Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Other Opinions: Growing defiance
savannahnow.com ^ | Posted: January 31, 2013 - 12:23am | By AUGUSTA CHRONICLE EDITORIAL STAFF

Posted on 02/05/2013 6:53:37 PM PST by 11th_VA

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: cyn

No! I had not seen this! Thanks for pointing me to it!

If that is happening in New York, I’m very encouraged! If it were in Texas, I would not be surprised—but New York! That’s great.......


21 posted on 02/05/2013 10:51:04 PM PST by basil (basil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: basil

I know, I know — and they are hitting every point (”Are there prisons being opened up for those of us who *won’t* comply?”) Side note: how about that background music?!

Here’s the longer version (33 min) of the meeting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw

Now at 58,116 views

G’night, basil.


22 posted on 02/05/2013 10:57:31 PM PST by cyn (Benghazi...the travesty continues)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Excellent poster. Hope to see it on billboards around DC someday -- right where the Snotterati work and live.
23 posted on 02/06/2013 12:02:21 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
An honest newspaper! From their Editorial Staff. Good to know there’s apparently at least one decent paper.

Though their intentions are honest, there's a couple of problems with the article.

One, jury nullification is a somewhat different creature than the nullification held out by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Ordinances and by South Carolina in their famous tiff with Andy Jackson.

Jury nullification is a legitimate power of the people, as is electoral nullification, and as is Militia nullification, a dicier subject which is nevertheless treated as "cartridge-box nullification" and a kind of People's veto over oppressive government policy. See Elaine Scarry's law article on the distribution of power in the Constitution. (Scarry, "War and the Social Contract: Nuclear Policy, Distribution, and The Right to Bear Arms", 139 U. PENN. L. REV. 1257 (1991). Available at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html [cold link].)

State nullification has a real problem with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If you want to see a fine exposition of its doctrinal weaknesses, see Jefferson Davis's inaugural speech as President of the provisional Confederate Government in February, 1861, in which he couched his case for the necessity of secession as a function of the doctrinal failure of nullification.

Lastly, government disobedience of the law is a separate phenomenon completely, and needs to be separated from nullification issues and civil-liberty issues and considered as a problem of its own, of simple misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance of federal officials in the face of federal law.

24 posted on 02/06/2013 12:37:40 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Another great movie about Hard Tyranny aka Stalin’s USSR is “Burnt by the Sun”, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111579/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl, I highly recommend if someone has not viewed.


25 posted on 02/06/2013 4:38:08 AM PST by iopscusa (El Vaquero. (SC Lowcountry Cowboy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

I used to work in quality control at a manufacturing plant. Parts produced in the machine shop were inspected to certify that they matched blueprint specs. Sometimes you would hear someone joke that the part is OK but I’m rejecting the blueprint. Sometimes it was NOT a joke, the blueprint was wrong but the machine shop had ignored it because they knew how the part was supposed to be made. Nullification is the legal equivalent of accepting the part (the action) and rejecting the blueprint(the law). Sometimes the blueprint is wrong but the part is OK.


26 posted on 02/06/2013 6:01:50 AM PST by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
You are perfectly correct - in trying to connect the two desperately different concepts of jury nullification and state nullification, the article ignores a hole large enough to drive a truck through.

I must, however, respectfully disagree with the statement State nullification has a real problem with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

There is no conflict if one realizes the clause means what it says and says what it means.

Article 6, Clause 2
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 any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Unless laws fall within the powers granted by the Constitution and within the jurisdiction of Constitutional limits, it is NOT made 'in Pursuance thereof'. A State has EVERY right to nullify it, and the People have every authority to ignore it!

That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution

South Carolina's action concerning tariffs were unconstitutional as the federal government IS given the authority to regulate them, and the State was bound to observe those regulations as long as they were a part of the Compact.

Later actions by the South however are a different kettle of fish, but in an effort to stay on topic, perhaps we should save that argument for another thread. :-)

-----

In the case of second Amendment, there is no question. It is a specific restraint on the authority of government at both the State and federal level.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
A View of the Constitution of the United States, William Rawle.

-----

IMHO, people give the 'supremecy clause' WAY too much credit. The federal legislature was intended to legislate for federal concerns, NOT to micro-manage the States.

It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers.
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries

27 posted on 02/06/2013 6:16:58 AM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of Secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TigersEye

Bingo!


28 posted on 02/06/2013 7:31:39 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Have you ever actually used that argument with a liberal?

I have yet to hear one that didn’t say “we wouldn’t do that”, meaning that somehow, the leftists in power today wouldn’t abuse that power like leftists always have in the past.

It’s hard to argue with a belief, much less change what is, to them, an assumption.


29 posted on 02/06/2013 7:40:12 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RipSawyer

Good analogy. As a former carpenter I am very familiar with nullifying blue prints. LOL


30 posted on 02/06/2013 11:38:21 AM PST by TigersEye (The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan; nolu chan
Later actions by the South however are a different kettle of fish, but in an effort to stay on topic, perhaps we should save that argument for another thread. :-)

Yes, and I could direct you to a few threads from 2002-2005 that ran to thousands of posts, on just that topic. One thread of 4400 posts was pulled because one poster, nolu chan, challenged on the point by an opponent, quoted Lincoln being casual in his attitude and speech (Lincoln speaking for polemical purposes, but still quotably) toward African-Americans. Casting shadows on Abraham Lincoln is a hazardous exercise, it was shown then ..... the poster was shown the door, n/w/s he was an ace researcher who produced the docs and quotes to support his positions.

31 posted on 02/07/2013 10:11:47 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Unless laws fall within the powers granted by the Constitution and within the jurisdiction of Constitutional limits, it is NOT made 'in Pursuance thereof'. A State has EVERY right to nullify it, and the People have every authority to ignore it! ..... IMHO, people give the 'supremacy clause' WAY too much credit. The federal legislature was intended to legislate for federal concerns, NOT to micro-manage the States.

I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately, the champions of illimitable federal government -- beginning with Alexander Hamilton, our American Iscariot -- have managed to have their way at our expense, using the "General Welfare" and "Necessary Purposes" and Commerce Clauses to do as they please.

I don't know whether a new amendment could patch the defect, given that these selfsame people, who are innately contemptuous of limits on their actions (like business executives), have turned the Ninth and Tenth Amendments into moribund, if not dead, letters.

The defect could be cured, at least temporarily, by a "Great Cure" opinion of the Supreme Court that addressed all the infringements of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by the usurpation of omnicompetence by the Congress and Executive; but Supreme Court opinions are like the ancient praetorian law, good only until a new praetor proclaims a new policy. Therefore, an amendment giving affirmative remedies to the States will be required, and in America's state of half-freedom, half-totalitarian fascism, I don't think we could get it without a long preparation and a good "ground game" that has not been yet evinced by whatever resources remain to Republicanism.

32 posted on 02/07/2013 10:42:48 AM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson