The Compact Theory of the Union vs. the Nationalist Theory

43 posts / 0 new

I support the Compact Theory of the Union. That is, the people acting through their States, which were sovereign countries, created the Union. The Nationalist Theory states that the whole people created the Union.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Fine. Make it work. Oh, that is what the Constitution addressed because the Articles were not Federal enough.

The relationship of federal to state, and state to county, etc., is not about making the federal or macro impotent and ineffective by atomization. It is about how the macro and the micro serve each other to further democratic self-government and the vision of "liberty and justice for all." I think we could agree quickly that the "macro of empire" is perverse and contradictory to democracy, etc. I think we would also agree that power and authority comes up from the people rather than down from heaven.

The Compact Theory would not have overcome segregation or slavery. Selective bias would be established and "interstate travel and commerce" would be a nightmare of local mores and regulations. Inter-racial couples would need to know where and where not to travel, much less move or have a job transfer. Like gay and lesbian couples still do as "marriage" is dealt with at the State level. Administratively, even at the county level, but in terms of justice, this is segregation and "states rights to do wrong" all over again.

You set up a false choice of binary opposites where both/and is closer to the truth. One and many, unity in diversity and an existential work in process are the design features of democracy that help us see how it works.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

My point is that I, as a matter of historical fact, endorse the Compact Theory. This doesn't mean that it was perfect. No one that I know states that decentralization, i.e. States' Rights is a panacea. The history of the 20th century has already shown that the centralized state adored by most liberals and most conservatives has resulted in more death and destruction by far than any decentralist system.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

I support the Compact Theory of the Union. That is, the people acting through their States, which were sovereign countries, created the Union. The Nationalist Theory states that the whole people created the Union.

How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovreignity to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:

I support the Compact Theory of the Union. That is, the people acting through their States, which were sovereign countries, created the Union. The Nationalist Theory states that the whole people created the Union.

How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovreignity to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

The Constitution doesn't have to "allow" for nullification. The 9th and 10th amendments, along with the understanding of the ratifiers takes care of it. The Constitution grants limited powers to the Federal Gov't. Any unconstitutional law is null and void. That is, it is no law at all. It would be silly to argue that the federal courts, which are part of the federal gov't, will be the judge of the powers of the Federal Gov't.

Pierpont, your problem is that you are so bigoted against States Rights because of what your learned in school that you'll let historical facts go by the waistside.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Pierpont:

Quote LysanderSpooner: How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovereignty to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

The Constitution doesn't have to "allow" for nullification. The 9th and 10th amendments, along with the understanding of the ratifiers takes care of it.
Then this right of nullification would be EASY to find in the Constitution. So where the hell is it???? The BEST you can do is infer this right of the states exists by ignoring those parts of the Constitution that say the COURTS have jurisdiction to decide on constitutional matters. Article III - from the ORIGINAL Constitution:
Section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

It's pretty much a slam dunk. It's YOUR radical notion of states' rights that's out of whack with reality, not mine. Your argument is intellectually as disingenuous as those who pretend the Second protects the individual right to bear arms outside of the context of the well-regulated militia. At least that right can be found in the Ninth. Your claim for Nullification can't be found anywhere as long as the Constitution locks in laws with the supremacy clause and judicial review of all federal law.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

For the last time, the Constitution is not an enumeration of powers that the States have (Article 1, Section 10 does spell out powers the State doesn't have), it is an enumeration of the powers that the Federal government has. All other powers reside in the States. It also is not a listing of all individual rights. Certain individual rights are recognized, but to use the language of the 9th, that does not deny or disparage others retained by the people. The right to keep and bear arms is either protected by the 2nd or the 9th, or both. But it is protected. It cannot be infringed other than by usurpation.

The clauses pertaining to judicial power say nothing about the Judiciary having final say over Constitutionality of laws. The judiciary can review constitutionality of other branches of the Fed. Gov't but the review doesn't stop there. The States can review and so can juries.

And for the last time, the Supremacy doesn't say that any law passed by the National Gov't is the supreme law of the land.

"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

You left out "and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof". Which begs the question. Who or what determines Constitutionality. How many Founders, Framers or Ratifiers supported or argued for the notion that the Federal Gov't would be a judge of its own powers? How many didn't.

Here is a webpage created by Tom Woods, author of Nullification which will answer any of your further objections. I'm sure you won't read because your mind is made up. You'll believe anything you were taught in junior high civics class. But there may be some honest progressives on this board who would be willing to consider the idea.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Quote Going around in circles LysanderSpooner:

For the last time, the Constitution is not an enumeration of powers that the States have (Article 1, Section 10 does spell out powers the State doesn't have), it is an enumeration of the powers that the Federal government has.

Ya, so? It's the same problem with the Ninth... these unenumerated rights exist outside the declared powers. But in terms of states' rights, they GAVE UP THE RIGHT to decide constitutionality on their own when they ratified the Constitution. After all THE STATES WROTE THE CONSTITUTION! Your obsession about whether a law is pursuant to the Constitution is IRRELEVANT if the Constitution gives to the federal courts the power to decide such issues. And no, there's nothing new in your source but the same tired old crap we've been over before.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

A point. The Articles of Confederation with each state having the capability of ignoring the federal government and nullifying its laws didn't work. That's why the present U.S. Constitution came into being.

We operate under Constitution #2.....the present one. I think we need Constitution #3 as Jefferson suggested may one day be the case, but that's another story.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote LysanderSpooner:

I support the Compact Theory of the Union. That is, the people acting through their States, which were sovereign countries, created the Union. The Nationalist Theory states that the whole people created the Union.

How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovreignity to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

But it doesn't exclude it and wouldn't threatpod nulification be te nuclear option that keeps the fed from trouncing states rights?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont: How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovreignity to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

But it doesn't exclude it and wouldn't threatpod nulification be te nuclear option that keeps the fed from trouncing states rights?

OF COURSE THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES NULLIFICATION... the states APPROVED of a federal government that had two key powers that PREVENT nullification... the supremacy clause and the power of judicial review. Given those powers... pray tell, where is there ANY room for a state to nullify any federal legislation? As for the fed "trouncing" the states... STATES HAD A VETO OVER ALL LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont: How many more threads are there going to be on these topics? We've been through this before. It's not how the nation started, it's what it ended up being. The states gave away much of the sovreignity to a strong federal government. There's NO evidence the Constitution allows nullification.

But it doesn't exclude it and wouldn't threatpod nulification be te nuclear option that keeps the fed from trouncing states rights?

OF COURSE THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES NULLIFICATION... the states APPROVED of a federal government that had two key powers that PREVENT nullification... the supremacy clause and the power of judicial review. Given those powers... pray tell, where is there ANY room for a state to nullify any federal legislation? As for the fed "trouncing" the states... STATES HAD A VETO OVER ALL LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE.

Pont to me where nullification is excluded under the constitution?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

OF COURSE THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES NULLIFICATION... the states APPROVED of a federal government that had two key powers that PREVENT nullification... the supremacy clause and the power of judicial review. Given those powers... pray tell, where is there ANY room for a state to nullify any federal legislation? As for the fed "trouncing" the states... STATES HAD A VETO OVER ALL LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE.

Pont to me where nullification is excluded under the constitution?

TRANSLATION… Please stop being an idiot. You have NO evidence for nullification so you're reduced to playing word games.

NULLIFICATION DOESN'T HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IF THAT RIGHT WAS SURRENDERED IN CREATING THOSE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWERS.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

OF COURSE THE CONSTITUTION EXCLUDES NULLIFICATION... the states APPROVED of a federal government that had two key powers that PREVENT nullification... the supremacy clause and the power of judicial review. Given those powers... pray tell, where is there ANY room for a state to nullify any federal legislation? As for the fed "trouncing" the states... STATES HAD A VETO OVER ALL LEGISLATION IN THE SENATE.

Pont to me where nullification is excluded under the constitution?

TRANSLATION… Please stop being an idiot. You have NO evidence for nullification so you're reduced to playing word games.

NULLIFICATION DOESN'T HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED IF THAT RIGHT WAS SURRENDERED IN CREATING THOSE NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POWERS.

10th amendment would dictate that if nullification is not mentioned in the constitution or subsequent amendments it is a power given to the states.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the "supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."[4] Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states. Rather, federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States."[5] The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.[6]

Thus, the courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[7]

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

LS, you continue to post your "libertarian" pipedreams and to quibble about the scholastic possibility that, if we suspend all disbelief, your doctrinal point might support an idiotic practice. "Nullification" would be a disaster in practice. I give you segregation. We would still have it.

What actual oppressive central government would allow it? Only if one had a real democracy working could this idea have a ghost of a chance of being useful. The place the change the law is the legislature, and the courtroom can be helpful to the political case without "breaking the law" as its "right."

Our two-tiered 'justice system' needs a lot of civil protest and legal testing. "Nullification" is not how this is done because it is a utopian fantasy solution.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote drc2:

LS, you continue to post your "libertarian" pipedreams and to quibble about the scholastic possibility that, if we suspend all disbelief, your doctrinal point might support an idiotic practice. "Nullification" would be a disaster in practice. I give you segregation. We would still have it.

What actual oppressive central government would allow it? Only if one had a real democracy working could this idea have a ghost of a chance of being useful. The place the change the law is the legislature, and the courtroom can be helpful to the political case without "breaking the law" as its "right."

Our two-tiered 'justice system' needs a lot of civil protest and legal testing. "Nullification" is not how this is done because it is a utopian fantasysolution.

Supremacy clause only applies to was under thejurisdiction of the enumerated powers

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote endlessly going around in circles the resident village idiot:

Supremacy clause only applies to was under thejurisdiction of the enumerated powers

AND THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES IT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. FEDERAL POWERS PRECLUDE NULLIFICATION. CASE CLOSED.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the "supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states. Rather, federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States." The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.

Thus, the courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

I've been through all this with these people. They NEED to believe in nullification even if they have no proof it exists. In fact the LESS proof they have, the more they believe it exists.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

CS, it does not matter. The point is moot. You are tilting at windmills at best.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Lysander, we tried your system. The Articles of Confederation. It didn't work. That's why we replaced it with the current Constitution. You're trying to resurrect a dead horse that died over two centuries ago.

Retired Monk - "ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote endlessly going around in circles the resident village idiot:

Supremacy clause only applies to was under thejurisdiction of the enumerated powers

AND THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES IT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. FEDERAL POWERS PRECLUDE NULLIFICATION. CASE CLOSED.

Your an idiot jus because you can get one side of the fed to back another doesnt make it constitutional.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote drc2:

CS, it does not matter. The point is moot. You are tilting at windmills at best.

Giving the federal government powere it doesn't have is something to tilt my windmills at.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote endlessly going around in circles the resident village idiot:

Supremacy clause only applies to was under thejurisdiction of the enumerated powers

AND THE CONSTITUTION LEAVES IT TO THE FEDERAL COURTS TO DECIDE MATTERS OF CONSTITUTIONALITY. FEDERAL POWERS PRECLUDE NULLIFICATION. CASE CLOSED.

Your an idiot jus because you can get one side of the fed to back another doesnt make it constitutional.

If you don't like the current system IT'S NOT MY FAULT... is it Cupcake? If you believe the states foolishly gave up nullification in the Constitution.... PUSH FOR AN AMENDMENT!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote drc2:CS, it does not matter. The point is moot. You are tilting at windmills at best.

Giving the federal government powere it doesn't have is something to tilt my windmills at.

So WTF are you even babbling about? Are you saying Bush and I FABRICATED quotes from the Constitution on supremacy and judicial review? If not then it's up to YOU now to show where those two powers still allow nullification. Put up or shut the hell up pipsqeak.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote drc2:CS, it does not matter. The point is moot. You are tilting at windmills at best.

Giving the federal government powere it doesn't have is something to tilt my windmills at.

So WTF are you even babbling about? Are you saying Bush and I FABRICATED quotes from the Constitution on supremacy and judicial review? If not then it's up to YOU now to show where those two powers still allow nullification. Put up or shut the hell up pipsqeak.

No I'm saying your applying those powers where they don't belong

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote drc2:CS, it does not matter. The point is moot. You are tilting at windmills at best.
Giving the federal government powere it doesn't have is something to tilt my windmills at.
So WTF are you even babbling about? Are you saying Bush and I FABRICATED quotes from the Constitution on supremacy and judicial review? If not then it's up to YOU now to show where those two powers still allow nullification. Put up or shut the hell up pipsqeak.

No I'm saying your applying those powers where they don't belong

Do you EVER have anything of substance to say? If YOU are going to make the claim the supremacy clause or judicial review do NOT preclude nullification... THEN PROVE IT or shut up.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

10th amendment enough said.

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the "supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states. Rather, federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States." The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.

Thus, the courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.

I've been through all this with these people. They NEED to believe in nullification even if they have no proof it exists. In fact the LESS proof they have, the more they believe it exists.

I know. It's right there in black and white. Just like the bible, they spin everything to whatever they want to weave. The SCOTUS has upheld it many times over but our literate geniuses like CS know more about the Constitution than the highest court in the land.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Quote Commonsense461:

10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Did the Constitution limit the powers of the General Government? If not, why did they bother with Article 1, Section 8. Did the Federalist supports of the Constitution tell its opponents during Virginia's ratifying convention that the General gov't would only have those powers expressly granted? Did Virginia's ratifiers under the impression that they could leave the Union if necessary?

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

300 million meanings

for every single word

you better re-examine

every one you've heard

The question whores are bleeding answers from you.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 11:47 am
Quote LysanderSpooner:
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Did the Constitution limit the powers of the General Government? If not, why did they bother with Article 1, Section 8.
We are supposed to be a government of defined powers.. but some are pretty open-ended.

Did the Federalist supports of the Constitution tell its opponents during Virginia's ratifying convention that the General gov't would only have those powers expressly granted?
No doubt.

Did Virginia's ratifiers under the impression that they could leave the Union if necessary?

Who knows. But you're moving the goalpost. We were talking about nullification... and I don't see that in the Constitution. As I've said before, I'm less sure about secession.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:

10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Where and when did they surrender their right?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am

In the real world. When they thought about what it would mean.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Where and when did they surrender their right?

Gee... I don't know... WHEN THE STATES RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION PERHAPS? You want the dates and times... LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF!

CS you're just too stupid for this forum... AND I THINK YOU SHOULD BE BANNED AGAIN!!!!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the "supreme law of the land . . . any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."[4] Federal laws therefore cannot be negated by the states. Rather, federal laws are valid and are supreme, so long as those laws were adopted in pursuance of—that is, consistent with—the Constitution. Determining whether a federal law is consistent with the Constitution requires interpretation of the law, which is inherently a judicial function. The federal judicial power granted by Article III of the Constitution gives the federal courts authority over all cases "arising under this Constitution [or] the laws of the United States."[5] The federal courts therefore have the power to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having final authority.[6]

Thus, the courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to declare federal laws unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The states therefore do not have the power to nullify federal law.[7]

Again......

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Pierpont:
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote Pierpont:

Quote Commonsense461:10th amendment enough said.

You're a f**king idiot. I can't wait for school to start so you can repeat 7th grade.

THOSE FEDERAL POWERS ALREADY MENTIONED PRECLUDE STATES FROM DECIDING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS. IF THE STATES SURRENDERED THOSE RIGHTS THEY CAN'T THEN CLAIM THEM AS STATES RIGHTS UNDER THE 10th. And if the states don't like it, the Constitution says the FEDERAL courts will decide the issue.

Where and when did they surrender their right?

Gee... I don't know... WHEN THE STATES RATIFIED THE CONSTITUTION PERHAPS? You want the dates and times... LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF!

CS you're just too stupid for this forum... AND I THINK YOU SHOULD BE BANNED AGAIN!!!!

Where in the constitution does it say by ratifying this document state surrender all sovergnty? Is this there some passage I am unaware of?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Still determined to be the Village Idiot Commonsense461:Where in the constitution does it say by ratifying this document state surrender all sovergnty? Is this there some passage I am unaware of?

RED HERRING ALERT: It doesn't and YOU KNOW THAT. But in ratifying the Constitution the states gave up SOME of their sovereignty. The states retain only what they didn't give up to the federal government and that included the supremacy clause AND judicial review. Case closed. Time to find some other forum to troll.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote ignoring the 10th:
Quote Still determined to be the Village Idiot Commonsense461:Where in the constitution does it say by ratifying this document state surrender all sovergnty? Is this there some passage I am unaware of?

RED HERRING ALERT: It doesn't and YOU KNOW THAT. But in ratifying the Constitution the states gave up SOME of their sovereignty. The states retain only what they didn't give up to the federal government and that included the supremacy clause AND judicial review. Case closed. Time to find some other forum to troll.

So the 10th amendment doesn't exist?!

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:
Quote ignoring the 10th:
Quote Still determined to be the Village Idiot Commonsense461:Where in the constitution does it say by ratifying this document state surrender all sovergnty? Is this there some passage I am unaware of?

RED HERRING ALERT: It doesn't and YOU KNOW THAT. But in ratifying the Constitution the states gave up SOME of their sovereignty. The states retain only what they didn't give up to the federal government and that included the supremacy clause AND judicial review. Case closed. Time to find some other forum to troll.

So the 10th amendment doesn't exist?!

Read the Tenth and my goddamn post again moron.... The states retain only what they didn't give up to the federal government and that included the supremacy clause AND judicial review. Case closed.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[edit]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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
So how do u rectify those two ?[edit]

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Commonsense461:So how do u rectify those two ?

It's not my responsibility to keep answering that question OVER AND OVER again just because you're too lazy to read, or too much of an idiot to comprehend, posts in the threads YOU'RE already posting in.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Currently Chatting

You don't know what 'Libertarian' means...

If you want to know what libertarianism is all about, don’t ask a libertarian, because most of them don’t know.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system