nullification and the Supremacy Clause

[Jack T.]

At the GOP meeting last night, Mark Kreslins from Oklahoma Liberty was there to talk about nullification. An hour long presentation full of *really* good info.

One of the big points he made was concerning the Supremacy Clause. . .laws the U.S Congress pass are the "Supreme Law of the Land."

The text of Article VI, the so-called Supremacy Clause, is as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

So yes, any law Congress passes that is made PURSUANT TO the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. But the mere fact that Congress passes a law does NOT make it the supreme law of the land. Case in point: Obamacare. The Constitution does not authorize the Feds to perform that action, therefore it is not pursuant to the Constitution, therefore it is NOT the supreme law of the land.

Good stuff. . .if you have a chance to hear his presentation, do so.

 

[loudshirt]

Well if the legislative branch passes it, the executive branch signs it, and the judicial branch upholds it then it is law. It does not matter if you like it or not. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law. It is the law. It does not matter what some guy and a GOP meeting says, until it is repealed or struck down by the judicial branch it is law.

 

[uncle money bags]

At the GOP meeting last night, Mark Kreslins from Oklahoma Liberty was there to talk about nullification. An hour long presentation full of *really* good info.

One of the big points he made was concerning the Supremacy Clause. . .laws the U.S Congress pass are the "Supreme Law of the Land."

The text of Article VI, the so-called Supremacy Clause, is as follows:


So yes, any law Congress passes that is made PURSUANT TO the Constitution are the Supreme Law of the Land. But the mere fact that Congress passes a law does NOT make it the supreme law of the land. Case in point: Obamacare. The Constitution does not authorize the Feds to perform that action, therefore it is not pursuant to the Constitution, therefore it is NOT the supreme law of the land.

Good stuff. . .if you have a chance to hear his presentation, do so.

This in theory ^

Well if the legislative branch passes it, the executive branch signs it, and the judicial branch upholds it then it is law. It does not matter if you like it or not. The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the law. It is the law. It does not matter what some guy and a GOP meeting says, until it is repealed or struck down by the judicial branch it is law.

This in practice ^

 

[Jack T.]

That's the thing. . .it's a law they don't have authority to pass, sign, or uphold.

Does that make things messy? It sure can. . .and it will, if push comes to shove. But to cede authority just because you don't want things to get messy is just bullying on a grander scale.

 

[yukonjack]

That's the thing. . .it's a law they don't have authority to pass, sign, or uphold.

Does that make things messy? It sure can. . .and it will, if push comes to shove. But to cede authority just because you don't want things to get messy is just bullying on a grander scale.

Apparently they think they have the authority to do it cause they did it. What are you suggesting we do? Violent riots in the streets and an overthrow of the current government?

 

[uncle money bags]

Resign yourself to the reality that "they" can do whatever the hell "they" want to do, and prepare for that eventuality.

 

[Jack T.]

Apparently they think they have the authority to do it cause they did it. What are you suggesting we do? Violent riots in the streets and an overthrow of the current government?

As the OP states, I'm suggesting that nullification at the State level is a way to balance things out. What are the Feds gonna do if, for instance, Oklahoma says (as other states already have), "You don't have authority to regulate firearms. . .that authority lies solely with the state?" They gonna cut our funding? Well, that will hurt. . .in the short-term. Are *you* suggesting that they will initiate violence against Oklahomans if we do something like that?

Again, this is at the State level, not at the individual level.

Resign yourself to the reality that "they" can do whatever the hell "they" want to do, and prepare for that eventuality.

I already had. . .but this gave me a ray of hope. False hope, perhaps, but nobody who is intellectually honest can say that the current American government can last given the current trend.

Look, I'm not trying to change anybody's mind. . .I'm just saying that the "Supremacy Clause" has been beaten into us for years, without the "Pursuant to the Constitution" being mentioned at all.

 

[uncle money bags]

...but nobody who is intellectually honest can say that the current American government can last given the current trend.

yep..

 

[rawhide]

Apparently they think they have the authority to do it cause they did it. What are you suggesting we do? Violent riots in the streets and an overthrow of the current government?

"They" do it because we allow them to.
Of the several principles implemented in our Constitution, #1 is Consent of the governed. The system makes violence avoidable but that would require knowledge and participation by the governed.

 

[yukonjack]

"They" do it because we allow them to.
Of the several principles implemented in our Constitution, #1 is Consent of the governed. The system makes violence avoidable but that would require knowledge and participation by the governed.

I think we are past that point. Now we are governed by special interest groups. Sad, but sadly true.