Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1170609" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Jefferson and Madison were dead long before the Civil War. They used Nullification, quite successfully, with the VA and KY resolutions. Those resolutions rallied the public around the issue of freedom of speech -- the Federalists were soundly defeated in the next election, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire by the new legislature. Nullification was not so successfully used by South Carolina to nullify the unconstitutional federal tariffs that were protective of northern industry -- Andrew Jackson threatened to send in the Army and SC backed down. The Civil War was mostly fought over the issue of secession, not nullification. Nullification was later used (unsuccessfully) in Arkansas in the 1950s to nullify Brown v. Board of Education when Arkansas refused to integrate the government schools. This ended when Dwight Eisenhower sent in the troops and forced integration.</p><p></p><p>So I would say that Nullification has a mixed record. It may get a bad rap since the most recent time it was invoked was for a bad cause... but it is far from dead, as can be seen from these firearms statutes that are being passed by a large number of states. Many states are also considering legislation nullifying the insurance mandate in the new health care law. </p><p></p><p>A way around the national will of the people? Maybe... but when the national will of the people is to pass unconstitutional legislation, then it doesn't carry any water with me. </p><p></p><p>As far as whether a "state's right" trumps a "nation's right," I would say that the national government has no right to pass unconstitutional legislation. If it does, the states are certainly justified in resisting. As far as who has the right to interpret the Constitution, the states have as good a claim on that as anybody. </p><p></p><p>And Nullification isn't just about states not liking the Supreme Court's decision... it is about them deciding that an act of the national government, though declared legal by the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional, and is enough of a threat that the state should interpose itself to protect its citizens' liberties.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1170609, member: 4235"] Jefferson and Madison were dead long before the Civil War. They used Nullification, quite successfully, with the VA and KY resolutions. Those resolutions rallied the public around the issue of freedom of speech -- the Federalists were soundly defeated in the next election, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were allowed to expire by the new legislature. Nullification was not so successfully used by South Carolina to nullify the unconstitutional federal tariffs that were protective of northern industry -- Andrew Jackson threatened to send in the Army and SC backed down. The Civil War was mostly fought over the issue of secession, not nullification. Nullification was later used (unsuccessfully) in Arkansas in the 1950s to nullify Brown v. Board of Education when Arkansas refused to integrate the government schools. This ended when Dwight Eisenhower sent in the troops and forced integration. So I would say that Nullification has a mixed record. It may get a bad rap since the most recent time it was invoked was for a bad cause... but it is far from dead, as can be seen from these firearms statutes that are being passed by a large number of states. Many states are also considering legislation nullifying the insurance mandate in the new health care law. A way around the national will of the people? Maybe... but when the national will of the people is to pass unconstitutional legislation, then it doesn't carry any water with me. As far as whether a "state's right" trumps a "nation's right," I would say that the national government has no right to pass unconstitutional legislation. If it does, the states are certainly justified in resisting. As far as who has the right to interpret the Constitution, the states have as good a claim on that as anybody. And Nullification isn't just about states not liking the Supreme Court's decision... it is about them deciding that an act of the national government, though declared legal by the Supreme Court, is unconstitutional, and is enough of a threat that the state should interpose itself to protect its citizens' liberties. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
NRA sits out gunfight with feds
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom