The legal fiction that states can nullify US law persist in Texas

Austin American Statesman ^ | 2.6.2010 | Sanford Levinson

[wolfcreek]

An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."

She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.

[goat granny]

The reason I asked the question, is that moneys are sent by the states to Washington and then it is redisbured back to the states according to a formula....The thought brought up by someone was for the states to put all federal moneys in escrow until the feds cried uncle...Cig. taxes, gas taxes and a thousand other small fed taxes are collected by the states. There may even be a way to legally put income taxes in escrow....I thought it was an interesting idea, but don’t know the legalese of it..

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

At least I hope I am right

I feel the same way. I think a very large number of the military and police would shy away from firing on a mass of US citizens on US soil. I have friends who are LEO's who have confirmed their stance that this would not happen during an uprising of a Constitutional nature.

[TLI]

The Feds would cut off everything. Power, water, access to ports, MONEY, seized all assets outside of Texes and close the roads to major cities. The secession would not last a year and then the new contract to let Texas back in to the Union would be an onerous one indeed.

Lord, this is why there are such things as professionals I suppose.

Texas always has and pretty much still is independent on it’s power grid, it’s called ERCOT and one can not “turn off” the grid from outside of the State. Texas' main electric power grid is a 40,000-mile network of long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines and substations that carries bulk electricity to multiple utility companies for distribution to their customers. This grid, which has an approximately 72,700 megawatts of available generation capacity, delivers approximately 85 percent of Texas' overall power usage to 22 million Texans.

The bulk power system consists of three independent networks: Eastern Interconnection, Western Interconnection, and the Texas Interconnection. These networks incorporate international connections with Canada and Mexico. Overall reliability planning and coordination is provided by the North American Electric Reliability Council, a voluntary organization formed in 1968 in response to the Northeast blackout of 1965.

The ERCOT coverage area includes approximately 75 percent of the land area in Texas. The region does not include the El Paso region, the northern panhandle, a small area around Texarkana and a small portion of the region around Beaumont.

ERCOT's members include consumers, cooperatives, independent generators, independent power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities (transmission and distribution providers), and municipal-owned electric utilities.

Being that Texas has its very own system that can be connected to other systems (but does not have to) it can run 85% of the State independent of the rest of the planet without so much as a hiccup.

The same goes for the water system. The system was designed, developed and is maintained by Texas Water Resources Institute and the Texas Water Development Board. Texas water supply has been independent of the rest of the U.S. for over 100 years. The TWDB direct planning and control goes back 50 years. Or perhaps there are folks that still believe the fed can “dam the river” or some such ignorance? Texas water comes from Texas, with minor exceptions of the El Paso region which can not be shut off as it is shared under international border treaty with Mexican cities starting with Juarez.

TWDB was established in part in response to the drought of the 1950s. The 2007 State Water Plan is the eighth water plan developed by TWDB to ensure that sufficient, clean, and affordable water supplies are available for the citizens of the State of Texas. The plan is independent of nearly all sources of water outside of Texas. It is not subject to “federal” control.

As for “access to ports” Texas has about 2000 miles of international border with Mexico and the Mexicans do not give a flying **** what dee-cee thinks as they know they are a bunch of idiots and always have been. Hell, the Mexicans wanted to bypass ALL of the west coast ports with the Trans Texas Corridor specifically for shipping purposes. The feds are not going to “cut off” a damn thing.

As far as using their federal currency, you have just GOT to be kidding. With the resources in Texas we can develop our own currency in the international forum in a week with a better rate of exchange and more stable value than the federal government could hope for by practicing fiscal austerity for 30 years. Or perhaps there is the theory that "money" can only be "ordaned" from the almighty dee-cee?

Nor will any feds be “closing roads” or any such nonsense. It they want the petroleum products from the Gulf Coast and west Texas refineries they had best get their butts right back in their “green” government vee-hickels and head for their respective federal buildings. TEXAS ships refined product to both the East Coast (supplying more than half of that region's needs for light products like gasoline, heating oil, diesel, and jet fuel) and to the Midwest (supplying more than 20 percent of the region's light product consumption.) This totals roughly one third to one HALF of the total U.S. refined petroleum products.

No sir, the feds aren’t going to close any roads for very damn long at all. And the majority of the pipelines flow out of Texas as well.

Now, lets talk about the military. What does Texas have? Better to talk about what it does not have.

Specifically

Texas Military Forces


67th Network Warfare Wing 1
111th Reconnaissance Squadron
12th Flying Training Wing
136th Airlift Wing
147th Reconnaissance Wing
149th Fighter Wing
17th Training Wing
181st Airlift Squadron
182nd Fighter Squadron
2
23d Information Operations Squadron
254th Combat Communications Group
26th Network Operations Group
28th Bomb Squadron
3
301st Fighter Wing
311th Air Base Group
317th Airlift Group
318th Information Operations Group
33d Network Warfare Squadron
356th Airlift Squadron
36th Infantry Division (United States)
37th Training Wing
39th Airlift Squadron
3d Air Support Operations Group
4
40th Airlift Squadron
415th Flight Test Flight
433d Airlift Wing
434th Fighter Training Squadron
435th Fighter Training Squadron
457th Fighter Squadron
469th Flying Training Squadron
47th Flying Training Wing
5
502d Air Base Wing
543d Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Group
559th Flying Training Squadron
560th Flying Training Squadron
562d Flying Training Squadron
563d Flying Training Squadron
59th Medical Wing
6
688th Information Operations Wing
68th Airlift Squadron
68th Network Warfare Squadron
7
712th Air Support Operations Squadron
7th Air Support Operations Squadron
7th Bomb Wing
7th Operations Group
8
80th Flying Training Wing
82d Training Wing
84th Flying Training Squadron
85th Flying Training Squadron
86th Flying Training Squadron
87th Flying Training Squadron
88th Fighter Training Squadron
89th Flying Training Squadron
9
90th Flying Training Squadron
96th Flying Training Squadron
97th Flying Training Squadron
99th Flying Training Squadron
9th Bomb Squadron
A
Air Education and Training Command
Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional)
Air Force Manpower Agency
Air Force Medical Operations Agency
Air Force Personnel Center
Air Force Personnel Operations Agency
Air Force Real Property Agency
Air Force Security Forces Center
Air Force Services Agency
B
Beaumont Reserve Fleet
Fort Bliss
Brooke Army Medical Center
Brooks City-Base
Bryan Air Force Base
C
Camp Barkeley
Camp Bowie
Camp Howze, Texas
Camp Hulen
Camp Logan
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
D
Dyess Air Force Base
E
Eldorado Air Force Station
F
Fort Hood
Fort Sam Houston
Fort Wolters
G
Goodfellow Air Force Base
H
Nidal Malik Hasan
K
Kelly Field Annex
L
Lackland Air Force Base
Laughlin Air Force Base
Lone Star Distinguished Service Medal
M
Marine Aircraft Group 41
Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 41
Marine Aviation Training Support Group 22
N
Naval Air Station Corpus Christi
Nineteenth Air Force
O
Old Camp Verde
R
Randolph Air Force Base
S
San Antonio Military Medical Center
Sheppard Air Force Base
Fort Hood shooting
T
Tenth Air Force
Texas Air National Guard
Texas Army National Guard
Texas Cavalry Service Medal
Texas National Guard
Texas State Guard
U
United States Army North
United States Army South
V
VFA-201
VMFA-112
VMGR-234
W
Wilford Hall Hospital


JUST Fort Hood has the entirety of 49th Armored and the entirety of the attack helicopter forces for the U.S. There is also Dyess Air Force Base, Beaumont Reserve Fleet, 68th Airlift Squadron, 712th Air Support Operations Squadron, 7th Air Support Operations Squadron, 7th Bomb Wing, 7th Operations Group, Fort Sam Houston, Lackland Air Force Base, Marine Aircraft Group 41, Naval Air Station Corpus Christi, Nineteenth Air Force, Randolph Air Force Base, Sheppard Air Force Base, Tenth Air Force, Texas Air National Guard, Texas Army National Guard, Texas National Guard, etc.

Given the choice between independence and freedom in Texas and a raving lunatic narcissist ordering the occupation of the very same fellow Americans cities, towns and homes (in violation of the constitution) that refuse to enter into full blown communism, what do you think they will do? Remember, they are KEENLY aware that this administration considers them, as veterans, to be “Right-wing Extremists” and therefore highly suspicious potential domestic terrorists.

And then we have the iceing on the cake, Pantex. With that we control the maintenance, assembly and disassembly of the U.S. nukes.

So let’s wrap it up. East, Central and west Texas oilfields, natural gas out the wazoo, independent electrical grid, independent water supply, cattle, cotton, high tech electronics industry, half of the U.S refining capacity, coal mines in the east, timber and food production in the east, non-union work force throughout the entire state, more military power than most other first world nations, our own nukes, year round food production in the south, 2000 miles of international trade border with Mexico, the entire gulf region and a population of heavily armed self-reliant, independent minded Citizens.

You are telling me that this very same population of heavily armed, self-reliant, independent minded Citizens KNOWING they have these resources will just give up because some nutjob communist from Chicago said so?

You are not from around here are you?

And one more thing.

What do you believe the Citizens of the rest of the States are going to say, do and talk about if they see the Communist from Chicago pushing thug tactics on Texas and Texas Citizens because they had the audacity to tell the feds from dee-cee where to get off?

.

[BnBlFlag]

“Well then you had better hope you have better luck than last time.”

LOL! Well, y'all didn't have much luck invading Texas last time either. Ever heard of Sabine Pass? Galveston? The Red River Campaign?
Not to mention the last battle of the war, The Battle of Las Palmitas Ranch where we whipped your Yankee asses while you were trying to take over the Rio Grande.
Later, after a few years of “Reconstruction”, your Carpet Bagger State Government was forced out of Texas at gunpoint and the people of Texas reclaimed their government for themselves. (Our local Carpetbagger leader was assassinated before he was forced out though.)

[BnBlFlag]

Thanks! Ping to post #224.

[Republic of Texas]

Who is Ft. Hood named for, hmmmm?

[Monorprise]

“Not with Ft. Hood inside your borders......”
I couldn’t help but notest the words of the Ft. Hood commander in speaking of the tragedy of the Muslim soldier shooting so many others, as being a Tragedy for Central Texas more then just Ft. hood.

Texas, perhaps more then any State cares deeply for the army, navy, and air-force.

While other States frequently shun them or give them a cold shoulder, Texas Embraces and welcomes them with open arms, and all the love Texas has to give.

Texas has a long history of this respect and revelation of the Military tradition, she also has the largest State militia forces in the United States, thats a lot when you look at how small and relativity cheap the Texas State government is % wise.

I think it is very unlikely the Military would be happy about or willing to make war on Texas, it is in my opinion, far more likely that they would do the same thing they did last time before the Civil war, Surrender/refuses to fight, and either be allowed to depart Texas in peace or more likely join Texas. Its a hell of a lot better fighting for a country that loves you, then it is fighting for a country that only uses you when they need you and hates you the rest of the time.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Who is Ft. Hood named for, hmmmm?

One of the greatest contributors to the preservation of our national Union. Sometimes I think that guy must have been on the federal payroll.

[Republic of Texas]

Not the greatest tactical General I’ll agree, but he was a Confederate General and he had a great beard.

[ForGod'sSake]

Thanks wolfcreek!

Folks, an entertaining discussion here(I've been through the WHOLE thread!) for those that missed it. It follows the general pattern however of issuing forth a good deal of smoke and fury from "legalists" on the one hand and those inclined to apply a more common sense solution to the common problem of dealing with tyrants. Tyrants will not be bound by legalese generally, neither by our Constitution in particular. Such things are for law abiding citizens; the common folk. Our would be masters will have to be dealt with in a language they understand; force. Whether by force of will or force of arms, but force nonetheless.

We The People have it within us to set things aright. Our individual States can be strong allies in this effort. Some of whom have considerable resources of their own and could bring considerable pressure to bear on our behalf against the feral government. It may be possible without their help but things might move along more smoothly with a goodly number of States joining the parade.

Columnists at the Austin American Statesman should be nullified!

Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.

I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.

Additional Resources:

Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Sovereign States
Firearms Freedom Act

CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES

[FTJM]

The key word is unconstitutional.

So just what IS “official” nullification you might be asking?

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

http://www.debramedinafortexas.com/2010/02/01/debra-talks-a-lot-about-nullification-what-is-it-exactly

[CowboyJay]

"If memory serves the idea that a state could nullify a federal law died in 1832."

Ideas never die. They're either brought to fruition or not. If the US decides to cede any form of power over Texas or any other state to some supranational gov't, isn't the Union already broken? Any different than if it had been ceded to Mexico against the will of its citizens?

[shibumi]

The only fiction is the notion that the federal government has any legitimacy at this point.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

He had a great beard, great bravery, horrible injuries and was a fine general at the proper level, but was unwisely promoted beyond his capabilities. I don’t think General Lee was very enthusiastic about the idea of Hood in command of an army.

[lawnguy]

There's a huge amount of room between some state separation from the feds and secession. The guy who wrote this article is engaged in wishful thinking. The key for these states is to be able to say no to Federal funding.

It would be nice someday for some state legislature to write some law about how much federal tax their citizens are required to pay. I would love to see that.

[marsh2]

On the ability of federal law to pre-empt state and local law - In Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), it was declared:

“[Re: Implementation of the State’s “police powers”] “....The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument. A local enactment or regulation, even if based on the acknowledged police powers of a state, must always yield in case of conflict with the exercise by the general government of any power it possesses under the Constitution, or with any right which that instrument gives or secures. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210, 6 L. ed. 23, 73; Sinnot v. Davenport, 22 How. 227, 243, 16 L. ed. 243, 247; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 626, 42 S. L. ed. 878, 882, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488.”

In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U.S. 540, 558, 46 S. L. ed. 679, 689, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431, 438, Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

‘The question of constitutional law to which we have referred [the equal protection of the laws] cannot be disposed of by saying that the statute in question may be referred to what are called the police powers of the state, which, as often stated by this court, were not included in the grants of power to the general government, and therefore were reserved to the states when the Constitution was ordained. But, as the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or statutes of the states to the contrary notwithstanding, a statute of a state, even when avowedly enacted in the exercise of its police powers, must yield to that law. No right granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States can be impaired or destroyed by a state enactment, whatever may be the source from which the power to pass such enactment may have been derived. ‘The nullity of any act inconsistent with the Constitution is produced by the declaration that the Constitution is the supreme law.’ The state has undoubtedly the power, by appropriate legislation, to protect the public morals, the public health, and the public safety; but if, by their necessary operation, its regulations looking to either of those ends amount to a denial to persons within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws, they must be deemed unconstitutional and void. Gibbons v. Ogden,, 9 Wheat. 1, 210, 6 L. ed. 23, 73; Sinnot v. Davenport,, 22 How. 227, 243, 16 L. ed. 243, 247; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U.S. 613, 626, 42 S. L. ed. 878, 882, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488.’

As stated by Justice O’Connor in California Coastal Comm’n. v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987):

“[S]tate law can be pre-empted in either of two general ways. If Congress evidences an intent to occupy a given field, any state law falling within that field is pre-empted. [Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190,] 203-204 [(1983)]; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982); Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947). If Congress has not entirely displaced state regulation over the matter in question, state law is still pre-empted to the extent it actually conflicts with federal law, that is, when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941).” Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., supra, at 248.”

...” As we explained in Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 718 (1985), it is appropriate to expect an administrative regulation to declare any intention to pre-empt state law with some specificity:

“[B]ecause agencies normally address problems in a detailed manner and can speak through a variety of means, . . . we can expect that they will make their intentions clear if they intend for their regulations to be exclusive. Thus, if an agency does not speak to the question of pre-emption, we will pause before saying that the mere volume and complexity of its regulations indicate that the agency did in fact intend to pre-empt.”

In the recently released Supreme Court decision in Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997), Judge Scalia for the Court summarized:

....”These problems are avoided, of course, if the calculatedly vague consequences the passage recites— ‘incorporated into the operations of the national government’ and ‘rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws’—are taken to refer to nothing more (or less) than the duty owed to the National Government, on the part of all state officials, to enact, enforce, and interpret state law in such fashion as not to obstruct the operation of federal law, and the attendant reality that all state actions constituting such obstruction, even legislative acts, are ipso facto invalid. See Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 464 U. S. 238, 248 (1984) (federal pre-emption of conflicting state law). This meaning accords well with the context of the passage, which seeks to explain why the new system of federal law directed to individual citizens, unlike the old one of federal law directed to the States, will ‘bid much fairer to avoid the necessity of using force’ against the States....”

[marsh2]

The States did not ratify the Constitution. The legislatures were felt not to have the authority in themselves to delegate authority to a federal government. Special conventions were called in each state, returning to the original sovereignty of the people to authorize a federal Constitution. That compact formed among all the people of the states is why a state cannot secede. (See also Texas v. White http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1868/1868_0 The Court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature—even if ratified by a majority of Texans—were “absolutely null.” )

George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. “View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 1”

“The mild tone of requisition was exchanged for the active operations of power, and the features of a federal council for those of a national sovereignty. These concessions it was seen were, in many instances, beyond the power of the state legislatures, (limited by their respective constitutions) to make, without the express assent of the people. A convention was therefore summoned, in every state by the authority of their respective legislatures, to consider of the propriety of adopting the proposed plan; and their assent made it binding in each state; and the assent of nine states rendered it obligatory upon all the states adopting it. Here then are all the features of an original compact, not only between the body politic of each state, but also between the people of those states in their highest sovereign capacity.”

St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to The Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States; and the Commonwealth of Virginia, William Young Birch, and Abraham Small; Philadelphia, c 1803. “View of the Constitution of the United States, Section 2”

“It is a compact by which the several states and the people thereof, respectively, have bound themselves to each other, and to the federal government.

“Having shewn that the constitution had its commencement with the body politic of the several states; and, that its final adoption and ratification was, by the several legislatures referred to, and completed by conventions, especially called and appointed for that purpose, in each state; the acceptance of the constitution, was not only an act of the body politic of each state, but of the people thereof respectively, in their sovereign character and capacity: the body politic was competent to bind itself so far as the constitution of the state permitted, but not having power to bind the people, in cases beyond their constitutional authority, the assent of the people was indispensably necessary to the validity of the compact, by which the rights of the people might be diminished, or submitted to a new jurisdiction, or in any manner affected. From hence, not only the body politic of the several states, but every citizen thereof, may be considered as parties to the compact, and to have bound themselves reciprocally to each other, for the due observance of it and, also, to have bound themselves to the federal government, whose authority has been thereby created, and established.”

[Scotsman will be Free]

LOL.
I do believe that we have managed to hurt that poor fellows feelings.

[octex]

Good findings and citings, marsh2!

It seemed clear to me that in the first two, the emphasis was on the fact that the Feds and States could only do what each are allowed to do by the Constitution.

The other examples seem to indicate that States cannot pass legislation that directly conflicts with existing Fed law. That would seem to appropriately apply to cities and States that are refusing to enforce the Fed laws regarding illegal immigration and notification of ICE.

The legislation currently being pursued by many States is primarily to re-emphasize that they stand on their 10th Amendment rights for matters that the Feds have no authority to impose.

[wolfcreek]

I think RENEGE is the word to use regarding that *contract*.