Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The process of nullification in simple terms is to refuse to abide by any law which is unconstitutional.
This practice is the basic human right of all citizens and a useful tool of State governments to curb the usurpation of power by the Federal Government.
It has been used with success many times in history when the Federal Government has passed laws which were unconstitutional and needs to be implemented today more than ever.
When the 18th amendment was passed, it was clearly unconstitutional, but the people could not depend on the Federal Government nor the Supreme Court to abide by the Constitution on its own accord so it became necessary to nullify the 18th Amendment.
By way of nullification or by refusing to recognize their moral requirement to obey the law, they defied the law until the Federal Government had no choice but to repeal it as they were losing all credibility.
Other acts of nullification have been the refusal to abide by the Fugitive Slave Act, Segregation Laws, The Vietnam Draft, Drug laws, and the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Today we see nullification in action at the State level with States like Colorado, Montana, Texas, and the Dakota's passing laws which override unconstitutional Federal laws in the areas of freedom to own firearms or to use marijuana.
With the Federal Government and some State and local Governments passing laws which are clearly unconstitutional on a regular basis it has now become the duty of every citizen to practice the right of nullification in order to stem the tide of tyranny which is overtaking our once free country.
The Government on every level can only enforce the laws that the people feel a genuine moral obligation to obey as law enforcement is 99.9% voluntary.
In the final analysis, it must be the people who determine the validity of law, and stand in defiance of those laws which are unjust.
How can something that is properly adopted as a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't this abstract thing that is whatever you want it to be. It actually has substance and rules and a process for adding amendments and because of that a duly passed Constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
How can something that is properly adopted as a Constitutional amendment be unconstitutional. The Constitution isn't this abstract thing that is whatever you want it to be. It actually has substance and rules and a process for adding amendments and because of that a duly passed Constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
In order to fully understand this you must first understand that the Constitution is law which first and foremost outlines the limits on power of the Federal Government. When the Federal Government passes law which is above and beyond the power in which it has been given, then that law is unconstitutional.
The next thing that must be taken into consideration is that the Constitution was created with 2 basic criteria for Constitutional law.
1. That the law not infringe on the rights of the people it affects.
2. That the law not infringe on anyone else's rights.
In order to establish the constitutionality of a law, you first must find where in the Constitution it specifically gives the Federal Government the power to pass such law, and then you must determine that this law in no way infringes on any of the rights guaranteed and recognised in the Bill of Rights.
Much of this argument can be answered by looking at one specific issue; that being who owns your body?
If you are a sovereign, meaning you are the owner of your own body the law is interpreted in such a way as to severely limit governments ability to pass laws infringing on your rights.
If on the other hand you believe that the government owns your body, then it is acting within its power to tell you what your rights are.
In order to fully understand this you must first understand that the Constitution is law which first and foremost outlines the limits on power of the Federal Government. When the Federal Government passes law which is above and beyond the power in which it has been given, then that law is unconstitutional.
The next thing that must be taken into consideration is that the Constitution was created with 2 basic criteria for Constitutional law.
1. That the law not infringe on the rights of the people it affects.
2. That the law not infringe on anyone else's rights.
In order to establish the constitutionality of a law, you first must find where in the Constitution it specifically gives the Federal Government the power to pass such law, and then you must determine that this law in no way infringes on any of the rights guaranteed and recognised in the Bill of Rights.
Much of this argument can be answered by looking at one specific issue; that being who owns your body?
If you are a sovereign, meaning you are the owner of your own body the law is interpreted in such a way as to severely limit governments ability to pass laws infringing on your rights.
If on the other hand you believe that the government owns your body, then it is acting within its power to tell you what your rights are.
While I appreciate your philosophical believes that is not how the Constitution actually works. The Constitution is first and foremost a document that outlines what the federal government is, how it functions, how it is selected, what powers it has, which branches have which powers, the role of federalism, and what assurances the federal government will give to the states and citizens. Most of the protections of individual rights come later in various amendments. The Constitution as originally drafted is very vague as to specific grants of individual rights. Most of that comes from the Amendments so to suggest that the Constitution was created mainly to protect individual rights is false. The Constitution was originally drafted as a means of protecting the autonomy of states while at the same time creating a national framework that was strong enough ensure a functioning and independent country.
Additionally any amendment passed by the processes outlined in article 5 is a valid part of the Constitution and supersedes previous language to the contrary, thus why the amendments like the 13th and 21st effectively void previous sections.
Simply put a duly approved Constitutional amendment cannot be unconstitutional. It is impossible since something in the Constitution by its nature cannot be Unconstitutional.
The Constitution is not the founding document. The Articles of Confederation is the founding document. It outlines what States rights are. I suggest you read article 2. It's written in plain English so even a moron can understand it. Unfortunately, DC is full of morons that don't even know this document exists. Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
The Constitution is not the founding document. The Articles of Confederation is the founding document. It outlines what States rights are. I suggest you read article 2. It's written in plain English so even a moron can understand it. Unfortunately, DC is full of morons that don't even know this document exists. Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
I don't know of anyone in this thread suggesting that the Constitution came before the articles of confederation, but you have to understand that the articles of confederation were voided in 1788 by congress and the various state legislature when they instead adopted the US Constitution. This was largely due to the fact that the articles of confederation were unsuccessful in establish a government that could stave off anarchy as demonstrated by Shays rebellion in Massachusetts.
In order to fully understand this you must first understand that the Constitution is law which first and foremost outlines the limits on power of the Federal Government. When the Federal Government passes law which is above and beyond the power in which it has been given, then that law is unconstitutional.
The next thing that must be taken into consideration is that the Constitution was created with 2 basic criteria for Constitutional law.
1. That the law not infringe on the rights of the people it affects.
2. That the law not infringe on anyone else's rights.
In order to establish the constitutionality of a law, you first must find where in the Constitution it specifically gives the Federal Government the power to pass such law, and then you must determine that this law in no way infringes on any of the rights guaranteed and recognised in the Bill of Rights.
Much of this argument can be answered by looking at one specific issue; that being who owns your body?
If you are a sovereign, meaning you are the owner of your own body the law is interpreted in such a way as to severely limit governments ability to pass laws infringing on your rights.
If on the other hand you believe that the government owns your body, then it is acting within its power to tell you what your rights are.
Maybe you should have first discussed the Constitutional meaning of "nullification". Where can I find the Article or the amendment in the US Constitution which affirms the right to "nullification"?
While I appreciate your philosophical believes that is not how the Constitution actually works. The Constitution is first and foremost a document that outlines what the federal government is, how it functions, how it is selected, what powers it has, which branches have which powers, the role of federalism, and what assurances the federal government will give to the states and citizens. Most of the protections of individual rights come later in various amendments. The Constitution as originally drafted is very vague as to specific grants of individual rights. Most of that comes from the Amendments so to suggest that the Constitution was created mainly to protect individual rights is false. The Constitution was originally drafted as a means of protecting the autonomy of states while at the same time creating a national framework that was strong enough ensure a functioning and independent country.
The President shall make no law . . .
Congress shall make no law . . . .
The Supreme shall make no law . . .
The first ten amendments were CLARIFICATION.
It was the "perfectly clear" part of the original Constitution.
The Constitution is not the founding document. The Articles of Confederation is the founding document. It outlines what States rights are. I suggest you read article 2. It's written in plain English so even a moron can understand it. Unfortunately, DC is full of morons that don't even know this document exists. Avalon Project - Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
One problem...we dont practice the articles of confederation.
I am unaware of the bolded appearing anywhere in the bill of rights. With that said the 10 amendments were a clarification, one demanded by various states, as to the role of the federal government. Given the nature of the Constitution it was not seen as necessary by the drafters since the original goal was to create a federal model of government not pick and choose rights to include.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
