State Legislators Ask About Nullification of Federal Laws- Who Decides

Comments Off on State Legislators Ask About Nullification of Federal Laws- Who Decides

This seems to be the question many in State Governments are asking about nullification of unlawful Federal laws………”who decides” what is unconstitutional or unlawful in the end. In this article I will not give my opinion, but let James Madison (the Father of the Constitution) give you the answer himself from Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800)

James Madison said:

“The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact (the Constitution), and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” (interpositioin is the same as nullification)

James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers

This is The Age of Ignorance. Our “intellectuals” can’t think.  Our “scholars” parrot each other. The self-educated fixate on idiotic theories.  Our People despise Truth and disseminate lies.

Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy BarnettDavid Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

♦  States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal   government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;

  Nullification is literally impossible;

The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and

James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.

Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.

What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?

The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:

The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and

The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey:  the act must order them to do something or not do something.

What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”?

A State “interposes” when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition takes various forms, depending on the circumstances. Hamilton refers to interposition in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]

“Nullification” is one form of interposition.

Continue reading from a Constitutional lawyer’s blog

A Warning from Canada: Universal Background Check: Registration Leads to Confiscation

Comments Off on A Warning from Canada: Universal Background Check: Registration Leads to Confiscation

Is this coming to America? It appears it has a good chance. This is from Canada…Brian Lilley gives an important warning to his American friends: registration of firearms (which is what the Universal Background Check is)  will lead to the confiscation of firearms

Oklahoma Republic senator Tom Coburn knows that if a universal background check system is implemented it will eventually lead to registration of all firearms in the United States. Coburn is the main hurdle posited between Obama, his allies in Congress and the Democrat dream of America stripped of its historical right to own firearms.

Firearms registration invariably leads to confiscation

The term universal background check (UBC) is “nothing more than a euphemism for firearms and human registration,” the website AmmoLand.com explains. “The fact is we should be very fearful of this. We are talking not only about government having a record of everyone who owns guns (and WHICH guns), but of their creating a national data base of human beings with every aspect of your life included.”

Should a UBC be enacted either by people’s complacence, or firearm companies’ compliance, we will become the most surveilled society the world has ever seen. This effort will follow the same dangerous path that Hitler put into place, but will surpass it.

This type of legislation will lead to registration, which will be used for confiscation. An unarmed society is then at the mercy of those in power. If we learn from history, we know only one more inevitability can follow – extermination.

UN Says State Pot Laws Violate International Treaties & Ask Feds to Nullify Them

Comments Off on UN Says State Pot Laws Violate International Treaties & Ask Feds to Nullify Them

Sorry to tell you UN, the Federal government can’t nullify State marijuana laws because they violate international treaties. The pot laws fall under the 10th amendment and are not subject to Treaties as Treaties MUST follow the Constitution as well. As strange as it might sound to some, Marijuana laws are not one of the enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government in the Constitution. Bottom line? The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate the purchase of a product. Or, ban the purchase of a product either. Nullifing unconstitutional Federal laws  is another major step towards returning the power over agricultural regulations where it belongs – with the people of the several states.

Eight former U.S. drug chiefs warned the federal government Tuesday that time is running out to nullify Colorado and Washington’s new laws legalizing recreational marijuana use, and a United Nations agency also urged challenges to the measures it says violate international treaties.

The former Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs criticized Barack Obama‘s administration for moving too slowly to file a lawsuit that would force the states to rescind the legislation. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.(But federal law that is unconstitutional isn’t “supreme law of the land”.)

“My fear is that the Justice Department will do what they are doing now: do nothing and say nothing,” former DEA administrator Peter Bensinger told The Associated Press in an interview Monday. “If they don’t act now, these laws will be fully implemented in a matter of months.”

Bensinger, who lives in the Chicago area, said if the federal government doesn’t immediately sue the states it’ll risk creating “a domino effect” in which other states legalize marijuana too.

The statement from the DEA chiefs came the same day the International Narcotics Control Board, a U.N. agency, made its appeal in an annual drug report, calling on federal officials to act to “ensure full compliance with the international drug control treaties on its entire territory.”

Conservatives MUST Oppose the Rule on the Continuing Resolution Not to Defund Obamacare

Comments Off on Conservatives MUST Oppose the Rule on the Continuing Resolution Not to Defund Obamacare

Today we learn the vote will be Wednesday March 6th, 2013 and there will be NO defunding of Obamacare in the CR. So we’ve been lied to again by the Republicans.

Conservative House Republicans are circulating a letter calling on House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to defund Obamacare in the upcoming continuing resolution that funds the government. Oklahoma Republican Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a freshman, and Kansas Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp are leading the charge.

Update 1 (3/5/13 about 5 P.M.) : Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) stated during the Rules Committee that while he likes Rep. Huelskamp and Bridenstine’s attempt to defund Obamacare…he stated that he doesn’t know “if now is the time for this fight”. Question to Mr. Burgess: If not now…when?

Today, the House Rules Committee is likely to pass a closed-rule that does not allow votes on amendments like the one by Reps. Jim Bridenstine, Ron DeSantis, and Tim Huelskamp that would defund Obamacare.

Freedomworks already released a statement in opposition: 

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on a closed House Rule for the “Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act”, H.R. 933.

H.R. 933 contains the Continuing Resolution (CR), which is used to fund the federal government in the absence of a budget, since the Senate has failed to pass a budget resolution for nearly four years. But currently, the House Leadership has indicated that the CR will come to the House floor under a “closed rule”, meaning that debate will be limited, and no amendments will be allowed. On a bill which authorizes the government to continue its annually appropriated spending at over a trillion dollars per year, Representatives ought to at least be allowed to have a say in how that spending takes place.

Already, Congressmen Huelskamp (KS-1), DeSantis (FL-6) and Bridenstine (OK-1) have an amendment which would remove all funding for the implementation of ObamaCare from the CR, and other Members may have other ideas for useful spending reductions that would help reduce our unsustainable deficits and our $16.6 trillion in debt. But for these amendments to see the light of day, Leadership needs to allow the bill to the floor under an open rule, in which amendments are allowed.

I urge you to call your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on a closed rule for the “Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act”, H.R. 933.

If the House insists upon passing a closed rule, we will count the vote on the rule as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom.

In fact, once upon a time, Speaker Boehner supported having an open rule, and he attacked the Democrats for having a “martial law” in the House of Representatives. Wtach this video because not only does it show his team being hypocrites, but it also shows the importance of a rule:

From August 2007:

Continue reading

 

Hugo Chavez, fiery Venezuelan leader & dictator, dies at 58

Comments Off on Hugo Chavez, fiery Venezuelan leader & dictator, dies at 58

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez died on Tuesday after suffering complications from cancer surgery, putting an end to the anti-capitalist leader’s controversial 14-year rule.

Chávez’s death, announced by Nicolás Maduro, the vice-president, came almost two years after he was diagnosed with cancer in June 2011. He then declared himself cured twice, was operated on four times and also underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Mr Maduro said the 58-year-old leader died at 4.25pm on Tuesday afternoon, surrounded by his closest aides at the Caracas military hospital where he was being treated.

Chávez, who railed frequently against the American “empire” and nationalised large swaths of the economy, won a landslide re-election victory only last October. Venezuela’s constitution requires that fresh elections now be held within 30 days.

He has not been seen in public since then, despite returning to Caracas on February 18.

Mr Maduro had been running the country since Chávez left for his cancer operation in Cuba and many believe that he has in effect already begun his presidential campaign with greatly increased media exposure and frequent attacks against the opposition.

Entire article

50 NY Counties Consider Rejecting NY SAFE Act, The Strictest Gun Law In the Nation

Comments Off on 50 NY Counties Consider Rejecting NY SAFE Act, The Strictest Gun Law In the Nation

Good for New York, because the SAFE Act is unconstitutional, as will be any Federal law passed like it.

Since January 14th, the Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (NY SAFE ACT) has been scrutinized by 50 NY counties out of 62, stating the NY SAFE ACT is an infringement on Second Amendment rights. The 50 counties, which rejected Cuomo’s NY SAFE ACT, either passed or are currently considering passing a resolution. Essex, Schenectady, Albany, Tompkins, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and NY City are the 8 remaining counties, which have not rebuffed the SAFE ACT.

 

The NY SAFE ACT bans high capacity magazines and assault rifles in addition to making it tougher for mentally ill patients to obtain access to guns. “They passed it so quickly that they didn’t take the time to find out what the people thought,” said Legislator of the 15th District, Anthony J. Doldo. “Technically, they were supposed to wait 3 days to hear public comment and they didn’t. I understand what happened in Connecticut, but does this really solve the problem?”

 

Mr. Doldo went on to point out that the new law limits anyone to having only 7 rounds loaded in their gun, down from the current capacity of 10. “This includes police officers” said Doldo, “which is ridiculous because to me that is a safety issue.” However, the new gun law have been scrutinized and sometimes misunderstood. According to Governor Cuomo, “No police officer possessing ammunition clips with more than seven bullets is in violation of the law or guilty of any crime, period.”

ABC50 spoke with Jefferson County resident John Maciag, who suggested various ways that gun violence could be reduced without strict gun laws. “There are various methods that could make guns safer” said Mr. Maciag, “such as fingerprint censors on guns, which would allow for only the gun owner to be able to use the gun.” According to Maciag, another safety measure would be to install RFID chips in guns. “RFID chips are tracking devices. Most cell phones have them,” explained Maciag, “so, if someone steals your gun you can track them down.” However, there have been counter arguments that claim people would figure out how to fry or disable an RFID chip.

This evening, Jefferson County citizens and Legislators will be gathering at the Board of Legislators meeting to pass a resolution, rejecting Governor Cuomo’s NY SAFE ACT.

 

Senate Votes to Increase Office Spending on Fifth Day of Sequester

Comments Off on Senate Votes to Increase Office Spending on Fifth Day of Sequester

Sen. Paul today introduced an amendment to S. Res. 64 that would strike funding for an annual $700,000 slush fund that allocates additional staff funding to nine Member and Leadership offices under the guise of the Senate National Security Working Group. The Working Group was created in 1985 to provide the Senate with observers to treaty negotiations between the Soviet Union and the U.S.  After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Working Group was extended, yet there is little evidence of any work done by the group. In fact, there is no record of this group meeting within the last three years.

In the wake of sequestration, this amendment would save up to $2.8 million over a four year period. Special treatment should not be given to nine Senate Offices when the rest of the federal government is facing sequester cuts.  It is time for our elected officials to lead by example and stop spending as though we have possession of a credit card that we don’t have to pay for.

The amendment failed passage with a bipartisan vote of 44-53.

Prior to the vote, Sen. Paul took to the Senate floor to urge his colleagues to vote in favor of striking the funding for the Senate National Security Working Group.

Read more

 

Older Entries