:32 PM

To all those advocating “nullification” of ObamaCare, I will ask again:

Exactly how is a State supposed to “nullify” ObamaCare? Does it tell the federal government that it may not fine people in that state for violating the individual mandate? Does it simply refuse to comply with the Medicaid rules and patiently wait for the government to cut off all of its Medicaid funding in return? And how would that work?

Outlander on January 22, 2011 at 6:33 PM

excercise should have been exercise, oops
Not to mention, the expression of the will of the people in the form of the Tea Parties.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:36 PM

For a decade, Russian academic Igor Panarin has been predicting the U.S. will fall apart in 2010. For most of that time, he admits, few took his argument — that an economic and moral collapse will trigger a civil war and the eventual breakup of the U.S. — very seriously.

See here. His timing may be a bit off, but not by much.

Mason on January 22, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Outlander on January 22, 2011 at 6:33 PM

One way would be for a State judge to issue an order or a stay on some aspect of it that was brought before it by a petitioner who is damaged by it and has standing to sue. A State judge derives his power from the State obviously and the exercise of his jurisdiction would be an exercise of State power. It would likely be removed to federal court, but there may be an issue in there that is a state law question.

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Excellent thread!!
Bravo to all of you.
One things for sure folks, the divide between the citizens and the politicians has reached a tipping point. Interesting times we live in, historical period in the American experiment.

Keemo on January 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM

I’m not even being over-dramatic; the American system only functions because all sides agree on a system of checks and balances. If the states want to get rig of health care reform, they can do it through Congress or the Court. Obama’s health care reform is bad, but there are other avenues than destabilizing our entire system of government to stop it.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM

Good point. What is really disturbing is that too many Americans (Dems and Reps) do not even believe in limited government any more.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 6:46 PM

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:07 PM

I didn’t realize that about Daniel Webster. Thanks.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I’m not even being over-dramatic; the American system only functions because all sides agree on a system of checks and balances. If the states want to get rig of health care reform, they can do it through Congress or the Court. Obama’s health care reform is bad, but there are other avenues than destabilizing our entire system of government to stop it.

HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 4:32 PM

precisely

rob verdi on January 22, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Nullification? This is the Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States. My South Carolina was the first to leave the Union in December 1860. Nullification was much talked about in South Carolina before 1860. I thought the right of nullification issue was settled with that war along with slavery and the right to leave the Union.

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 6:56 PM

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 6:56 PM

The difference is y’all didn’t use nullification but succession to leave the union.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I thought the right of nullification issue was settled with that war along with slavery and the right to leave the Union.

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 6:56 PM

It was. The answer is “NEVER!”. It is punctuated by gunfire and written in the blood of our own fathers, brothers, sons, and nephews – not a few of whom ended up shooting their own kindred.

If we are truly going to have to say it again, I pray this time will be the last.

IMO the North made a huge mistake when it sat idly by while carpetbaggers and crooks loot the shattered South. There should have been efforts to ‘seed’ the broken land with loyal American families, instead of just letting the defeated stew and burn crosses and dream of restarting the whole bloody conflict.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Anyone want to see another case of nullification that has so far been successful (and has occurred after the civil war)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#Controversy_and_opposition
I don’t see soldiers out in the street because of this.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 7:07 PM

mizflame98,

“jury nullification” isn’t legal doctrine, it’s a description of juries refusing to apply the law. it has no legal validity beyond the single case where the jury decided that their legal duty to apply the law would not be fulfilled.
the law stands and will be applied to the next case.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 7:10 PM

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 7:07 PM

The feds and the public quit giving a hoot about that years ago. Obamacare can’t be swept under the rug so easily.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 7:11 PM

The difference is y’all didn’t use nullification but succession to leave the union. – mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Read this about South Carolina’s nullification of a Federal Law. President Andrew Jackson, a South Carolinian, almost started a war over it. And, it had nothing to do with slavery, just that the South was getting the short end of the states over tariffs and taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_Crisis

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM

IMO the North made a huge mistake when it sat idly by while carpetbaggers and crooks loot the shattered South. There should have been efforts to ‘seed’ the broken land with loyal American families, instead of just letting the defeated stew and burn crosses and dream of restarting the whole bloody conflict. – Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 7:07 PM

Lincoln did what he had to do and I am glad that the North won “The War”. If he had not done what he did the country would have been split between North and South ……….. and, the newly captured far west that had been recently won from Mexico probably would have created their own country.

We will get through this crisis. Our institutions are strong. But, the Federal Government and government on all levels needs to shrink.

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 7:21 PM

To all of you – including the naysayers – the reason the states are fighting this is that the Medicaid provisions are going to bankrupt them. Only the clear dem states are doing nothing because they are holding to maintaining their allegiance to the president and their party, not the people they ostensibly represent.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is constitutional by the way. They say they are, but inactuality they are not.

Zomcon JEM on January 22, 2011 at 7:21 PM

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 7:14 PM

way ahead of you.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 7:22 PM

What’s truly frightening about this is the very real possibility of liberal states saying “allright wingnuts…two can play that game!” – and promptly ‘nullifying’ whatever laws THEY don’t like. There aren’t many endgames if we go down that path, and all of them are ugly!

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 6:32 PM

Why is that concept so frightening? We might end up with Vermont declaring war on Texas or something? It would be over within minutes. Could you name one endgame that would justify the adjective “truly frightening”? I’d be curious to know.

shazbat on January 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Also, to those who like the Obamacare legislation and are worried that “nullification” would be opening a can of worms, it seems to me that with more than half the states taking the Feds to court over this crappy-ass legislation, a pretty big can of worms has already been opened that you didn’t mind dumping all over the floor. I say we might as well open them all in order to (in the words of Nancy Pelosi) “see what’s in [them].”

shazbat on January 22, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Also, to those who like the Obamacare legislation and are worried that “nullification” would be opening a can of worms, it seems to me that with more than half the states taking the Feds to court over this crappy-ass legislation, a pretty big can of worms has already been opened that you didn’t mind dumping all over the floor. I say we might as well open them all in order to (in the words of Nancy Pelosi) “see what’s in [them].”

shazbat on January 22, 2011 at 7:43 PM

I like this idea!!

Tim Zank on January 22, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Also, to those who like the Obamacare legislation and are worried that “nullification” would be opening a can of worms, it seems to me that with more than half the states taking the Feds to court over this crappy-ass legislation, a pretty big can of worms has already been opened that you didn’t mind dumping all over the floor. I say we might as well open them all in order to (in the words of Nancy Pelosi) “see what’s in [them].” – shazbat on January 22, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Nullification, no. Taking it to the Supreme Court, yes. Repealing it, yes. Shrinking the size of all government, yes.

SC.Charlie on January 22, 2011 at 7:47 PM

This is a very interesting and informative thread..however I want to remind those of you that are looking at this as an academic exercise…your future depends on how this is all pans out. If the Federal government is not brought to govern within its enumerated powers, we are going to be living in a police state and in very short order. It is imperative that we re-establish states rights and use any
non-violent means at our disposal to do so…including nullification if necessary.

VBMax on January 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4