|
Title: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: dead0man on March 17, 2010, 03:18:26 AM link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127787)
Quote He said the issue is not only about guns but about states' rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities. Great news.He said South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Idaho also appear to be close to adopting similar legislation, and several dozen more states have proposals in the works. According to an analysis by Michael Boldin at the Tenth Amendment Center, the federal government has used the Commerce Clause, which authorizes the regulation of commerce that crosses state lines, to regulate just about anything. In the Montana lawsuit, the federal government's brief argues it can regulate intrastate commerce because of the Commerce Clause. But the analysis said what the states are doing is simply a nullification. "Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are 'unauthoritative, void, and of no force' from the outset," Boldin wrote. "When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'noneffective,' within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state's citizens," he continued. "By signing H.B. 95, Gov. Freudenthal places Wyoming in a position of proper authority while pressing the issue of state supremacy back into the public sphere," he continued. <snip> Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 17, 2010, 03:35:34 AM Good. Nullification is something more states need to be using more often.
Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 17, 2010, 10:47:48 AM Nullification, you say?
() Seriously though, more power to them. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 17, 2010, 02:52:05 PM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.
Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 17, 2010, 04:10:16 PM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat. So are you are "no fan" of decentralization? Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Mint on March 17, 2010, 05:14:40 PM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. Seems totally contradictory. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 17, 2010, 06:24:15 PM A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.
Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 17, 2010, 06:45:30 PM A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development. Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 17, 2010, 06:58:43 PM A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development. Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before. Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we? Suddenly Obama criticizing a ruling written by Anthony Kennedy and insulting the Supreme Court to their faces doesn't seem very bright, does it? Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on March 17, 2010, 07:00:10 PM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html)
Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Marokai Backbeat on March 17, 2010, 07:02:15 PM A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development. Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before. Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we? No, I fear this pursuit of a teenage libertarian's dream would lead to a disaster of a society and further fear no one actually cares about how society works or making it work well, preferring their federalist fantasies. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 17, 2010, 08:01:09 PM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on March 17, 2010, 08:13:42 PM This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) Seeing as how he was actually not present at the Creation, and the Louisiana Purchase doesn't really gel with those "principles." Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 17, 2010, 08:28:13 PM This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) Seeing as how he was actually not present at the Creation, and the Louisiana Purchase doesn't really gel with those "principles." Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 17, 2010, 09:19:33 PM A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development. Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before. Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we? No, I fear this pursuit of a teenage libertarian's dream would lead to a disaster of a society and further fear no one actually cares about how society works or making it work well, preferring their federalist fantasies. How exactly would it be a disaster if gun laws and other things were left to the states, so that the people of those states can have laws that suit their ideals, and not those of people from other states? The only disaster I see in a weakened federal government, is for the demagogues who want their views imposed on the whole of the American people. And it seems like everyone labels an ideology they don't like as "teenage." As if everyone will adhere to their ideology when they grow up and "realize" how the world works, as if entering the "real world" would make everyone embrace big government. What people don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of older libertarians, anarchists, socialists, and others - people who adhere to ideologies that are labeled as "teenage rebellion." Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 17, 2010, 10:47:28 PM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat. So are you are "no fan" of decentralization? On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 17, 2010, 11:43:56 PM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat. So are you are "no fan" of decentralization? On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale. Well then, it's possible to work at the state level to further devolve power. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Associate Justice PiT on March 18, 2010, 12:00:09 AM While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat. So are you are "no fan" of decentralization? On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale. Well then, it's possible to work at the state level to further devolve power. I'm open to doing what it takes to devolve it. If doing it on the state level happens to be more efficient on a particular issue, consider me a supporter of doing it on the state level. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand. on March 18, 2010, 12:04:45 AM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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) Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 18, 2010, 01:05:57 AM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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." Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: SvenssonRS on March 18, 2010, 01:06:28 AM This is why I love Wyo.
Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand. on March 18, 2010, 09:33:12 AM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: k-onmmunist on March 18, 2010, 10:29:27 AM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) Lol. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 18, 2010, 11:16:00 AM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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 (http://"http://www.constitutionfacts.com/"), as well as here (http://www.constitution.org/). Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand. on March 18, 2010, 01:17:17 PM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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 (http://"http://www.constitutionfacts.com/"), as well as here (http://www.constitution.org/). 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? Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Free Palestine on March 18, 2010, 02:57:35 PM 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. (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html) This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States." (http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/kyres/kyfaircopy.html) 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 (http://"http://www.constitutionfacts.com/"), as well as here (http://www.constitution.org/). 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 (http://www.constitutionfacts.com/). Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 19, 2010, 12:10:27 AM 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. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl on March 19, 2010, 01:41:03 AM 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. Title: Re: Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on March 19, 2010, 08:17:03 PM 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. |