Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
With apologies to the famous song of the same title, the State of Georgia has produced some interesting legislation and proposed legislation these days. The latest in that long list of specious legislation is the proposal pushed by five Georgia State Senators that would set up a commission to review Federal laws. Any laws not approved by that commission would be nullified and would not be upheld in their state. If I understand the proposed legislation correctly, the State of Georgia, if this law is passed, would claim supremacy over Federal law. I realize that in some Tea Party view of the Constitution this makes sense, but not in the real world where the Constitution and court precedent makes it very clear that Federal law supersedes any and all conflicting State laws.
“The Constitution provides that acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land” which is why states do not have the power to ignore federal law. Nevertheless, five Georgia state senators — including Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R) and senate President Pro Tempore Tommie Williams (R) — apparently do not believe that the Constitution applies to them. All five lawmakers introduced a wildly unconstitutional plan to have Georgia and its citizens simply ignore laws that its conservative leadership doesn’t want to follow:
(1) There is created the Joint Commission on Recommendation, which shall be charged with recommending and proposing for a vote by a constitutional majority the nullification in its entirety of a specific federal law or regulation which is deemed to be outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal government in the United States Constitution or at odds with the Georgia Constitution . . .
(4) Upon recommendation for nullification, the General Assembly may vote to nullify following such recommendation. The appropriate documentation reflecting the vote shall be documented in legislative journals of the House and Senate. In the event the General Assembly votes by a constitutional majority to nullify any federal statute, mandate, or executive order on the grounds of constitutionality, neither the state nor its citizens shall recognize or be obligated to live under such statute, mandate, or executive order.” Truthout
Our friends in Georgia are taking the same path as Gov. Rick Perry chose in Texas when he pushed through a bill that would nullify a Federal law concerning light bulbs. Light Bulb It is amazing to me that in the year 2012, we are even having this discussion. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, Article 6, Clause 2, makes it very clear that Federal law is the “law of the land”.
“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.” U.S. Constitution The Supreme Court has upheld and confirmed the supremacy of Federal law over conflicting State legislation. But this idea of States nullifying Federal legislation continues to fester.
I question whether these State attempts to nullify Federal law is actually an attempt to discredit the current administration in the eyes of the supporters of these State officials rather than an effort to stop what they consider to be unjust laws. Are politics involved in these decisions to attempt to nullify Federal law?
Are these Georgia legislators trying to re-fight the Civil War with these claims of States superiority over Federal law? Are these nullification efforts related to the Tenther movement? Even our old friend, Ron Paul has come out as a supporter of this alleged power of States nullification of Federal law. Ron Paul Does it surprise you that a sitting U.S. Congressman would have these views?
Finally, while the attempts by States to nullify Federal laws isn’t new, the calls for nullification seem to have increased since President Obama came into office. Will the nullification movement die out if Obama is not re-elected? Let’s hear what you think!
Additional Sources:
James Madison letter to Edward Everett
Oro Lee,
if you carefully read Madison in 1830 he was talking about excise taxes, and other agreed powers which some tried to nullify. he was not distancing himself from his expressed opinion on the constitutionality of new federal powers, and the right of the people, the states who entered into the compact to question this matter of constitutionality, even if all 3 branchs concurred in support of these powers.
Do you agree?
OS
Further your post,
many have not forgotten old ills, how shall we count them?
Serbs vs Turks, Kurds vs all neighbors, thais vs neighboring lands. vietnames vs chinese, japan vs korea vs china vs usa, vs england, etc.
Am sure you can add many to the list.
Am sure you get the point. deep ills are felt very long.
and as a wise woman said recently over a cup of coffee; “things that need to be repeatedly said, will be until the need goes away.
I wish i had said that. think about it. you’re a wise man.
Otterey Scribe,
Is that the same sort of vacations we see in Afganistan, etc.???
Joking about burnt earth and human slaughter is not funny to me.
Showing your bully side are you, or do you think our position vv the Feds don”t need strengthening.
Some of us hoped that since the big O ignored our liberal pleas, then maybe the Paulistic vote-stealing would move him.
But he seems to be the real Stonewall, albeit on the Federal side.
Bron
I’m with you, but being an uppity type it only natural I do.
However thanks for all the lessons.
Like provinces versus states. Guess that means the provincial governor is appointed by the central government, and most all laws—-all in the name of the sovereign..
So what so the residents of the provinces do? Kiss ass standing up—-most awkward position
waterboarder in chief?
Yes sir…
AY,
Cheney is scary no matter the title!
Oro lee,
James Madison writing to Edward Everett in 1830 —
Older by 30 years, and wiser. Time passes by all wisdom, even that of the koran and bible and now constitution and FFs.
Wpe betide us, how do we protect our inalienable natural rights now?
Bron,
having read your post I swing like a wind direction indicator.
““3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:””
Bears reading many, many times. this is what is unclearly expressed as to the powers, not enumerated, which are reserved to the people.
I feel personally strengthened. I can just see me now telling off and FBI agent who has a gun pointed at me. Whaddaya think will happen.
Raff,
Maybe because he thought he was the cic…. And lived at the navel observatory…..he still has illusions of granduer ….
Damn it must be late…. Maybe some shut eye would do your mind some good…..but then again…..somethings can never change….
Pete,
Cheney as an Admiral is a scary thought!
Gentlemen,
A reality check: there are those who would us go back to requiring an amendment for every new federal power.
now is that anyway to run a large modern country. delegation upwards is the model we have even on a city,county, state basis.
So why not let congress, and with some freedoms as exec orders be also delegated upwards , ie decisons as to laws and their implementation-
It’s enough hell with what we have with the three branches, without having to fight new civil wars at 500,000 dead a piece Wars between families on each side of a border or dispute are especially nasty.
Long live the Stars and Bars——in the museums.
pre-nimitz not non-nimitz
if wyoming gets an aircraft carrier then dick cheney can become an admiral.
i recall the enterprise is scheduled to be mothballed soon. it is the last of the non-nimitz class carriers and they are ready to start on the ford class.
Oro Lee:
It was a liberal document based on the Enlightenment principles of the previous centuries. It is not progressive in any way.
You dont need to modify freedom of speech to deal with the Internet. You dont need to modify the 2nd amendment to deal with automatic weapons vs. single shot Kentucky rifles. You dont need to modify the 4th Amendment because people live in 100 story buildings vs. log cabins.
You apply the Constitution to the current century, the current technology, etc. Freedom is freedom whether in 1787 or 2187, the principles are what applies, the underlying philosophy of individual rights. It is not a document to be used for subjugating the citizens.
Thanks Mike.
Raff,
Great post, but I bet you didn’t realize who it would drag out from under the rocks. Margaret Richards above, gets to the heart of the matter. This is all because President Obama is a black man and as such these racists (Bron excluded) suddenly feel impinged upon after giving W. their submission and adoration. The description of these Georgia legislators is properly traitors. As far as little Ronnie Paul goes, his own racism and bigotry is a proven fact, so it is little wonder that there would be comments citing his drivel. I exclude Bron, because he hasn’t seemed to be a racist in his long history here, he merely has a delusional view of government that has long been consistent in his writings.
Oh, add “original intent” to today’s disingenuous use of nullification, state’s rights, and tentherism as tactics to maintain or regain power over others.
The concept is total BS. In order to fully in appreciate the Constitution of 1788, one must not only note the rejection of the Articles of Confederation, one must also acknowledge sentiments of the1776 Declaration of Independence of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Taken together, the these documents are a radical expression of modern political government. They are extremely progressive documents.
The greatest weakness of the Articles was that it had no direct origin in, or action on, the people themselves; unlike both the Declaration of Independence and the later Constitution, it knew only the States and was known only to them, calling them sovereign (exactly where the nullifiers wish to return the country).
The Articles miserably failed to enshrine the bold vision of our founders: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]”
SELF-EVIDENT? REALLY?? Given the long course of human history, hardly any statement could possibly be less self-evident! It was a fearsome hope on which even the founders were afraid to travel until the Constitutional Convention of 1787. And as magnificent as the original Constitution is, the Bill of Rights is its glory.
Flawed as it was by political compromise, foremost being that peculiar institution, the Constitution was and remains the boldest statement of government of, by, and for the people. It broke all the molds.
Nothing could be a greater anathema to the founders than for the Constitution be presently applied as if today was 1788 or 1791: than for the world’s most progressive document become a crypt for the status quo of the 18th century; than for this county to abandon the radical liberal underpinnings of its government.
The Constitution is progressive. It provides for a progressive form of government.
And yet we remain engaged in our continuing struggle testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
Raff, there were some wonderful suggestions in the comments section of the story. Like this one:
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1068222/45108073#c46