Nullification Amendment to the Constitution -would you vote for it?

[CatoMinor]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

So. much. fail.

[Roemerista]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

So. much. fail.

100% agree.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states -- not the other way around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to understand how anyone could possibly reach the conclusion that federal government is subordinate to the states after reading the Constitution. This passage could not possibly be any clearer- federal law trumps state law.

[Mr. Taft Republican]

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states -- not the other way around.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to understand how anyone could possibly reach the conclusion that federal government is subordinate to the states after reading the Constitution. This passage could not possibly be any clearer- federal law trumps state law.

Only where it is specifically said so in the Constitution, in all other matters its a State's right. If that rule were followed, 99% of all laws would be considered unconstitutional

[WillK]

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states

Under the US Constitution the States have always been the subordinate.

[Free Palestine]

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states

Under the US Constitution the States have always been the subordinate.

However, the federal government's powers are delegated to it by the states.

[WillK]

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

Well technically, the federal government is supposed to be subordinate to the states

Under the US Constitution the States have always been the subordinate.

However, the federal government's powers are delegated to it by the states.

Not so. The Constitution says that the powers are delegated to the US by the Constitution, which was created by 'the People'.             

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but then you get worse problems

Only if people don't play by the rules.

[King]

but then you get worse problems

Only if people don't play by the rules.

This is America, nobody plays by the rules.

[Einzige Mk. II]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

[Free Palestine]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

[Einzige Mk. II]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

Possibly. At any rate, I fully expect some pretty terrible things to happen in the South in the event of such an Amendment, but I fully support it on principle. So there has to be some mechanism to prevent State governments from becoming tyrannical before I think it would be a good idea to introduce. I have no desire to see the Black Belt become the location of a second holocaust.

[Free Palestine]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

Possibly. At any rate, I fully expect some pretty terrible things to happen in the South in the event of such an Amendment, but I fully support it on principle. So there has to be some mechanism to prevent State governments from becoming tyrannical before I think it would be a good idea to introduce. I have no desire to see the Black Belt become the location of a second holocaust.

Individual states can't nullify federal law.  The states can nullify a federal law if two-thirds of them vote to do so.

[Einzige Mk. II]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

Possibly. At any rate, I fully expect some pretty terrible things to happen in the South in the event of such an Amendment, but I fully support it on principle. So there has to be some mechanism to prevent State governments from becoming tyrannical before I think it would be a good idea to introduce. I have no desire to see the Black Belt become the location of a second holocaust.

Individual states can't nullify federal law.  The states can nullify a federal law if two-thirds of them vote to do so.

All the same, I think that calling for decentralization but stopping short at the States is a little disingenuous. Don't get me wrong, I support the idea - but the individual States have a longer and more bloodied history of tyranny than the Federal government itself.

[Free Palestine]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

Possibly. At any rate, I fully expect some pretty terrible things to happen in the South in the event of such an Amendment, but I fully support it on principle. So there has to be some mechanism to prevent State governments from becoming tyrannical before I think it would be a good idea to introduce. I have no desire to see the Black Belt become the location of a second holocaust.

Individual states can't nullify federal law.  The states can nullify a federal law if two-thirds of them vote to do so.

All the same, I think that calling for decentralization but stopping short at the States is a little disingenuous. Don't get me wrong, I support the idea - but the individual States have a longer and more bloodied history of tyranny than the Federal government itself.

Indeed.  The people have to be vigilant.  There is no reason the state or local government should be more prone to corruption than the federal government.

[Verily]

I'd vote for it, and upon the same principles vote for an Amendment to my State constitution permitting individual towns and other such polities to override State law.

I might support such a measure, provided that a vote of two-thirds or so of incorporated cities is required.

Maybe counties would make more sense?

Possibly. At any rate, I fully expect some pretty terrible things to happen in the South in the event of such an Amendment, but I fully support it on principle. So there has to be some mechanism to prevent State governments from becoming tyrannical before I think it would be a good idea to introduce. I have no desire to see the Black Belt become the location of a second holocaust.

Individual states can't nullify federal law.  The states can nullify a federal law if two-thirds of them vote to do so.

Or just elect Representatives who will appeal it. Why empower the incompetent hooligans who inhabit state legislatures?

[tpfkaw]

No thanks, I'm okay without slaves.

Sadly, slaveowning would still be restricted to the government.  Incidentally, nullification was never used to defend slavery, although several northern states nullified the Fugitive Slave Act.  One of the complaints South Carolina cited in its declaration of secession was that Northern states were nullifying too much.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great idea!

If subordinate states can nullify federal law, what's the point of even having a nation?

What is the point?

Individual states can't nullify federal law.  The states can nullify a federal law if two-thirds of them vote to do so.

Of course the individual states can, and should.

[Lief 🗽]

If anything, we should be pushing for amendments to reduce states to geographical distinctions rather than what status they have as political entities.  They're an archaic relic.

This is maybe my favorite post ever made on this forum. Certainly in the top 10.

[Free Palestine]

Sure, I favor the abolition of governments that don't do what I want them to do.  And an efficient government is much better than one that is accessible and democratic.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

As far as I am concerned, each state is a semi independent country. Wyoming should have as much influence as NY. Its not really fair when 30+ New York Congressmen (and majority Democrat) can Wyomings 1 at large represenative.

[Хahar 🤔]

As far as I am concerned, each state is a semi independent country. Wyoming should have as much influence as NY. Its not really fair when 30+ New York Congressmen (and majority Democrat) can Wyomings 1 at large represenative.

So you hate democracy?

[Mr. Taft Republican]

As far as I am concerned, each state is a semi independent country. Wyoming should have as much influence as NY. Its not really fair when 30+ New York Congressmen (and majority Democrat) can Wyomings 1 at large represenative.

So you hate democracy?

I do.

[MasterJedi]

I'd never vote for it.