Legal Theory And Politics: Nullification And States' Rights

[jk]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.

[blueeagle]

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!!!

[danielpalos]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.

[danielpalos]

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.

[jk]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

[danielpalos]

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

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.

[blueeagle]

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

There thats better.