Posted on 12/27/2014 10:31:14 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Session = Ultimate State’s Nullification Option
The armed forces and the less than 20% who love the bozo
will not comply.
My governor can't read anything that doesn't use word bubbles and my attorney general is a Communist. But that won't stop me from trying.
Every day more people are coming to the judgment that a carefully organized effort to repair the constitution via the States’ power to propose and ratify amendments poses less risk to our liberty and prosperity than the present trajectory of the federal government and especially the federal bureaucracy whose self-published rules carry the weight of law.
The first order of business of an Article V Convention must be to limit government’s ability to create and spend near-infinite amounts of money.
“Existing legal precedents would argue against nullification unless the Constitution were amended to permit it. That is one of the things I’d like to see come out of an Amendments Convention.”
Yes, maybe with a low super-majority. Liberals have given themselves de facto nullification of selected federal law as they are proud of their “sanctuary cities” and medical pot laws. If a liberal city can nullify immigration law, my city can nullify the federal National Firearms Act.
Opps, given how many liberal minds would explode over that suggestion, maybe the suggestion alone would be considered an act of terrorism.
>>What state is willing to enforce a nullification order against, say, the 1st Infantry Division?<<
And that is PRECISELY why we will all wear chains and bend knees before the Great Half Breed. Holder was right - we ARE a nation of cowards.
Do we have any legal beagles who have the scholarly tenacity to get it off the ground. The products of our law schools seem to become progressively more liberal each year
The federal government’s involvement in education is unconstitutional. The federal government’s involvement in healthcare is unconstitutional. In fact, the federal government’s involvement in most things it does is unconstitutional. And that’s the way it is here in the good ole USA at the end of 2014.
If it is a red state, meaning republicans winning all the electoral votes, how can it be a positive to get rid of winner-take-all status which will only act to give the democrats a share of the EV's? That makes no sense to me.
Tank is of the same mind, force all the illegals to blue states and let the rats Cloward-Piven THEMSELVES to death.
Some people have seen the post 2014 election map and assume that those states painted red with little blue urban dots are red states. Of course, the map colors are based on Congressional Districts, all of which are drawn to be almost the same size in population, not square mileage. Republican dominate all rural areas except Indian Reservations and that strange swatch of iron country in Minnesota.
Indeed. WE must hold their feet to the fire. I am all in for Article V action
There are states that would go repub but for the fraud in the large cities.
They generate just enough votes to win all the states electoral votes.
Splitting is better than nothing.
I could write my new governor, Larry Hogan. Writing my current governor would be a waste of time.
You need a copy of "Reading Comprehension for Dummies," since it is stated clearly, several times, that nullification would not apply to legitimately adopted laws (passed by Congress according to Constitutional Rules.)
It would apply to "pretend laws," aka 'Executive Orders.'
I have always found that excitable immature types, are quick to read and slow to think, and put mouth (or keyboard) in gear before engaging the brain. An they always preface their profound thoughts with the non-cerebral "SO..."
Within the latter day Free Republic, it is considered bad form to actually read the article, the comments, or anything else of value before posting the definitive pronouncement on the subject. You have mistaken this for a discussion forum, those days were long ago.
bttt
A "law". A legitimately adopted law passed by Congress according to Constitutional Rules. Not an executive order.
I wasn't referring to executive orders. Nowhere did I mention executive orders. Why did you bring up executive orders?
Perhaps YOU should order a copy of that book.
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.