The III Percent Mission Statement: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will
within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. ~ Thomas Jefferson
In the absence of orders, go find something Evil and kill it!
Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..
I don't think the states have the cahones to stand toe to toe with the feds and back up a nullification. THe difference between the colonies in the 1700s, the states in 1861, and the states today is that our modern American states are dependent of FedGov. Hard for a nursing baby to declare independence from its mamma, or nullify her wishes, you know?
And of course the SCOTUS maintains that the FedGov is superior to the states...SCOTUS is FedGov.
Nullification could start a fight, but it won't. The Feds will pull Fed dollars, and voila...end of fight.
I fear you are correct, AP, but I would like to think that perhaps here in Montana or in Wyoming, the state could manage even if the Feds withheld our tax money from the state. I would be willing to do what ever was necessary to survive if given the chance. There was a semi-trashy series of novels written years ago (Out of the Ashes?) where Idaho, Montana and Wyoming seceded and established the "Tri-State Area" It ended badly, of course, but they did have their freedom for a while ;-)
"There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government," Adler said. "We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory."
Really? Article VI does say "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of and State to the Contrary notwithstanding." My understanding is that if a law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution (healthcare mandates), then the states don't have to recognize it and secondly, Amendment X says "The powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The 10th Amendment says to me that the states have the power to give the federal government authority, but the federal government does not have power to take authority from the states... looks to me like states are superior. Granted, I'm not a lawyer and I have no desire to be, but my understanding is that the Founder's intent was to have the most power at the lowest levels (that whole "reserved to the states, or to the people" thing). PS, I don't care what "Case Law" says, I care what the Constitution says.
I don't think the states have the cahones to stand toe to toe with the feds and back up a nullification. THe difference between the colonies in the 1700s, the states in 1861, and the states today is that our modern American states are dependent of FedGov. Hard for a nursing baby to declare independence from its mamma, or nullify her wishes, you know?
ReplyDeleteAnd of course the SCOTUS maintains that the FedGov is superior to the states...SCOTUS is FedGov.
Nullification could start a fight, but it won't. The Feds will pull Fed dollars, and voila...end of fight.
AP
I fear you are correct, AP, but I would like to think that perhaps here in Montana or in Wyoming, the state could manage even if the Feds withheld our tax money from the state. I would be willing to do what ever was necessary to survive if given the chance. There was a semi-trashy series of novels written years ago (Out of the Ashes?) where Idaho, Montana and Wyoming seceded and established the "Tri-State Area" It ended badly, of course, but they did have their freedom for a while ;-)
ReplyDelete"There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the states are superior to the federal government," Adler said. "We have a long string of Supreme Court decisions that reject their theory."
ReplyDeleteReally? Article VI does say "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of and State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
My understanding is that if a law is not made in pursuance of the Constitution (healthcare mandates), then the states don't have to recognize it and secondly, Amendment X says "The powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The 10th Amendment says to me that the states have the power to give the federal government authority, but the federal government does not have power to take authority from the states... looks to me like states are superior.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer and I have no desire to be, but my understanding is that the Founder's intent was to have the most power at the lowest levels (that whole "reserved to the states, or to the people" thing).
PS, I don't care what "Case Law" says, I care what the Constitution says.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteI'm with you 100%. I do not care what so-called "experts" say the Constitution means, and I have even less use for Case Law.
Each of us can read the document. Each of us is, ultimately, responsible for enforcing the words and intent.
Sam
III