Should a state be allowed to veto federal laws ?

[Polkergeist]

This is a general question about federal systems. Should states be able to legislate to veto the application of federal laws if they don't desire their application for what ever reason?

It is assumed that states would still be bound by the federal consitution so as to all free trade and movement between the states.

Also states be bound by the civil rights protections the federal constitution would have.

If such a federal system existed would it be stable? 

How long would it last?

[A18]

The Constitution is a contract between sovereign states, but each state must follow the contract. If Congress passes a tax on imports, that's in the contract.

Now, if the federal government ever passed unconstitutional legislation, each state certainly has the right to nullify it.

[Polkergeist]

What I'm asking is a general question about federal unions. Lets say the constitution allowed states to veto laws passed the federal legislature but required the states to abide by the consitution. Would such a federal union be workable ?

[A18]

I suppose, but then you might as well not have any federal laws in the first place. :-)

[Gabu]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

[??????????]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Kind of the way it's supposed to be.

[Richard]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Funny.  Canadian provinces has that right.  So you're saying Canada is no longer a country?

[Schmitz in 1972]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Definately good my friend

[Gabu]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Funny.  Canadian provinces has that right.  So you're saying Canada is no longer a country?

I'm assuming that the states exercise that right all the time.  If they mostly abide by federal laws even when they don't have to, then what I said doesn't apply.

[Trilobyte]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Funny.  Canadian provinces has that right.  So you're saying Canada is no longer a country?

I'm assuming you're talking about the notwithstanding clause? I believe provinces only have the right to use it on legislations that overlap provincial powers. That's why Alberta can't use it to ban same-sex marriage, because the definition of marriage belongs to the federal government.

[opebo]

No, obviously not.  There'd still be slaves in the South and blacks and homosexuals would be getting strung up from trees in most of the country. 

On the other hand, as the cancer grows, it looks like the federal government will reverse its former enlightened role and be the agent of oppression - so it would be nice if the civilized states outside Jesusland could resist the trend.

[Bono]

I voted before reading the thread. Nullification as Philip said, ok, but if not, then no.

[Gabu]

It would cease to be a country and instead would be basically a loosely bound conglomerate of individual states under the banner of the Constitution.

Whether or not that's a good thing is up to you.

Funny.  Canadian provinces has that right.  So you're saying Canada is no longer a country?

I'm assuming you're talking about the notwithstanding clause? I believe provinces only have the right to use it on legislations that overlap provincial powers. That's why Alberta can't use it to ban same-sex marriage, because the definition of marriage belongs to the federal government.

No, it's much broader than that.

From a governmental explanation of it:

Section 33(1) of the Charter of Rights permits Parliament or a provincial legislature to adopt legislation to override section 2 of the Charter (containing such fundamental rights as freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and freedom of assembly) and sections 7-15 of the Charter (containing the right to life, liberty and security of the person, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, a number of other legal rights, and the right to equality).

Basically, it enables any legislation that invokes it (it can be provincial or federal) to ignore a large chunk of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  However, it does provide that any legislation created that uses it will automatically expire in a maximum of five years, at which time it must be renewed.

I don't like it one bit, but I fully understand why it's there, and I like its presence better than the alternative.

[J. J.]

States do have a right to nullify unconstitutional laws.  It's called a lawsuit and it works.

Some countries do have a well defined system where the federal unit is not bound by some national laws or at least can sometimes block the enforcement.  The Bundestrat in Germany has (or at least had) some of that function.

I'll let Lewis explain the exceptionally complex process.  :-)

[Peter]

If individual states have the right of veto over federal laws then what you have is no longer a federal system by definition, it has become a confederal system.

In the specific example of the United States, State nullification is specifically contradicted by the Supremacy clause. If a State feels a federal law is unconstitutional it has the remedy of judicial process, its citizens have electoral process, and if that all fails they have revolutionary war, however the latter is obviously an act of treason.

[Bono]

If individual states have the right of veto over federal laws then what you have is no longer a federal system by definition, it has become a confederal system.

In the specific example of the United States, State nullification is specifically contradicted by the Supremacy clause. If a State feels a federal law is unconstitutional it has the remedy of judicial process, its citizens have electoral process, and if that all fails they have revolutionary war, however the latter is obviously an act of treason.

How foolish it is to believe that government can sustain government.

[A18]

No. By the very nature of things, any federal law that's not based in the constitution is null and of no affect. A nullification act is just an officail acknowledgement of it.

[Lunar]

No. By the very nature of things, any federal law that's not based in the constitution is null and of no affect. A nullification act is just an officail acknowledgement of it.

Of course, the reason why there is so much disagreement over the Constitution is because it's easy to interpret a thousand different ways.

One Constitutional scholar may tell you that abortion is a right and another may tell you that the Constitution clearly outlaws it.  Considering that state legislatures are NOT Constitutional scholars, multiply the scenarios by an order of magnitude.

[A18]

There are a thousand different ways to interpret treaties. Make every department of government answerable first and foremost to the Constitution.

When any two departments of government can no longer get along, the proper fix is to call for a Constitutional Amendment.

[Lunar]

When any two departments of government can no longer get along, the proper fix is to call for a Constitutional Amendment.

Controversial issues will find it impossible to be ammended (too much disagreement to get the necessary supermajority) and noncontroversial issues will have a hard time organizing the passive support.  It's a flawed way of governing.

State nullification just screws up federalism and would toss too many issues into chaos.

[A18]

Give me an example of an issue that the states wouldn't be able to agree on.

[Lunar]

Give me an example of an issue that the states wouldn't be able to agree on.

Let's go with the one I already mentioned:

Abortion

[A18]

No, I mean something that's based on some kind of constitutional thought.

[Lunar]

No, I mean something that's based on some kind of constitutional thought.

So there's no Constitutional disagreement over the issue of abortion?

[A18]

None whatsoever. Just disagreement over whether or not judges are allowed to make stuff up.

There should never be two coexisting views of the Constitution. One has to win out over the other, either by war or constitutional amendment.