Should a state be allowed to veto federal laws ?

[Lunar]

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

That's not the ***ing disagreement and you know it.  There is a reasonable Constitutional argument extrapolated from various ammendments for a "right to privacy" that protected abortion.

Read some Constitutional literature for Christ's sake.  There have been debates going on ever since Griswold v. Connecticut about privacy in the Constitution.  Lots of extremely smart people on both sides disagree strongly about which way the Constitution points, not simply whether it's good to make stuff up or not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Should is a fun word.  However, ammendments often can be passed to fix disagreements, as I pointed out earlier.  War isn't a great option to solve the abortion question, but maybe that's just me.

[A18]

There is no constitutional right to privacy. If there was, it would be a good idea to repeal it, because it's extremely subjective.

The best way to solve the abortion issue is in state legislatures.

[Lunar]

There is no constitutional right to privacy.

That is one view, yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The right is embeded in various ammendments, if it exists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But these state legislatures are not qualified to interpret the Constitution (so are a number of judges and you and I) when it starts getting controversial.

[Peter]

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.

There must be a method for deciding whether a law is constitutional or not. It is best that we leave such decisions to the (theoretically at least) impartial judiciary who have spent a life time studying the Constitution as opposed to the inherently partisan state legislatures.

Lunar rightly points out that State Legislatures are not bodies of Constitutional experts, they are by definition partisan bodies. If we start allowing partisan bodies to decide what the Constitution means as you suggest, then we will arrive at the situation you most fear - partisans making up what they think the Constitution should be.

Your logic is total bollocks and arrives at a conclusion that opens the United States to anarchy with 50 separate interpretations of the same federal law.

You are free to disagree with me and the Constitutional experts as to what the Constitution says, and I'll happily go round for round with you on many issues, you never know, I might end up agreeing with you.

For the record, my opinion
Privacy - right is inherent in the Constitution
Abortion - right is not a reasonable extrapolation from privacy, but is protected under right to life when health or life of mother is threatened. The federal government has no authority to legislate on this matter, only the States do.
If you want me to justify either of those, feel free.

[A18]

"Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic ... That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."
    -James Madison

Did the chief author of the Constitution betray his own document?

[dazzleman]

The US had a crisis with southern states wanting to nullify federal law in 1832, I believe, under President Andrew Jackson.

South Carolina wanted to nullify a tariff law that was passed by Congress.  Jackson took a strong stand and established the principle that states could not nullify laws passed by the federal government.

Of course, federal power is supposed to be limited, and some would argue that the federal government has exceeded the limits of its powers in some areas.  I think that's probably true.  The feds now use money to spread their power.  As an example, they effectively forced states to raise their drinking ages to 21 by 1985 by threatening to withhold federal highway money from any state that didn't do so.  The same threat was utilized to get most states to pass seat belt laws.  Now, they're looking to force states to redefine drunk driving as having a BAC of .08 rather than the previous standard of .10.

Financial dependence on the federal government, which virtually all states have fallen into, is very dangerous to the ultimate balance of power between the states and the federal government.

I mentioned in a post on the civil war that the concept of states' rights has largely fallen into disfavor because southern states blatantly violated the civil rights of some of their citizens for 100 years after the end of the civil war.

There are certain basic constitutional principles that must be enforced by the federal government, but beyond the powers reserved to the federal government by the constitution, the states should largely be left alone.

I don't believe in nullification however, because it can only lead to the breakup of the union, and we are much stronger and more prosperous as a union than we would be separately.

[Bono]

The same threat was utilized to get most states to pass seat belt laws. 

So that's why New Hampshire doesn't get highway money.

[dazzleman]

The same threat was utilized to get most states to pass seat belt laws. 

So that's why New Hampshire doesn't get highway money.

In the case of the seat belt law (as opposed to the drinking age), the federal policy was that a certain percentage of states had to pass seat belt laws or there would be stronger federal standards regarding air bags put into place, or some such thing.  I don't think New Hampshire was ultimately denied federal highway funding, though it probably doesn't get much in any case because it has little traffic flowing through it.

[A18]

The seat belt, traffic funding nonsense must have been back when the Democrats controlled Congress.

Nullification goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Will anyone condemn that?