Nullification

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    Can the State of Indiana pass an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that eliminate the requirements of Obama-care, Eliminate the requirements for Min Wage, Let me buy Health Insurance from whomever I want, Get out of the Education Business, Create it's own Currency?

    The answer to all the above is yes, except currency. The Federal constitution allows the states to pay their debts in gold or silver (If you read it, the states are actually required to pay their debts in Gold and Silver.) If that is the case, a note that is directly transferable to gold or silver would work fine, (which is the way banks created their own money before the Civil War and before the Fed and it's predecessor which funded the Civil War.)

    We have shifted so far to the 'left', we no longer have a fair gauge of what is 'right'. We count ourselves as free, but we have nothing to use as an example of what freedom is. Example:

    • our military is used as a World Wide Police Force. WE have to fund the expeditions to 'save' every other country from themselves.
    • We encourage idiots that are too lazy to find a job or mow a lawn or wash a car to steal my money from me, while punishing me for being successful or working hard. (The average Unemployment cost to an employer is 2.5% of the Gross. If you saved your own unemployment, would you be better off or worse off? You could put that into an account and save your own unemployment, invest how you want. I bet you could get a better return on the money then the government taking it and 'holding it for you' in case you lose your job.)
      • Why should i work hard? Why should I put more effort into my business so the money I pay in taxes can go to someone else that had overextended themselves and can't pay their house payment?
      • Why should I go to work? My money goes to someone else that is having a hard time in life. so maybe I should start having hard times
    The end of this rant is a question. Are we willing to nullify the laws that are unconstitutional? Does the Hoosier State have the intestinal fortitude to do what Montana is doing? Do we have the strength as a State Population to force our governor to be a Hoosier version of Jan Brewer? All of us talk a big game on these forums. We all do great behind a monitor with a keyboard. When will be be the Political force we can be?

    Thoughts?


    References:
    Great reference for economy:
    Seven Deadly Cracks and The False Recovery | The Real Truth About Money

    Nullify and what other states are doing:
    Arizona Senate Passes Bill To Let State Nullify Federal Laws | TPMMuckraker

    Idaho and Nullify:
    Idaho Legislature Explores Nullifying ObamaCare - by Marc Kilmer

    Other Idaho and Nullify info from USA Today (big surprise i found it in there... honestly... USA today?)
    U.S. health care law not immune to nullification - USATODAY.com
     

    Necessary Evil

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 2, 2011
    14
    1
    What you speak of is fine in theory, but in the real world it does not work. In theory I'm with you, but applying that is not practical. I pay $700 a month in health insurance for me and my family, and we're in good health. With what you refer to as Obama Care, I would be paying about $525, not because the government is running it, but because they negotiated a better rate for me with the insurance company. If we get the lawyers and drug reps out of medicine we can actually save some money. As for the bank, Andrew Jackson tried it and it is not a recipe for success, and remember that before the civil war, it was The United States ARE, and now it's The United States IS, we became a country rather than a loose union, and our strength is in our unity. States rights are great in theory, but you want to be counted as one country. As for policing the world, I couldn't agree more, although I don't think you see the reason for this in the same light I do. We do it to protect the interest of large corporations. Look up some history on Ecuador from the late 60's to the late 80's, or Venezuela. We don't send troops to Congo even though the rate of the suffering is much higher, and that's because they have no natural recources that our large companies can make money off of, but we are all over Iraq. We are more to the left than anyone imagined in 1812, but it is still the best place to live, and if we learn to be just a touch less selfish, it would be even better.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    Can the State of Indiana pass an amendment to the Indiana Constitution that eliminate the requirements of Obama-care, Eliminate the requirements for Min Wage, Let me buy Health Insurance from whomever I want, Get out of the Education Business, Create it's own Currency?

    No, of course not.

    Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Does the Hoosier State have the intestinal fortitude to do what Montana is doing?

    What? What do you think Montana is doing???

    Is this some Ron Paul or L. Neil Smith nonsense?:dunno:
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    Nullification did not go well with the Tariff of 1828 uprising in South Carolina, and then that little thing of the Civil War settled the issue once again.
     

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    What you speak of is fine in theory, but in the real world it does not work. In theory I'm with you, but applying that is not practical. I pay $700 a month in health insurance for me and my family, and we're in good health. With what you refer to as Obama Care, I would be paying about $525, not because the government is running it, but because they negotiated a better rate for me with the insurance company.

    YOU NEED TO VERIFY THE TALKING HEADS YOU ARE PUKING UP HERE!!!!!


    the difference between the 700 and the 525 are the freeking fines that I will pay!!!! I will pay the Fines (AKA ANDOTHER FREEKING TAX!!!!!) so you can have your obama care!!!! Think about that.

    Those that create jobs by risking there homes, their cars, there kids futures, are now going to pay for you to have a lower health care....

    Here is a solution ... LET EVERY STATE DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES IF THEY WANT UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!!!


    • Let me buy my insurance from another state.
    • Instead of paying 80% of the bill if its Medicaid, and forcing the insurance company's to pick up the difference, pay all or nothing.
    • DON'T BUILD HOSPITALS ON THE GOVERNMENT DIME.... MY DIME!!!!
    • Stop forcing me to pay for health care in some other state!!! I shouldn't be paying for someone's Medicaid in California or New York or wherever!!!!
    • Allow Nurse's to see and treat patient's. Not just LPN's but RN's. RN's are the front lines anyway.
    • Make it harder to sue frivolously. See The TRUE Stella Awards -- Exposing Lawsuit Abuse with Real Cases for more details and examples.
      • Make it Loser Pay's. IE I sue Joe for 1 Mill, and lose... i pay Joe 1 Mil.

    Don't be a Useful Idiot (Stalin's words for people that just take the word of those in power over them)

    Another thing to think about.... HOW THE HELL DID WE EVER SURVIVE BEFORE HEALTH CARE?

    In case you want to pull the 'but you don't know how hard it is' card.... I have 6 childeren, one child with type 1 Diabetes, 1 child has a hole in his heart and has half of one lung removed, and one child has severe leg deformity's and has just gotten to walk at the age of 5. My health care is 3497 per month. I choose to pay out of pocket for my family's health care. I work hard to take care of my family and because of how hard I work, I deserve what I have. It's not my job to provide YOU with the health care.

    M
     

    DustinG

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 8, 2008
    304
    16
    The Supremacy Clause only makes constitutional laws as the supreme law of the land. What the majority of the federal laws that are now passed is under the commerce clause. The commerce clause was only meant to prevent one state from taxing the goods that passed through it; it was not a means for the federal government to pass laws such as ObamaCare.
     

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    "States and people are not subservient to the federal government. After the Constitutional Convention members (the framers) completed their efforts on Sept. 17th, 1787 there was a long ratification process. The proposed Constitution was sent to the states and people debated across the United States over whether they would accept this as supreme when laws were made in Pursuance thereof. If laws are not made based on the enumerated guidance of our Constitution nullification by the states and people is not only a trump card, it is a sworn duty secured clearly within the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights and within every Oath of Office including the office of citizen."


    Ref:


    Paragraph excerp from State Nullification vs Federal Supremacy – Tenth Amendment Center


    treatment of the early republic recalls parts of American history that have vanished into the memory hole, including the crucially important Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and Thomas Jefferson’s belief that only state nullification of unconstitutional federal legislation, rather than "checks and balances" among the branches of the federal government itself, had a chance of keeping the federal government in check.


    Ref:

    [ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260476/lewrockwell/102-0084475-7689718"]The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History[/ame]
    , by Thomas E. Woods Jr.

    The first Kentucky Resolution, passed by the state legislature on November 16, 1798, stated that when the federal government exercised power not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution, each state could judge the validity of that action for itself. The Virginia Resolution of December 24, 1798, claimed that the states "have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil." Several northern states objected that the judiciary, not the states, should be the arbiter of constitutionality. The Kentucky legislature passed a second Resolution on November 22, 1799, arguing that a single state had the power to nullify a federal action it deemed unconstitutional.


    Unknown to contemporaries, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were drafted, respectively, by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The doctrines they enunciated were later cited by southern slaveholders in support of their right to secede from the Union. Yet it would be a mistake to conclude that either Jefferson or Madison truly wanted to dismantle the Union. The Resolutions are best understood in the context of the fierce political battles between Federalists and Jeffersonians in the 1790s and the prevailing theory of divided sovereignty. When John C. Calhoun evoked the Resolutions in the 1820s to support his own doctrine of nullification, he was solidly opposed by James Madison.


    Looks like this battle won't be decided on these forums though. Looks like Idaho and Arizona are gonna take this to the next level.

    Idaho House First to Nullify ObamaCare

    While I do think you are correct in the way things are being enterprited today, and you are correct in the enforcement, I believe the steps that will be most effective are the statement "No Idaho citizen shall enforce." That will force federal employees to do the collections???? I dunno... i just like the idea of States Rights.

    M


    No, of course not.

    Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    What? What do you think Montana is doing???

    Is this some Ron Paul or L. Neil Smith nonsense?:dunno:
     

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    Jungbauer 2010: Montana Declares State Rights Under the 10th Amendment

    In a nut shell, they are the most aggressive state when it comes to state sovereignty.

    Beck Video back in 09 covering this:

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHwPHvkrGrg]YouTube - Napolitano on Beck: Montana 2nd Amendment and States Rights Part 2 (5-7-09)[/ame]

    This was published eight day's ago:
    (Ref. Montana Lawmakers and Others Flex Their States' Rights Muscles)

    Recently, Schweitzer squared off twice with the Department of the Interior. First he blocked plans for federal and state authorities to slaughter 500 wild bison to contain possible cases of the disease brucellosis and told the agency to find a better solution. He followed that with a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar informing him of Montana's plans to disobey federal laws protecting endangered wolves because the animals were hunting and harassing livestock and elk herds. In both cases, the governor put his state's interests above what he saw as impractical federal laws.

    Hope this helps

    What? What do you think Montana is doing???
     

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    I wish i could say that you were wrong... but i can't. In the two issues listed below Federal Supremacy was declared correct.

    Wasn't the Civil War declared Unconstitutional? I know i read that somewhere, but i can't find it. Anyone know or heard that?

    maybe I'm thinking of Posse Comitatus. Dont' know.

    Anyway.....

    Violent uprising is the wrong path. Not saying that. Saying when the Federal Government writes a law that violates the constitution, that law is null and void and is not enforceable.


    Nullification did not go well with the Tariff of 1828 uprising in South Carolina, and then that little thing of the Civil War settled the issue once again.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 7, 2011
    2,380
    38
    Jeffersonville

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,968
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    In a nut shell, they are the most aggressive state when it comes to state sovereignty

    O.K., so you are discussing the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which was rejected by the district court last year? Yeah, they were so aggressive that the act did not include machine guns.:rolleyes: Wow, aggressive.

    Yeah, western states are all "aggressive" until they want something.:rolleyes: "Uncle Sugar, give us water, give us free grazing, give us our right to your wallet, we've never heard of the 10th Amendment, give us stuff."

    The FFA is a political protest. Not saying I disagree, it's just that's it is nothing but empty words.

    If Montana and the other Western states are so aggressive *snicker* in state sovereignty let them reject the federal highway money and have their representatives stop voting to take from the federal trough.
     

    dross

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 27, 2009
    8,699
    48
    Monument, CO
    O.K., so you are discussing the Montana Firearms Freedom Act which was rejected by the district court last year? Yeah, they were so aggressive that the act did not include machine guns.:rolleyes: Wow, aggressive.

    Yeah, western states are all "aggressive" until they want something.:rolleyes: "Uncle Sugar, give us water, give us free grazing, give us our right to your wallet, we've never heard of the 10th Amendment, give us stuff."

    The FFA is a political protest. Not saying I disagree, it's just that's it is nothing but empty words.

    If Montana and the other Western states are so aggressive *snicker* in state sovereignty let them reject the federal highway money and have their representatives stop voting to take from the federal trough.

    Whoaaa there, English Bob. Yer talkin' with a forked tongue about a part of the country you obviously don't know nothin' about.

    First, we get more federal highway money so you folks who want to live together all in a bunch on the edges of the country, milling around together like a herd a' the cows we raise out here can have goods delivered across these vast expanses of land. We have too small a population per highway mile to pay for the roads the entire nation uses to ply their goods across the country.

    As to grazing rights, if the Federal government hadn't appropriated vast tracts of lands contained within the borders of our states we wouldn't have to go cowboy hat in hand and beg to graze them on the grass growing within our state borders.

    So, don't come out here spewin' them buffalo chips with your effete accented English, a-orderin' coffee. You'll think what happened to you down in Broadripple was fun and games when we put our size 12 pointy boots upside yer ribs. We'll make a man outta ya', or kill you tryin'.

    You need to pay attention to the part that starts at about 5:16:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWtEQzyMkQk"]YouTube - Unforgiven: English Bob And Little Bill[/ame]
     

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    Yeah, western states are all "aggressive" until they want something.:rolleyes: "Uncle Sugar, give us water, give us free grazing, give us our right to your wallet, we've never heard of the 10th Amendment, give us stuff."

    The FFA is a political protest. Not saying I disagree, it's just that's it is nothing but empty words.

    If Montana and the other Western states are so aggressive *snicker* in state sovereignty let them reject the federal highway money and have their representatives stop voting to take from the federal trough.

    Federal Trough? I wonder how one gets away from the federal trough? Besides that, at least they are doing something. besides that... how do you not ask to use federal land when the state you live in is mostly owned by the FED? IE ...



    1. Nevada 84.5%
    2. Alaska 69.1%
    3. Utah 57.4%
    4. Oregon 53.1%
    5. Idaho 50.2%
    6. Arizona 48.1%
    7. California 45.3%
    8. Wyoming 42.3%
    9. New Mexico 41.8%
    10. Colorado 36.6%
    OK ... Montana ... 29.9% ...


    And Indiana? ... 2%

    (^^^^^^More examples of Fed in State Business^^^^^^^^)

    I don't think anyone is asking for more fed money. As a matter of fact... I think what is being said here is Montana, Arizona, and the rest are good examples of state at least TRYING to do something.

    I don't think that was your point though with this post .... What were you trying to say?
     
    Last edited:

    ocsdor

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 24, 2009
    1,814
    38
    Lafayette, IN
    Just putting this out there:

    US Constitution

    10th Amendment
    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.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 7, 2011
    2,380
    38
    Jeffersonville
    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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Federal law trumps state law if they conflict.

    James Madison denounced the notion that a single state has the ability to nullify. The power of "the states" and "a state" are not the same thing.

    James Madison: "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined."
     
    Last edited:

    MattYagPD01

    Plinker
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 6, 2010
    124
    16
    FW
    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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Federal law trumps state law if they conflict.

    James Madison denounced the notion that a single state has the ability to nullify. The power of "the states" and "a state" are not the same thing.

    James Madison: "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined."

    James Madison made this statement in response to the South and the intentions they were making. IF you go back to Madison and Jefferson writings in Kentucky and Virginia, you would see the original intent in a lawful society, not using Nullification as the reason for starting a war. I believe i already adressed this position earlier in the post.

    M
     
    Top Bottom