Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually this was all a ruse anyway. Daniel has a way of getting under my skin very quickly with his fallacy claim and a few other repetitve ideas and I was simply trying to derail the train.:D

---

Well, I'm too busy to deal with him right now anyway ... maybe if I get bored this weekend ...

- Carl

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

From the perspective of the republican doctrine, there is no Constitutional authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs, since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

---

OK! We get it!!! You seriously need to get laid! Oh wait, you can't!!!!!!

I usually claim I am working on my character when I am low on funds and no chicks want to make an appointment for a Yoni massage.

So you like women in mini-skirts, do ya?

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/off-...tml#post771585

Don't ya just love google!!!!

Women keep trying to convince me that honesty is a form of respect towards fellow human beings. I sometimes take them literally, instead of usually assuming it is only their propaganda machine.

Concerning nullification. I am under the impression that federal law is primarily applicable to those issues for which that government is constituted. No one is implying that the federal government doesn't have any authority to enact drug laws for consumption on federal property.

How is it, that the burden of proof does not fall on the federal government when resorting to the commerce clause in, even ambiguous, intrastate matters? It seems to me, that position clearly denies and disparages states' rights, in contravention of the 10A where a state has amended its constitution to better reflect the will of the people; and the 9A when individuals are transacting on their own initiative in such a state.

How is it that the burden of proof of interstate commerce is not more of a requirement in such matters?

Also, where is the burden of proof in regards to the efficacy of any drugs that have not been evaluated by the FDA as a form of official weights and measures? One reductio ad absurdum would suggest, that our federal congress was making decisions, that can have the effect of denying and disparaging the "will of the people" of the several states of the Union, by resorting to mere hearsay and anecdotal evidence when legislating laws concerning products that have not been officially weighed and measured.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

actually this was all a ruse anyway. Daniel has a way of getting under my skin very quickly with his fallacy claim and a few other repetitve ideas and I was simply trying to derail the train.:D

---

I liked the ruse. Burnt crotches > ad hominem whines - any day!

Soft, check out my new thead in Banter. :D

How is it that the burden of proof of interstate commerce is not more of a requirement in such matters?


"...that is the question..."

William Shakespeare
--Hamlet 3/1

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

---

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

---

Do you have ANY idea what he's talking about, your honor? Can you translate it for those of us who lack a doctorate in law???? To bad you can't issue an arrest warrant for him. I'm sure we could think up with a few charges. :D

the problem is, it doesn;t say anything.

Quote:

---

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power, and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

---

it is a complex sentence so if yo ubreak it down, you end up with:

Quote:

---

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power

---

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

and then he tosses in:

Quote:

---

and with the full accuracy of official weights and measures it is also empowered and

---

often known as fluff or bullshit. It bares no direct relation to the question posed.

then he tosses in this:

Quote:

---

and, in my opinion, ethically, legally, and morally obligated to fix and ensure?

---

this appears to be an attempt to cause the reader to believe dan has some great understanding of the subject at hand while what it actually does is make him sound like he has no idea of what he speaks. First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't but then he follows that up with stating that somebody (since this sentence fragment is not attached to any part of the main sentence it is impossible to determine which entity he is referring to) is supposed to fix something (where in the actual question was there anything that addressed repairing anything) or ensure (where was there any claim that either entity was required to demand the other entity acted in a specific manner concerning the original question) some unknown right or action.

Ok, I'm following you, but I still don't know what Dan's referring to here. Why can't he back it up with an example?

Nobody knows what dan is referring to. I suspect dan ,himself, is included in that group.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Nobody knows what dan is referring to. I suspect dan ,himself, is included in that group.

---

I bet it's something he came up with while in jail!!!! You ever been in Jail, JK? :p

only when I was helping build one.

from what I saw and what the guards told me (we were builinding a new jail to replace the existing jail but they were attached buildings so I got to talk to the sheriffs there), I will stay on the straight and narrow. I would not be a good inmate.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Daniel, what are you asking?

Rephrase this.

---

I guess, as simpler way to say that is, why have not the states enjoined the general government of the Union to perform the specific powers enumerated to it? Regulating commerce among the several states is a specifically enumerated power.

The power to Prohibit commerce among the several states is not anywhere to be found in our Constitution since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

the problem is, it doesn;t say anything.

it is a complex sentence so if yo ubreak it down, you end up with:

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

and then he tosses in:

often known as fluff or bullshit. It bares no direct relation to the question posed.

then he tosses in this:

this appears to be an attempt to cause the reader to believe dan has some great understanding of the subject at hand while what it actually does is make him sound like he has no idea of what he speaks. First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't but then he follows that up with stating that somebody (since this sentence fragment is not attached to any part of the main sentence it is impossible to determine which entity he is referring to) is supposed to fix something (where in the actual question was there anything that addressed repairing anything) or ensure (where was there any claim that either entity was required to demand the other entity acted in a specific manner concerning the original question) some unknown right or action.

---

It was concerning the powers and obligations of the federal government.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

It was concerning the powers and obligations of the federal government.

---

uh, ya, that is what I said, isn;t it?

Quote:

---

Quote:

Quote:

---

How is it, that the several states do not require that the general government of the Union, Regulate commerce according according to its specifically enumerated power

---

Before I would even address that question, dan needs to give example of the claim the states are not requiring the fed to regulate commerce as it is directed (presumably in the constitution).

---

Quote:

---

First he asks why the states do not demand action of the fed gov't

---

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I guess, as simpler way to say that is, why have not the states enjoined the general government of the Union to perform the specific powers enumerated to it? Regulating commerce among the several states is a specifically enumerated power.

The power to Prohibit commerce among the several states is not anywhere to be found in our Constitution since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

---

I think, but do not know, what you are asking is: Why don't the states sue the feds?

Daniel, you are a babe in the woods with a dictionary.

Get real. Read the news...several sources of news.

Tennessee and Georgia are fighting over water. Do you think their solicitors have time to sue the feds about weights and measures?

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

I also do not resort to the fallacy of non sequitur if I have enough logic and reason to present a cogent argument.

---

SCORE!!! I got a "fallacy" from Danny.

Quote:

---

Quoting blueeagle

---

Do you have ANY idea what he's talking about, your honor? Can you translate it for those of us who lack a doctorate in law???? To bad you can't issue an arrest warrant for him. I'm sure we could think up with a few charges. :D

---

Let me try.

On several boards and in several ways, Danny here wants to try to convince everyone and his imaginary friend "Bong" that there is no constitutional authority to prohibit the manufacture and/or sale and/or ingestion of illegal drugs.

He asks you to set aside the fact that literally hundreds of cases are decided upon daily in this regard. He asks you to set aside the right of the government to regulate trade in chickens much less crack.

He continually wants to find an argument that will stand up in open court. He refuses to believe there isn't any.

His present argument is that since the US doesn't sublimate its laws to the wishes of the UN (which he apparently sees as a superior authority) then the states don't have to sublimate its wishes to those of the government.

Apparently, Danny has decided that it would be easier to convince a local jurisdiction to let him have his crack pipe than the feds. Granted, a valid assumption, but flawed.

Danny has taken the "Ninth" on his use of drugs (though, how invoking the Ninth admendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." has no effect..... I guess the jail house encyclopedia had that page torn out) but it is pretty apparent by his words and frequent disappearances that he is a user.

He goes out on a two week bender and then comes back with great ideas he came up with while in the van. He consults his word of the day calendar and starts typing.

Respond at your own risk.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

I think, but do not know, what you are asking is: Why don't the states sue the feds?

Daniel, you are a babe in the woods with a dictionary.

Get real. Read the news...several sources of news.

Tennessee and Georgia are fighting over water. Do you think their solicitors have time to sue the feds about weights and measures?

---

And all this time, I thought we were discussing forms of liberty and freedom that come from self-determination, and that are enumerated in our Constitution and extolled as some of the virtues of democracy.

However, I digress.

It seems to me, that some states are quibbling about their rights concerning what is, or is not, a right of the states to decide concerning its populace.

The general government of the Union claims to have some profound wisdom in claiming it knows what is best, despite the non-concurrence of the several states. Some of those issues pertain to intra-state commerce in which the general government of the Union does not necessarily have original jurisdiction. Merely claiming potential interstate commerce as a reason for interfering in states' rights is not the same as actually establishing a proof of interstate commerce, of which the general government of the Union is burdened.

In any event, whence does the general government of the Union derive any power to Prohibit any forms of interstate commerce, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, without such an specific enumeration in our Constitution? What happened to stare decisis, and the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment?

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

uh, ya, that is what I said, isn;t it?

---

You are welcome to actually respond to the logic and reason, unless you have already run out of it and are simply resorting to forms of fallacy for comedic effect.

Daniel...learn English.

Stop smoking dope.

It gives you weak wienie.

Remember sex?

Forget it.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

Let me try.

On several boards and in several ways, Danny here wants to try to convince everyone and his imaginary friend "Bong" that there is no constitutional authority to prohibit the manufacture and/or sale and/or ingestion of illegal drugs.

He asks you to set aside the fact that literally hundreds of cases are decided upon daily in this regard. He asks you to set aside the right of the government to regulate trade in chickens much less crack.

He continually wants to find an argument that will stand up in open court. He refuses to believe there isn't any.

His present argument is that since the US doesn't sublimate its laws to the wishes of the UN (which he apparently sees as a superior authority) then the states don't have to sublimate its wishes to those of the government.

Apparently, Danny has decided that it would be easier to convince a local jurisdiction to let him have his crack pipe than the feds. Granted, a valid assumption, but flawed.

Danny has taken the "Ninth" on his use of drugs (though, how invoking the Ninth admendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." has no effect..... I guess the jail house encyclopedia had that page torn out) but it is pretty apparent by his words and frequent disappearances that he is a user.

He goes out on a two week bender and then comes back with great ideas he came up with while in the van. He consults his word of the day calendar and starts typing.

Respond at your own risk.

---

All comedy jokes aside, I think you are still laboring under the impression that the general government of the Union has any enumerated authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs. It clearly does not since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

My argument concerns legally binding precedent concerning states' rights. It is not about a local jurisdiction letting me have a crack pipe, or a pipe with a crack in it, nor even a crack with a pipe attached to it. It is about the lack of a specifically enumerated power of the general government of the Union to interfere in state rights when those several states have, by the will of the people of the state, declared certain forms of private property to be legal.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

All comedy jokes aside, I think you are still laboring under the impression that the general government of the Union has any enumerated authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs. It clearly does not since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

My argument concerns legally binding precedent concerning states' rights. It is not about a local jurisdiction letting me have a crack pipe, or a pipe with a crack in it, nor even a crack with a pipe attached to it. It is about the lack of a specifically enumerated power of the general government of the Union to interfere in state rights when those several states have, by the will of the people of the state, declared certain forms of private property to be legal.

---

Danny...get arrested on a federal charge. Get a good constitutional lawyer. And then...have at it.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Danny...get arrested on a federal charge. Get a good constitutional lawyer. And then...have at it.

---

I recommended this course of action to Danny. He didn't bite.

Ahh, the tale of an anarchist hoping for someone else to actually take action.

There is only one flaw in your suggestion, your honor. No lawyer would take the case and no judge would allow the argument to be presented.

Other than that, I say go for it.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

All comedy jokes aside, I think you are still laboring under the impression that the general government of the Union has any enumerated authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs. It clearly does not since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

---

You say this as though the 21st admendment repealed all prohibition.

It did not. It did not even go so far as to outlaw prohibition of alcohol. It merely said that the federal government wouldn't do it.

There are still "dry" counties all over the country. Lynchburg, Kentucky jumps to mind.

Georgians cannot buy liquor on Sunday.

No one is allowed to buy certain products at all. The second admendment does not give the common citizen the ability to own a 50mm Howitzer or a nuke. A common citizen may not own a lion or a tiger.

I may not construct a particle accelerator on my property.

Prohibited behavior is clearly constitutional. It is in force daily.

Quote:

---

My argument concerns legally binding precedent concerning states' rights. It is not about a local jurisdiction letting me have a crack pipe, or a pipe with a crack in it, nor even a crack with a pipe attached to it. It is about the lack of a specifically enumerated power of the general government of the Union to interfere in state rights when those several states have, by the will of the people of the state, declared certain forms of private property to be legal.

---

You are now debating which is the supreme law of the land. The constitution states, specifically, that states may create those laws that are not in conflict with the constitution.

Sorry. You lose.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

All comedy jokes aside, I think you are still laboring under the impression that the general government of the Union has any enumerated authority to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs. It clearly does not since the legal and political precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment.

My argument concerns legally binding precedent concerning states' rights. It is not about a local jurisdiction letting me have a crack pipe, or a pipe with a crack in it, nor even a crack with a pipe attached to it. It is about the lack of a specifically enumerated power of the general government of the Union to interfere in state rights when those several states have, by the will of the people of the state, declared certain forms of private property to be legal.

---

Oh, Oh, I got it. He wants to know how the fed can present laws in contrast to states laws such as Claifornia allows weed but the fed doesn't.

what the hell does this have to do with interstate commerce Danny? Interstate commerce is under the jurisdiction of the fed and regardless of what each individual state decides, once they breach their state line, the fed rules come in to play regrdless of the fact that both states involved in the drug smuggling allow it.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Daniel...learn English.

Stop smoking dope.

It gives you weak wienie.

Remember sex?

Forget it.

---

You are always welcome to have any of your local girl-friends pump me for size improvement and potency. Maybe I can impress you with those results, if not by my logic and reason.

In any event, you have not responded to the argument, why is that? I was hoping for greater clarification on the issue from someone with your level of expertise.

Quote:

---

Quoting seniorjudge

---

Danny...get arrested on a federal charge. Get a good constitutional lawyer. And then...have at it.

---

I am only arguing legal theory and politics. However, I was hoping for greater clarification on why the federal judicature has chosen that path, when our Republican administrators have declared that we are exporting forms of democracy. One would think that states' rights are a form of democracy that can be better manufactured for export.

Yeah, seniorjudge is very popular with the ladies. It's his "dismissal for pleasure" policy. Who knows how many women he's been able to get just for signing a motion.

SeniorJudge: So office Jim Bob tells me you're into prostitution?

Defendant: My attorney advised me not to incriminate myself.

SeniorJudge: *leans over the bench and whispers* Give me a demonstration and you wont need an attorney. *winks*

HAHA!!! :p

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

I recommended this course of action to Danny. He didn't bite.

Ahh, the tale of an anarchist hoping for someone else to actually take action.

There is only one flaw in your suggestion, your honor. No lawyer would take the case and no judge would allow the argument to be presented.

Other than that, I say go for it.

---

I still think the Dred Scott case is relevant, since it deals with controversial forms of private property and indefeasible or inalienable rights declared as the supreme law of the state in most state constitutions.

Quote:

---

Quoting cyjeff

---

You say this as though the 21st admendment repealed all prohibition.

It did not. It did not even go so far as to outlaw prohibition of alcohol. It merely said that the federal government wouldn't do it.

There are still "dry" counties all over the country. Lynchburg, Kentucky jumps to mind.

Georgians cannot buy liquor on Sunday.

No one is allowed to buy certain products at all. The second admendment does not give the common citizen the ability to own a 50mm Howitzer or a nuke. A common citizen may not own a lion or a tiger.

I may not construct a particle accelerator on my property.

Prohibited behavior is clearly constitutional. It is in force daily.

You are now debating which is the supreme law of the land. The constitution states, specifically, that states may create those laws that are not in conflict with the constitution.

Sorry. You lose.

---

You are still comparing apples and oranges in our federal form of government. No one is claiming states cannot pass legislation that affects its citizenry, especially if it affects the domestic tranquility of the state. However, there is no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce by the general government of the Union. Your argument would have more a basis for relevance, if there were still a prohibition amendment enumerating that power of that government.

Why was it felt that they need the legal and political precedent of a prohibition amendment, if the general government of the Union had the power you claim concerning powerful, mood altering drugs?

Regulating military materiel is a specifically enumerated power in A1S8.

I am not sure how you have any basis for your conclusion when there is no Constitutional enumeration of that power, since its repeal as a power of the general government of the Union? States' rights have more of a Constitutional basis under the Tenth Amendment concerning powers of the general government that are not specifically enumerated.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

Oh, Oh, I got it. He wants to know how the fed can present laws in contrast to states laws such as Claifornia allows weed but the fed doesn't.

what the hell does this have to do with interstate commerce Danny? Interstate commerce is under the jurisdiction of the fed and regardless of what each individual state decides, once they breach their state line, the fed rules come in to play regrdless of the fact that both states involved in the drug smuggling allow it.

---

No one is arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. One point of consideration is that the burden of proof is on the federal government to establish that any specific case before it has actually committed that transgression.

Quote:

---

Quoting danielpalos

---

No one is arguing that the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate interstate commerce. One point of consideration is that the burden of proof is on the federal government to establish that any specific case before it has actually committed that transgression.

---

oooooh. it's my turn.

You aren't?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

that one isn't a double post onmy part. They were two different posts by dann.

Quote:

---

Actually, I was referring to the fact the general government of the Union has no specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs, without a Prohibition amendment

---

Quote:

---

Concerning treaties, Article 6 states: 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I have to quibble on the point of Regulating commerce not being the equivalent to Prohibiting commerce, since we already have the legal and political precedent of the enactment and repeal of a specifically enumerated Prohibition amendment. In other words, according to the legal precedent established by our own Constitution, Prohibition is not a form of Regulation.

Where, in our Constitution is there any specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce? Why does the legal precedent of the repeal of the prohibition amendment not have standing as a repeal of a power to prohibit forms of interstate commerce?

I have read that any unconstitutional is null and void, and need not be followed as a matter of states' rights.

Your view still does not account for federal interference in intrastate commerce concerning drugs if not on federal property.

---

Quote:

---

It could be regulated in the same manner as any other legal drug. There is no such regulation currently because prohibition is not the same as regulation

---

Quote:

---

Our federal government does not have any specifically enumerated power to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of drugs.

---

Quote:

---

Concerning treaties, Article 6 states: 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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I am referring to the legal precedent being established concerning states' rights. The US is establishing that precedent concerning the right of the State of the United States to nullify the duly constituted interstate authority of the UN.

---

I quit looking at post #70 and the above is from you , Dan.

Now you may call me blind but it surely looks, to me, like you are arguing that point.

I think you may have missed the point of the argument. A1S8 clearly gives the general government of the Union the power to:

Quote:

---

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

---

The point is that there is no Delegated power to the general government of the Union to Prohibit interstate commerce, even if in the form of powerful, mood altering drugs since the repeal of that delegated power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

STOP IT!!! BOTH OF YOU NEED TO GROW UP!!! QUIT ARUGING LIKE CHILDREN!!!

There thats better.