Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Petrosius
Which seems, largely, a distinction without a difference.

It smacks of nullification and we remember what happened the last time SC implemented nullification, don't we.

How do you think Obama would respond to such a monumental display of disrespect?

16 posted on 12/11/2013 5:34:58 AM PST by Aevery_Freeman (Remember who the real enemy is!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Aevery_Freeman

SC isn’t prohibiting the feds from coming in and implementing the law. The ruling just prohibits state resources to be used.


22 posted on 12/11/2013 5:41:36 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Aevery_Freeman

the end result may indeed be the same, but there is a HUGE difference between an issue that comes before a State court which then rules, and a law that is passed by the State legislature and signed by the Governor. The State law can only be trumped by the Constitution, and we know that Obamacare is not in the Constitution.
It seems to me that the passage of State laws goes straight to the heart of State Sovereignty, whereas rulings by State courts are less sovereign given that they can be overturned by the Supreme Court.


23 posted on 12/11/2013 5:49:50 AM PST by dontreadthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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