Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment

[Free Palestine]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

I do not believe the Constitution is a "sacred document" above amendment.  The Constitution has a method by which it can, and should, be amended.  The problem is that it isn't, because whoever is in power knows it would be far easier to pull a justification out of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, than it would be to pass an amendment.  For example, do you think that a Constitutional amendment to provide for public health care would pass with a two-thirds majority in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states?  Certainly not.  So instead, Congress passes a bill and says with a sneer, "Oh, Commerce Clause."

I am actually pretty ignorant of the constitution, but I understand the economic views of the founding fathers.

You can find plenty of information here, as well as here.

only the second link works, and I disagree with some of the things that the link says. For example they outright say that the income tax is unconstitutional. I disagree with this though because I think the income tax is constitutional because:
1)The Income tax was originally ruled unconstitutional in the 1890's, because it was considered a "direct tax". In reality though the income tax is now considered constitutional because it is a indirect tax, and does not rely on population.

2)Springer vs the united states ruled that income tax's are constitutional if they are indirect tax.


Thus the income tax has always remained constitutional unless it was ruled a direct tax. The sum of several supreme court rulings have shown that a direct tax on income was constitutional even before the 16th amendment. Thus how can the 16th Amendment be considered unconstitutional if it is backed by precedent where judges in these cases each used a strict interpretation?

Here.

[Хahar 🤔]

Who the hell cares what the poeple at the Philadelphia Convention thought?

Nullification was never used because the far better process of judicial review was created instead.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Who the hell cares what the poeple at the Philadelphia Convention thought?

Nullification was never used because the far better process of judicial review was created instead.

LOL.

Judicial review increases centralized tyranny, having the opposite effect of nullification.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Who the hell cares what the poeple at the Philadelphia Convention thought?

Nullification was never used because the far better process of judicial review was created instead.

I do beleive the intent here is to use Judicial Review. Pass a law and provoke a lawsuit to get it into the courts.