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.
Sorry. It was used in 2005 for the Real ID Act. If I remember right 35 states said hell no.
Montana also recently declared that all firearms made and stayed within their state was outside of the authority of the federal government to legislate.
And there is a movement by the states to nullificate some of the federal interstate commerce regulations because the federal government has expanded these laws into regulating intrastate commerce... The movement is called "Nullification of Federal Intrastate Commerce Regulation", this would not only limit powers of the federal government to legislate manufacturing, mining, agriculture, and marijuana etc..
Which is a good reason to stop using wikipedia as a source for your argument. Again, many of the items you listed have nothing at all to do with the topic and does not support your position..
I don't know what else to say to you guys other than good luck re-fighting the civil war, which was fought to settle this exact issue. If you think nullification is going to make a legal comeback, more power to you. Let's review the situation in a year and see where we are. My thinking is that we don't return to a legal theory last used seriously in the 1830's to protect state slave laws.
You are just fooling yourselves if you think nullification is going anywhere. But that's your prerogative. Laughable, but still your preogative.
I don't know what else to say to you guys other than good luck re-fighting the civil war, which was fought to settle this exact issue. If you think nullification is going to make a legal comeback, more power to you. Let's review the situation in a year and see where we are. My thinking is that we don't return to a legal theory last used seriously in the 1830's.
You are just fooling yourselves if you think nullification is going anywhere. But that's your prerogative. Laughable, but still your preogative.
The Civil War was not fought over the right to ignore federal law, it was over the right to succeed from the union..
And the issue is used today, did you see Ohios posting about it being used in 2005 for the Real ID Act?
Which is a good reason to stop using wikipedia as a source for your argument. Again, many of the items you listed have nothing at all to do with the topic and does not support your position..
Speaking of which, do you have an answer or response to my question posed almost 8 hours ago?
And the issue is used today, did you see Ohios posting about it being used in 2005 for the Real ID Act?
And did you read my response that it really wasn't used to nullify the Real ID Act? That law has not been nullified. It has been protested and extended, but not nullified. Because states do not have the authority to nullify federal laws. There is not a single modern example or a single court case that upholds that theory. Not one.
States bascailly have the tired and true option of civil disobedience displayed by many in this society to not obey the laws. That would really put a kink in the US governments position on not enforcing many laws.Afteraoll th3e federal government is not going after cities now that are ignoring and sheltering illegals i thsi country therefore not obeying the law of the land. That can be played by more than one.
States bascailly have the tired and true option of civil disobedience displayed by many in this society to not obey the laws. That would really put a kink in the US governments position on not enforcing many laws.Afteraoll th3e federal government is not going after cities now that are ignoring and sheltering illegals i thsi country therefore not obeying the law of the land. That can be played by more than one.
I guess they could, but then the federal government could withhold federal funding or federal assistance to that state. In which case, most the states would collapse.
In fact, that's what makes this entire argument so funny -- the states pushing nullification the most are almost always the ones who take more from the feds than they give.
States can stop federal money at their state line, take care of their federal responsibility, then send the balance to them. This is probably the only way to shrink them down to size. If a state needs more then they bring in, they will learn to budget like the rest of us.
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.
