Nullification... The 28th Constitutional Amendment?

For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states, and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is “duty bound” to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people.

Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area.

Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and 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. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional.

So what say you all? Given the agitation of so many Americans as of late because the many many injurious encroachments into our GOD given constitutional rights... Why dont we as a majority petition for a 28th amendment to solidify our states' right to nullification when the federal government has over reached?

Originally posted by 11235813213455
For anyone unfamiliar with the concept of state nullification, it was the idea expressed by then sitting vice president Thomas Jefferson when he authored what came to be known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. The resolutions made the case that the federal government is a creature of the states, and that states have the authority to judge the constitutionality of the federal government’s laws and decrees. He also argued that states should refuse to enforce laws which they deem unconstitutional.

James Madison wrote a similar resolution for Virginia that same year, in which he asserted that whenever the federal government exceeds its constitutional limits and begins to oppress the citizens of a state, that state’s legislature is “duty bound” to interpose its power and prevent the federal government from victimizing its people.

Nullification is any act or set of acts, which has as its end result, a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or just plain unenforceable in your area.

Nullification often begins with members of your state legislature declaring a federal act unconstitutional and then committing to resist its implementation. It usually involves a bill, passed by both houses and 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. In this case, it is quite simply a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce a particular federal law it deems unconstitutional.

So what say you all? Given the agitation of so many Americans as of late because the many many injurious encroachments into our GOD given constitutional rights... Why dont we as a majority petition for a 28th amendment to solidify our states' right to nullification when the federal government has over reached?

This would be a solid plan, if most politicians didn't see the constitution as "just a piece of paper"

And good luck prying people away from their TV's to try and push this through.

reply to post by 11235813213455


Is the Supreme Court the only body empowered to make that determination i.e. the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation etc. ?

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Is the Supreme Court the only body empowered to make that determination i.e. the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation etc. ?

What would it ultimately matter if 2/3 of the states want this?

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Is the Supreme Court the only body empowered to make that determination i.e. the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation etc. ?

Thats how it was intended in the first place, nullify the legislation and remand back to congress to be re-worked or tossed. Early in our history Justice Marshall usurped authority which has led to legislation from the bench which is wrong in the spirit of the constitution.

Originally posted by 11235813213455

Originally posted by UmbraSumus
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Is the Supreme Court the only body empowered to make that determination i.e. the constitutionality of a given piece of legislation etc. ?

What would it ultimately matter if 2/3 of the states want this?

With such an impressive level of consensus one would indeed anticipate action.

reply to post by 11235813213455

Righteous and Bumped. If only the cross section of the American body
politic was apprised of what jury nullification was, and their true power
as jurors, the need for a Constitutional amendment wouldn't exist.
Sadly, almost all my friends can't even remember who the last Sec.
of State was before Hillary, too much info to store...

reply to post by UmbraSumus


Actually that is one of the reasons for trial by jury of your peers. If the public thinks a law is unjust then the jury can continue to find the defendants not guilty, after this continues over a period of time the law can become nullified because of the continuous president set by the previous trials. A juror is not obliged to find a defendant guilty of a crime if he does not feel the actions should be criminal.