and this narcissist quota boy was ready to lead the free world?
Punk couldn’t successfully run a shoe shine stand.
Where is the barf alert?
The current POS White House infestation serves as Exhibit A...
We’ve had six years of a president unqualified to be ANYTHING.
A governor is the least of our worries.
If Obama can be president, ANYONE can be president.
Based on the inane responses I doubt that the first few posters read the article....
Even Ray Charles can "see" that one is a laugher!
Yes, we wait breathlessly just to find out IF the Supreme Court will hear something, then agonize over the pending decision by the not-impartial, non-political robed ones who were not even elected by US to find out how we get to live our lives. Excellent article. NULLIFICATION, baby!
From the article:
...
History teaches that entities don’t willingly relinquish power; it didn’t happen in 1776
and it won’t happen now. People are generally quite zealous about increasing their
power, though. This returns us to the courts’ usurpations. Do you know where the power of
“judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision —
by the Supreme Court.
That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.
******
....
Jefferson’s position is just common sense. We cannot be a government of, by and for
the people if 9 unelected Americans in black robes can act as an oligarchy and impose
their biased vision of the law on 317 million Americans. That is not what the
Founding Fathers intended.
*****
end snips
Eakin v. Raub: The Case Against Judicial Review
He was very wise and prescient about what would happen with Marshall's unconstitutional seizure of judicial power in Marbury.
As to the second-
the “general government” so gleans the wealth of every state unto itself
and threatens the states with not returning that wealth to them if they don’t comply with undelegated proclamations.
The way to accomplish this nullification will have to include the abolishment or interception of federal withholding taxes on the people of the state,
and the promise to protect them from the feds for doing so.
Laws made by Congress TO IMPLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION are supreme and state governments and courts must follow them.
Court decisions are not laws. Court decisions NEVER directly implicate the Supremacy Clause, although court decisions MAY involve a Constitutional power delegated to Congress or the President, in which case they MIGHT require state governments and state courts to follow them (example: A state law requiring payment of a poll tax in violation of Amendment XXIV could lead to a Federal court order which would invoke the Supremacy Clause).
In any event, Congress has not passed a gay marriage law and has no power to do so, except as regards the District of Columbia, and the Constitution has not been amended to restrict the authority of States to legislate on this matter, so the Supremacy Clause is not in play and these lower court decisions appearing to void state laws are meaningless. Any governor or state judge who obeys them is doing so because they want to.
>> Were I a governor, I’d tell the feds to pound sand and that if they didn’t like it, to send in the troops. I might ultimately end up in federal prison, but I’d light a fire and spark a movement — and become a hero and martyr to millions. <<
Well, you might want to ask Governors Orville Faubus of Arkansas and Ross Barnett of Mississippi how things worked out for them when they did exactly as you suggest.
Lesson:
You go up against the U. S. Army and you lose. Then you pretty much fade away into obscurity. I bet not more than one in ten from among today’s FReepers can even identify both Faubus and Barnett. So much for heroic martyrdom.
"If the two departments [Federal and State] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided not compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
So in addition to impeaching activist justices, Jefferson appropriately saw amending the Constitution as an alternative to resolving power struggles between federal and state governments..
And in those days when state lawmakers actually read the Constitution that they swear to protect and defend, they had Jefferson’s encouragement that they could “overturn” unpopular Supreme Court case decisions by appropriately amending the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 17th and 19th Amendements, and others, are examples of the states doing so.
But somewhere along the line, not only did state lawmakers evidently begin regarding the Constitution as chiseled in granite, the perverted interpretations of it by activist justices the final word, but also consider this. The reason that thug justices aren’t getting impeached is that corrupt federal lawmakers who have the power to impeach them need to be impeached.
Finally, note that the Constitution’s Article V can be “paraphrased” as follows.
Rule 1: The states are always right.
Rule 2: When the states are wrong, see rule 1.