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.
Dude - The 18th Amendment was PART of the Constitution, like it or don't. It got repealed. If you want another amendment repealed, organize a convention. Chill.
Well, gee, I guess that's why I said exactly that:
Quote:
Or take conscription. No constitutional prohibition there. Indeed, the Constitution is explicitly silent on the issue, but wherein it empowers Congress to 'raise and support Armies' it implicitly allows conscription.
Now, let's think real hard. The Constitution says Congress may raise an army. But it doesn't forbid conscription. Huh, now why could that be? Maybe because the Convention assembled never imagined that might occur? Wrong - there was conscription to fill the ranks of the Continental Army, so the notion of conscription was fresh in everyones mind.
Well, gee, let's ask the Founders themselves, shall we?
Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph, speaking at the Constitutional Convention, his words recorded by the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison:
Quote:
He [Randolph] then proceeded to enumerate the defects [of the Articles of Confederation]: l. that the confederation procured no security against foreign invasion; congress not being permitted to prevent a war not to support it by their own authority— Of this he cited many examples; most of which tended to shew . . . that particular states might by their conduct provoke war without control; and that neither militia nor draughts being fit for defence on such occasions, enlistments only could be successful, and these could not be executed without money.
You've heard of the Randolph Plan? More commonly called the Virginia Plan, it was the early basis for our bicameral system. Edmund Randolph was a major Founder. And he sought the Constitution in part because enlistments alone (as opposed, obviously, to conscription) would not always be enough to provide for national security.
Let's see what Alexander Hamilton has to say in Federalist No. 23:
Quote:
We must discard the fallacious scheme of quotas and requisitions as ... impracticable and unjust. The results from all this is, that the Union ought to be invested with full power to levy troops; to build and equip fleets, and to raise the revenues, which will be required for the formation and support of an army and navy, in the customary and ordinary modes practiced in other governments.
Also, Pennsylania:
Why did the state convention (unsuccessfully) push for a provision in the Constitution for conscientious objectors? The only reason for conscientious objection status is to be exempt from conscription - it was clearly understood by the states that the proposed Constitution allowed for conscription, and Pennsylvania (with its large Quaker population) sought (usuccessfully) for a minor curb on that power.
Then, of course, there is the National Conscription Act of 1792, signed by President Washington (I noticed when you pointlessly observed that he conscripted no one, you also pointedly decided to ignore the fact that by signing laws allowing for the federal government to federalize state militias, and also defining state militias as consisting of every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, Washington clearly understood that the Constition tacitly allowed for conscription by not explicitly prohibiting it).
So, yeah, it is glaringly obvious that the Founderswho wrote the Constitutionunderstood it to allow for conscription.
Dude - The 18th Amendment was PART of the Constitution, like it or don't. It got repealed. If you want another amendment repealed, organize a convention. Chill.
It was repealed because the courts couldn't get convictions, due to jury nullification.
It was repealed because the courts couldn't get convictions, due to jury nullification.
Very embarrassing.
No, it was repealed because it wasn't workable and made law abiding citizens into criminals and, arguably, led to the expansion of organized crime, specifically the Mafia.
This is such a simple concept that the entire jury-eligible public should be aware of.
You don't think a cocaine dealer should go to jail for 10 years for one sale? "Not guilty"
You don't think Edward Snowden should go to jail? "Not guilty" (though I'm sure he'll be sent to Guantánamo before he sees a jury)
No, it was repealed because it wasn't workable and made law abiding citizens into criminals and, arguably, led to the expansion of organized crime, specifically the Mafia.
Well, gee, I guess that's why I said exactly that:
Now, let's think real hard. The Constitution says Congress may raise an army. But it doesn't forbid conscription. Huh, now why could that be? Maybe because the Convention assembled never imagined that might occur? Wrong - there was conscription to fill the ranks of the Continental Army, so the notion of conscription was fresh in everyones mind.
Well, gee, let's ask the Founders themselves, shall we?
Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph, speaking at the Constitutional Convention, his words recorded by the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison:
You've heard of the Randolph Plan? More commonly called the Virginia Plan, it was the early basis for our bicameral system. Edmund Randolph was a major Founder. And he sought the Constitution in part because enlistments alone (as opposed, obviously, to conscription) would not always be enough to provide for national security.
Let's see what Alexander Hamilton has to say in Federalist No. 23:
Also, Pennsylania:
Why did the state convention (unsuccessfully) push for a provision in the Constitution for conscientious objectors? The only reason for conscientious objection status is to be exempt from conscription - it was clearly understood by the states that the proposed Constitution allowed for conscription, and Pennsylvania (with its large Quaker population) sought (usuccessfully) for a minor curb on that power.
Then, of course, there is the National Conscription Act of 1792, signed by President Washington (I noticed when you pointlessly observed that he conscripted no one, you also pointedly decided to ignore the fact that by signing laws allowing for the federal government to federalize state militias, and also defining state militias as consisting of every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, Washington clearly understood that the Constition tacitly allowed for conscription by not explicitly prohibiting it).
So, yeah, it is glaringly obvious that the Founderswho wrote the Constitutionunderstood it to allow for conscription.
You have done an admirable job of misrepresenting the entire issue.
In the first place the Federal Government derives it's power FROM the people from which the power originates.
If the Government derives it's power from the people, then it is elementary that government is the servant of the people and not the inverse.
Since the servant cannot own the master, it is clear that the Federal Government does not have ownership in the body or lives of the people.
Therefore it does not have the right to force conscription into the military.
It does however have the power to federalize state militias, of which none currently exist.
The argument that the Federal Government has any power not specifically denied it by the Constitution is idiotic and completely contrary to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The power the Federal Government has to raise armies is limited to the power to raise money to pay armies and not to force people to acts of war against their will.
Finally, every reference to raising armies in the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers were made in the context of repelling invasion.
The United States has not engaged in a war to repel a foreign invasion since 1812. Every modern war has been a war of conquest and of monetary gain. By what moral standard does the Federal Government justify forcing men to commit murder for profit?
Well, gee, I guess that's why I said exactly that:
Now, let's think real hard. The Constitution says Congress may raise an army. But it doesn't forbid conscription. Huh, now why could that be? Maybe because the Convention assembled never imagined that might occur? Wrong - there was conscription to fill the ranks of the Continental Army, so the notion of conscription was fresh in everyones mind.
Well, gee, let's ask the Founders themselves, shall we?
Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph, speaking at the Constitutional Convention, his words recorded by the primary author of the Constitution, James Madison:
You've heard of the Randolph Plan? More commonly called the Virginia Plan, it was the early basis for our bicameral system. Edmund Randolph was a major Founder. And he sought the Constitution in part because enlistments alone (as opposed, obviously, to conscription) would not always be enough to provide for national security.
Let's see what Alexander Hamilton has to say in Federalist No. 23:
Also, Pennsylania:
Why did the state convention (unsuccessfully) push for a provision in the Constitution for conscientious objectors? The only reason for conscientious objection status is to be exempt from conscription - it was clearly understood by the states that the proposed Constitution allowed for conscription, and Pennsylvania (with its large Quaker population) sought (usuccessfully) for a minor curb on that power.
Then, of course, there is the National Conscription Act of 1792, signed by President Washington (I noticed when you pointlessly observed that he conscripted no one, you also pointedly decided to ignore the fact that by signing laws allowing for the federal government to federalize state militias, and also defining state militias as consisting of every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 45, Washington clearly understood that the Constition tacitly allowed for conscription by not explicitly prohibiting it).
So, yeah, it is glaringly obvious that the Founderswho wrote the Constitutionunderstood it to allow for conscription.
Where do you find, in the Constitution, support for marijuana laws?
Ninth Amendment?
Tenth Amendment?
Where? Where?
Article 1 section 8 clause 3 the commerce in Marijuana is still commerce.
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.
