Faceoff! States tell feds to back down

World Net Daily ^ | 01-24-11 | Bob Unruh

[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.

[Frantzie]

+1

[B4Ranch]

That’s where we need a few sheriffs to forbid the Feds from carrying guns in our state. Yes, they have that authority. They are the TOP LEO in your County.

[Lets Roll NOW]

Start your research here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

[Nowhere Man]

Bump

[Windflier]

"...seven states have introduced acts to nullify the federal health-care reform – including New Hampshire, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming."

YEEHAW!

[txhurl]

bttt

[griswold3]

Cicero wrote:

But the most foolish notion of all is the belief that everything is just which is found in the customs or laws of nations….what of the many deadly, the many pestilential statutes which nations put in force? These no more deserve to be called laws than the rules a band of robbers might pass in their assembly. For if ignorant and unskillful men have prescribed deadly poisons instead of healing drugs, these cannot possibly called physicians’ prescriptions; neither in a nation can a statute of any sort be called law, even though the nation, in spite of it being a ruinous regulation has accepted it.

[Marty62]

We are hardly talking about tax evaders or rum runners.

If a State nullifies Any Fed Law, are they going to send troops to the State Leg and force them to change the Law?
Or surround the Govs Mansion?

Taking over local cops might not be as easy as it was during Segragation. Especially if Fed LE have no legal authority as Montana is getting ready to do.
Just saying this is not as cut and dry as some seem to think.
Laws are being passed by states to stop the Feds from running rough shod over the Citizens.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for the reference site.

[Vendome]

Yeah, pretty much.

It was a joke anyway. You signed up three months ago and the other poster signed up the year before.

Lighten up and don’t take life so seriously. It’s not like you’re gonna make it out of here alive. LOL

[GonzoGOP]

If a State nullifies Any Fed Law, are they going to send troops to the State Leg and force them to change the Law? Or surround the Govs Mansion?

All I'm saying is that every time nullification has come up in the past that is exactly what the president has done. And we are not talking about obscure presidents that nobody remembers. We are talking Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Kennedy, and Eisenhower. These are the people we put on our money. That's the $1, $5, $20 as well as the penny, quarter, half dollar, and the old silver dollar. Democrat, Republican or Federalist their reaction to nullification has been to send in the troops and take over local law enforcement. OK technically Jackson didn't send in the troops, he just called up the militia and due to his reputation South Carolina caved.

And the reason doesn't seem to matter. Washington sent in the troops over an internal tax on whiskey. Jackson called up the troops against South Carolina, and his own VP, over import tariffs. Lincoln went after South Carolina over slavery. Eisenhower and Kennedy sent in the troops over desegregation. But every incident has one thing in common. A state passed laws to actively prevent Federal agents from enforcing Federal law.

You can't even say that it is against the will of the founding fathers. Washington lead the troops against the whiskey rebellion.

Nullification has been tried again and again in this nations history. Nobody has ever pulled off a nullification without getting a reaction out of the federal government. You say it won't happen this time. What I want to know I exactly why you think this time is different.

[Sola Veritas]

“No police force - no army can move 4 million people who do not want to be moved...”

True, and many of us that wear a military uniform would refuse to use force against otherwise peaceful U.S. citizens that are peacefully assembling. Especially if they look like mom & pop or the next door neighbors.

[txhurl]

Because every state has Doctors and patients, but not every state had Bourbon stills, slavery, segregation or tariffs?

[ICCtheWay]

Yes - as a former Green Beret - Vietnam Veteran and as a former Officer in Army MI/CI - I know your true colors - red-white and blue...

Thank you for your service...

[GonzoGOP]

not every state had Bourbon stills, slavery, segregation or tariffs?

That is quite possibly the worst argument that you could make. Actually every state does have the same import and export tariffs. That is what the whole nullification crisis was about. If you fly cargo into LA, New York or Oklahoma City you pay the same federal tariffs. Every state was desegregated, the fact that some were already desegregated by local laws meant they didn't get real excited about then new federal laws, but the laws did apply to every state equally. Just as the way in which Massachusetts, with Romneycare, doesn't get real excited about Obamacare. And as for stills during prohibition I would say it was a safe bet that every state had illegal stills running.

But most importantly you have missed the major point, while every state has doctors, not every state wants to repeal Obamacare. California is quite happy with it. As are many of the other liberal bastions. If every state wanted to repeal Obamacare this would be a non issue. The problem is that only just over half the states want to challenge it in court, and only three or four want to go so far as nullification.

That has always been the reason for a nullification crisis, one state has very strong opposition to some federal law that most of the country either supports or just isn't excited enough to fight over.

Getting the whole country against Obamacare, as was done with the repeal of prohibition, is a much more likely path to success than nullification. Even if we can't bring California and New York aboard if we had the other 48 they would be the ones in the position of having to resort to nullification.

Nullification is traditionally a high risk, low probability of success strategy. If it is the only card you have remaining you play it. But it probably should not be the preferred option. And if you have to resort to it you need to understand what has happened when it has been used in the past. You will need to have some plan for dealing with the predictable Federal reaction to a nullification crisis. And for the record wishful thinking does not constitute a strategy for preventing a socialist dictator wannabe like Obama from resorting to force. Especially when he would be supported by over 200 years of legal precedent.

[OneWingedShark]

>Lincoln had the right to declare war.

No, he never did; only CONGRESS is given that right.

[Marty62]

I’m not saying Zero might try. But, we are not talking about a one state or even one region. We are talking about at least 26 out of 50 states. Texas in it’s action to run the EPA out of town is not exactly condusive to massive troop actions. Especially since Jan Napolitano claims the HLS can’t stop illegals crossing the border.
The big question is will the military defend the Constitution as they are sworn to do, or will they become nothing more than tools of a fascist Gov. (action would be considered fascost behavour)
I think the Zero Admin fears the Court cases more than they admit. Will the Admin sue States than vote to nullify?
Fankly the FBI et al, are not interested in protecting citizens. Their only interest is in carrying out Administration policies. We all know this it, needs to be said.
I think the obvious questions are WHY has the FBI turned a blind eye to the Abortion horror houses. They receive federal funding (family planning ya know), where is the Gov. oversight of these “clinics”.

[TheThinker]

OK, I mispoke. Lincoln had the right to suppress an insurrection. I don’t believe he or Congress ever formally recognized the Confederacy as a nation so there was really no need to get an authorization of war from Congress.

[littleharbour]

Wow, living in California sure has you cranky. Maybe you should have worked harder to defeat Boxer.

[Carry_Okie]

Maybe you should have worked harder to defeat Boxer.

With Fiorina as a candidate? No. I'll let the left sink us before abetting the kind of mistake that gave us Arnold. As to nominating a superior candidate, shut your mouth; I did more than you realize. When you've foregone over $1.25 million in income and committed a decade of arduous labor in order to defeat leftists on their home ground, MAYBE I'll heed your "advice." Until then, STFU.