I believe the rules of construction (he talks about) come from Rutherforths. Raoul Berger has an excellent section in the book Government by Judiciary about interpretive "law". I highly recommend it if you are interested
I am surprised to see so many people upset with someone simply pointing out the facts. If there was someone to do this in 2000 when the Republican party decided to ignore all the promises they made (refrain from nation building, privatize social security, shrink govt. etc...) maybe Obama would not have been elected, the govt. would not have grown faster than at any period prior, and GWB would have lost in the primary in 2004, to allow a small govt. conservative who deserves the name to hold office. The Constitution sets out powers to be exercised by Congress. One of those powers is not to improve, or establish airports/infrastructure. One of those powers is to declare war before authorizing the President to engage in destructive warfare. The votes are listed in the article, and the reader is rightly left to judge for himself if these dubious votes really represent true fidelity to the Constitution.
Why is it when the wool is pulled away from some peoples eyes they cover them up again with their hands?
Thanks for your attention, and action. I understand this sort of action takes courage. I can't really tell how likely it is that we will succeed taking actions to push the legislature forward. I do however, know that if we do not take action nothing will change. In the long run, I believe that even if the Supremes rule Obamacare "unconstitutional" it is still only a temporary reprieve, as in the future, some supreme court will have a majority, and will rule it "constitutional".
Thanks Stephen, I've been trying to get people to donate for just such an action (statewide) but have been unsuccessful. I brought it up at 912, and they seem to think people don't read anymore. I'm gonna try at AFP, and see what they say. I guess the best I could do would be to send one to my legislators as well (BTW they are Shawn Lindsey, and Bruce Starr).
I think it is important to point out to people that we are not precluding a legal version of these programs (Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security)being passed, as they are nullified. They are for the most part legal when enacted at the state level (assuming the state Constitution does not bar them).
You said "the north essentially rewrote the Constitution by adding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. One could believed that nullification will serve as a check on the national government,but that issue has been settled and those who believe otherwise are deluding themselves" You overlook the fact that the 10th amendment is still in force, it has not been repealed, and take precedence over the Supremacy, Commerce, Necessary and proper, and "general Welfare" clauses by construction. The Federal government has not been granted any vast new powers by these (fraudulently passed) amendments, they certainly have not been made master over their principles. The Supreme Court is still just a branch of the Federal Government, and does not have any jurisdiction over the Constitution at all (it is a creature of it). State Nullification never has been, and never will be supported by the Supreme Court, nor does it need to be. If a state opts out of an unconstitutional Federal law, they are simply opting out for a small portion of the country (the rest of the sheep are free to be herded). This is the peacefull way of allowing withdrawing of consent to govern, without a huge nasty war.
You said "The 13 American colonies rebelled against England, won the war and became an independent country.". You are incorrect, they formed 13 independant nations, according to the treaty of Paris, all 13 were spelled out individually as victorS.
I agree, but once something is an amendment, it is for all intents, and purposes part of the constitution, and in common law it is actually superior to the original document. A sad quandary that we put ourselves in when we ratified that one...
While in actuality you are correct (a state could do this), normally when I refer to a "nullification" I am speaking specifically of a state passing laws to cancel a law which is unconstitutional, canceling a law which is fully constitutional would be something else not "nullification". It would also be a violation of the Supremacy clause which would (in principle) compel the executive branch into "enforcing" the Constitution. weather that be thru military action, or something else is anyone's guess.
It is very dificult to contend that the Constitution itself is "unconstitutional", there are some conspiracy theorys which are pretty convincing (about the ratification of it), but after all these years challenging on proceedural grounds seems kind of weak. The one thing that can be done (IMO) is to nullify the unconstitutional items they spend their tax revenue on, somewhere around 60-80 percent of what they do is unconstitutional. Some sort of "Federal Tax Escrow Acct." could be set up to collect the tax money intended for the federal govt., and give the feds the revenue for only the Constitutional projects. The rest could be used for state projects, or returned to the taxpayers.