Skip to comments.Faceoff! States tell feds to back down
Posted on 01/24/2011 11:08:57 AM PST by RepublicnotaDemocracy
What if Washington made a law and nobody paid attention? Or even more significantly, what if states specifically repudiated it and threatened to prosecute those enforcing it?
The questions no longer are rhetorical but a real option as eight states consider a blanket nullification of the Obamacare nationalization of health-care decision-making advances in their legislatures.
"Thomas Jefferson advised, 'Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers ... a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy,'" states the Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates a return to the constitutionally delegated powers for the federal government.
"When states pass laws to reject and nullify unconstitutional federal 'laws,' regulations and mandates it's not rebellion ... it's duty," the organization states.
States already have been moving forward aggressively on several issues, with eight approving firearms freedom acts that reject some federal gun laws, 15 actively defying Washington on cannabis laws and seven passing acts that reject health-care mandates.
Now, however, they are moving a step beyond, according to center founder Michael Boldin.
He told WND today that seven states have introduced acts to nullify the federal health-care reform including New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming. A similar proposal is expected to be filed in Idaho within a matter of days.
It's another, and very important, field on which states can battle federal demands of their citizens, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
“If large cities and states can refuse to enforce Federal Immigration laws - totally refuse to turn over suspected illegal aliens, then a state can refuse to abide by or enforce any Federal law.”
However, this is going a step beyond. Using your example above...what if a state was to arrest and try agents of the federal government that attempted to enforce the federal law? That, I think, is the point here. Not just that states won’t play along, but they will expel or prosecute anyone who attempts to do so on their territory.
I’m for a strong union. However, there have been occasions when I believe the federal government has assumed authority it didn’t rightfully have...usually it is some judge. I have always wanted to see some liberal judge making and absurd ruling against a state to be arrested by the state and excorted to the state line and told, “Don’t come back.” Realistically, I, of course, don’t actaully want this to happen because it could cut both ways and would cause anarchy. But, there is part of me that would like to see it happen.
If it's WND, it's breaking wind. If it's Bob Unruh writing for WND, it's got chunks in it.
I talked with one of my representatives about the firearms thing (states declaring that firearms manufactured and sold within the state are not subject to federal regulations). I asked her that if the state was willing to come to the legal aid of a citizen who manufactured and sold a firearm within the state and was subsequently arrested by the feds. She could not answer.
...He (Boldin) cited President Andrew Jackson's opinion of the Supreme Court and its power: "'The Supreme Court has their opinion. Now let them come and enforce it."...
Generally, somebody who has been a member for more than a couple of years would feel entitled to call someone who has been a member for 3 months a "noob". That said, unless a post seems particularly trollish or insulting of a long-time and well-established FReeper, it seems somewhat lacking in substance to question someone just based on the sign-on date.
Sooner or later resistance to the obama regime with result in a big blow up - politically - all kinds of hand wringing nationwide... lots of noise across the land... A test case will result whether it is in a court of law or in the streets.
As for me - I have been campaigning for years for a Velvet Revolution... we arouse 3-4 million people to protest peacefully in another GIANT gathering on a Sunday in D.C. - then we just do not leave... stay there for a week - sit in the streets and basically shut D.C. down - until they capitulate... No police force - no army can move 4 million people who do not want to be moved...
Regarding your initial post with the “already posted here” comment, the thread that you linked had to do with states joining the lawsuit against the federal government which is quite a different matter from passing state laws prohibiting enforcement of the federal statute.
Yes and no. Wilson's people pursued it. Once Gray Davis was elected governor, he refused to pursue it and resisted any attempt to force him to enforce State law.
Or am I confusing that with Prop 8, where the same thing happened?
No, you are correct. A gerrymandered State legislature was disinclined to enforce the clear will of the people.
Historically the Federal courts have always ruled in favor of steadily increasing Federal power and I can't see them ever willingly reversing the trend. What's more, I don't think the courts use precedent as an objective standard. The stare decisis principle is just a tool to shut down debate once the majority (or an energetic minority) are happy with the status quo.
I’m talking about keeping your fiscal affairs in order (i.e. balanced state budget) so that you’re not as vulnerable to Federal bribery and/or coercion. As for the federal courts forcing states to give state benefits to illegals, there are other ways to deal with that. Every illegal should be given a one-way ticket to Washington, D.C. and told to report to the INS.
The vast bulk of State costs taking California out of budget solvency are associated with unfunded Federal mandates, and to a degree shared by no other State.
As for the federal courts forcing states to give state benefits to illegals, there are other ways to deal with that. Every illegal should be given a one-way ticket to Washington, D.C. and told to report to the INS.
Stupid hand-wave reply. Write when you have something substantive to say.
We have the same selective application of tax laws based on notions of progressivism. The federal income tax was invented by progressives and has been administered by them since 1913.
Eisenhower was right on the issue itself but overstepped his Consitutional authority.
Here, the states have the high moral ground and deserve their sovereignty not be infringed.
Sorry that was just crass sarcasm on my part.
Then why haven’t the states said to hell with the law that insurance companies can’t sell across state lines/
Keep watching Tv and being brainwashed with more tyranny.
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.