Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

[danielpalos]

The Confederate States of America: What Might Have Been by Roger L. Ransom


Great book....

Thanks for posting it. I may read it some time.

In the meantime, would you mind sharing your expertise in legal precedent concerning forms of nullification by a sovereign state and a quasi-general government of a union of such states?

[blueeagle]

Glad to hear it. I hope you don't mind if I ask for you to share some of your expertise in our conversation in this thread.

Sure... what do you need to know???

[danielpalos]

Sure... what do you need to know???

I am of the opinion that continued nullification of the duly constituted authority of organs of the UN, by the US Supreme Court, is setting a precedent that can be used by the several states concerning our own federal government and non-specifically enumerated powers currently being subscribed to by the republican doctrine.

The general government of the Union has no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce among the several states, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, since the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

Nullifying federal authority in such matters can be considered a states' right.

[blueeagle]

In English please...

[danielpalos]

It is a point of view concerning the theory of nullification. If the US continues to nullify UN authority, should it eventually be a usable precedent by the several states in nullifying US federal authority?

The general government of the Union has no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce among the several states, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, since the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

Nullifying federal authority in such matters can be considered a states' right.

[blueeagle]

I am of the opinion that continued nullification of the duly constituted authority of organs of the UN, by the US Supreme Court, is setting a precedent that can be used by the several states concerning our own federal government and non-specifically enumerated powers currently being subscribed to by the republican doctrine.

The general government of the Union has no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce among the several states, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, since the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

Nullifying federal authority in such matters can be considered a states' right.

I think I understand... You want to legally deal drugs, correct? If drugs became legal they would be quickly monopolized upon by various pharmaceutical company's. Prices would fall, thus putting the "little man" (the current dealers) out of business. Would you rather by your drugs at CBS pharmacy or from the dirty hippy down the street? Prohibition does not reduce demand, it only changes the supplier.

[cdwjava]

It is a point of view concerning the theory of nullification. If the US continues to nullify UN authority, should it eventually be a usable precedent by the several states in nullifying US federal authority?

You are talking apples and oranges here.

The UN charter is NOT the US Constitution. We are not bound to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter except by treaty, or, contractual obligation. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ... the UN Charter is a treaty, or, put another way, a contract.

Oh, and what, pray tell, is meant when you say that the "US continues to nullify UN authority"? What does that mean?

The general government of the Union has no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce among the several states, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, since the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

What?

You're kidding, right? You are actually saying that the federal government does NOT have the authority to regulate commerce?

Nullifying federal authority in such matters can be considered a states' right.

That was tried once before ... from 1861 through 1865 - you recall how that turned out?

States' rights are spelled out in the Constitution. There will always be some measure of a power struggle between the states and the federal government in this area, but the power of the US to regulate commerce gives them a great deal of pull over the states. Much of it is not direct authority, but influence by purse strings. In other words, the feds tell the states that they can either adhere to the federal government's request, or risk losing vast amounts of federal dollars for assorted projects - mostly in the area of infrastructure.

Unless the Constitution is changed, or the USSC comes up with a different interpretation based upon some legal challenge, this regulation of commerce will remain.

- Carl

[cdwjava]

I think I understand... You want to legally deal drugs, correct? If drugs became legal they would be quickly monopolized upon by various pharmaceutical company's. Prices would fall, thus putting the "little man" (the current dealers) out of business. Would you rather by your drugs at CBS pharmacy or from the dirty hippy down the street? Prohibition does not reduce demand, it only changes the supplier.

Actually, I don't think you'd see many companies leaping on board the drug supply boat ... and if they did, look for HIGHER prices, not lower.

Imagine a product that when used AS INTENDED can kill or permanently disable you! Can you imagine the insurance premiums for THAT product??! You can sue for millions when you spill hot coffee in your lap! You can collect for smoking cigarettes for 30 years KNOWING they cause cancer! You can sue anyone for anything even when it was your own dumb fault! Imagine the victims lining up for a payday after the first few hundred "overdoses"!

Unless the feds carve out an unheard of exemption to product liability laws, NO ONE is going to make street level heroin, cocaine, meth., etc. Anyone who tried would soon be sued into oblivion.

- Carl

[blueeagle]

You are talking apples and oranges here.

The UN charter is NOT the US Constitution. We are not bound to adhere to the principles of the UN Charter except by treaty, or, contractual obligation. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ... the UN Charter is a treaty, or, put another way, a contract.

Oh, and what, pray tell, is meant when you say that the "US continues to nullify UN authority"? What does that mean?

Thank you! I had no idea what the hell he meant by this! The US constitution has existed long before the UN. We should be under no obligation to submit to the UN. The organization is about useless anyway.

What?

You're kidding, right? You are actually saying that the federal government does NOT have the authority to regulate commerce?

Damn it! The man doesn't want the government telling him where he can and can't sell his crack! You can't blame him for looking for a loophole.

But seriously, Congress has authority to regulate all commerce. This right his granted under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....articlei.html

[blueeagle]

Actually, I don't think you'd see many companies leaping on board the drug supply boat ... and if they did, look for HIGHER prices, not lower.

Imagine a product that when used AS INTENDED can kill or permanently disable you! Can you imagine the insurance premiums for THAT product??! You can sue for millions when you spill hot coffee in your lap! You can collect for smoking cigarettes for 30 years KNOWING they cause cancer! You can sue anyone for anything even when it was your own dumb fault! Imagine the victims lining up for a payday after the first few hundred "overdoses"!

Unless the feds carve out an unheard of exemption to product liability laws, NO ONE is going to make street level heroin, cocaine, meth., etc. Anyone who tried would soon be sued into oblivion.

- Carl

Never considered that. I always drugs were so expensive because they were illegal and difficult to acquire. I admit to not consuming drugs, so I really don't know about the whole economical situation. I can only speak from the lesson we learned from prohibition on alcohol. But haven't farmers been lobbying for years from the right to grow hemp? Wouldn't they have to lower prices in order to compete?