|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:12 PM Original message |
Poll question: "States' Rights": Does a state have the "right" to nullify a federal law ? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Historic NY (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:14 PM Response to Original message |
1. Why have a constitution. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:15 PM Response to Reply #1 |
2. +1 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:17 PM Response to Original message |
3. Funny how those folks will never try to extend that concept to, say, pot. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:22 PM Response to Reply #3 |
6. In all fairness |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:10 AM Response to Reply #6 |
20. I don't think the Libertarian wing and the Nullification side are the same, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:19 PM Response to Original message |
4. The answer to this |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:21 PM Response to Original message |
5. It didn't work when John C. Calhoun tried it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:24 PM Response to Reply #5 |
7. The problem is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Ken Burch (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:29 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. Good point, actually. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:11 AM Response to Reply #7 |
21. No, but the Constitution doesn't interpret itself. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 07:53 PM Response to Reply #21 |
42. Again, that depends |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Warren DeMontague (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 08:22 PM Response to Reply #42 |
43. I believe Jefferson was one guy, with one take. Who lived 200 years ago. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 09:14 PM Response to Reply #43 |
45. Not practical is certainly up for discussion |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Paradoxical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:32 PM Response to Original message |
9. "States rights": A poor excuse for racism, patriarchy and greed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:34 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. agreed nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:44 PM Response to Reply #9 |
14. I have to wonder though |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wounded Bear (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:18 AM Response to Reply #14 |
22. We actually tried this.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sl8 (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 06:43 AM Response to Reply #22 |
26. No, if only 9 states ratified, only 9 states were "in". |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
du_da (239 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:05 PM Response to Reply #22 |
36. Each state had to ratify the Constitution for it to apply to that state |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tuckessee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:00 AM Response to Reply #9 |
19. You forgot Prohibition. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:20 AM Response to Reply #19 |
23. which was repealed at the Federal level |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
tuckessee (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 11:14 AM Response to Reply #23 |
31. Only after a decade of widespread "nullification" at every level. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William769 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 06:35 PM Response to Reply #31 |
41. Prohibition was not a Federal law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
OneTenthofOnePercent (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:34 PM Response to Original message |
11. People have rights... States have powers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:35 PM Response to Original message |
12. Sure. It depends on the law. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
-..__... (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 09:40 PM Response to Original message |
13. Yes, a state does ( have the "right" to nullify a federal law). |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
William769 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 11:18 PM Response to Reply #13 |
15. No a State does not have the right to nullify a Federal law |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
CreekDog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 02:37 AM Response to Reply #13 |
25. civil rights act of 1964? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 11:22 PM Response to Original message |
16. This was settled by a bloody civil war |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rowdyboy (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 11:32 PM Response to Reply #16 |
17. I also thought this was a settled question...Apparently not.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Feb-27-11 11:36 PM Response to Reply #17 |
18. Well yes, that is what history teaches |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Johonny (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 11:23 AM Response to Reply #16 |
32. IDK |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
nadinbrzezinski (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:05 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. Sooner or later that will end up in the USSC |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:07 PM Response to Reply #35 |
37. +1 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jmaxfie1 (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 08:26 PM Response to Reply #16 |
44. Case law, before and after the Civil War (War of Northern Aggression if your a Republican). ;) n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
coalition_unwilling (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:28 AM Response to Original message |
24. Sure a state has the 'right' to nullify a federal law . . . provided that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
markpkessinger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 08:51 AM Response to Original message |
27. I think we had a bit of a tussle about that 150 years ago.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 09:17 AM Response to Original message |
28. States have no rights. Neither does federal govt. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteveG (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 09:17 AM Response to Original message |
29. Article VI section 2 reads as follows |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SteveG (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 09:29 AM Response to Original message |
30. self delete |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Proud Liberal Dem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 11:30 AM Response to Original message |
33. I thought that was one of the whole point |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:00 PM Response to Reply #33 |
34. +1 nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
varkam (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:58 PM Response to Original message |
38. Supremacy Clause. eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
slackmaster (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 12:59 PM Response to Original message |
39. States don't have rights. Only people have rights. States have powers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
steve2470 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Feb-28-11 01:01 PM Response to Reply #39 |
40. of course, using the teabagger meme for reference |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 06th 2024, 10:37 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC