Yes it is. If the federal government violates the constitution, it is the states' responsibility to defend it. And no, they are not stupid. And how is Alabama "dumb as a brick"? Their unemployment rate is lower than the national average, and their economy is booming. Seems like you're the stupid one. At least the Second Amendment will survive in Alabama

They have one of the worst education systems in the country.

If the federal government violates the constitution it is the duty of the Supreme Court to strike down the offending action. The federal government interprets the constitution not the states. So pull more stuff out of you ass if you will but precedent do not support your flag waving defense of stupidity. And if Alabama violates a federal law regarding the second or any other amendment their unconstitutional defiance will not last. It won't even take a force bill that Jackson used. All it will take is the federal government withholding all money from the hilariously mistaken Jim bobs

Love it when hypocrites on this board make my case about many liberals

Well @HumanWave do you think Alabama would honestly sit back and take that. No I think that if the government tries that approach yer gonna end up with enother Confederate States of America. I can guarantee you that Texas is not going to bow to those gun laws and other states probably wouldn't as well. If the government is going to withold money from them why should they stay a part of the Union?

In case you are thinking about pulling more stuff out of your ass know that in 1819 (yes I meant 1819) mccollough v Maryland established that federal laws have superiority over state laws. Next, during the nullification crisis, Jackson established that force could be used to enforce that principle.

@Stressedlines haha half the reason I play this game is to hear the liberal dumbasses shout. Not all the liberals are dumbasses but the vast majority are.

@HumanWave Exactly what I am saying. They will have to force it on Alabama and Texas and I can guarantee that they won't go quietly. I don't give a damn what happened almost 200 years ago. They weren't discussing taking away a constitutional right.

What point am I making about liberals?

Alabama would not sit back and take that just like Louisiana did not sit back and take it when they violated the national drinking laws.

I would like to amend the title of this thread to "the Alabama legislature and conservative idiots on this board are fucking stupid"

I should add for the ill informed that Louisiana did "take it" and Alabama would "take it"

Haha you see everyone. When liberals such as @HumanWave realise they have been outsmarted they resort to insults. haha I outsmarted HumanWave and i'm not even out of hs yet. and he is just confirming what I have said. Alabama will fight if the government stops giving them money as will Texas and other States. Even Obama is not Arrogant enough to think he can supress a civil war while maintaining peace abroad

excuse me. I didn't see @humanwaves last post. and no they would not take it. It is 2 completely different issues

Does any one want to make an actual argument why states do have the power to nullify acts of congress or are we going to move forward with the current emotional based "gun control is bad" argument that has absolutely no weight on the legality of nullification

I will be back in about 15-30 minutes @HumanWave. Don't go anywhere I like this debate

Out smarter? I have yet to see an argument!

Your blatant shot at rural southerners by calling them 'jim bobs'

Humanwave the federal money os all that keeps the peace right now sure pull it see how well that goes

Oh yes fear of Alabama overcomes me... I believe anyone who tries to enact nullification deserves the title Jim bobs stop being so politically correct whitey

HumanWave is right. States have no right to nullify federal laws. That there are people ill-informed enough to debate this is disturbing.

Tell me about it. But that is the majority of conservatives nowadays.

Well, HumanWave, while you're right that federal laws trump state laws, you're wrong that the Supreme Court is the *only* interpreter of the Constitution. It's certainly evolved that way, and it was always foreseen as being an important one, but the founders foresaw a system in which the Constitution would be enforced by a lot of different entities.

Moreover, you're mixing two modes of argument. It doesn't really make sense to say that Alabama doesn't have the "right" to nullify federal laws because force was exercised against them and they lost. The one is a legal question; the other is one about military realities. I tend to agree with you on the legal question (that they can't nullify federal laws), but it's got nothing to do with whether they lost the civil war or backed down (by proxy) from Jackson. If you want to get into the calculation of bare political realities (as opposed to legal doctrines) -- and you apparently do -- then you have to ask if the feds would really be willing to call out the military against a whole state in this day and age. I don't think the answer to that is clear either way.

Se the problem with conservatives like these (not all conservatives) is that they have equated conservative political positions with the constitution. So, even though nullification has been established as completely unconstitutional, the ill informed conservative culture warriors believe it is acceptable.

Incidentally, your initial post is false. You said, "Alabama's legislature is ****ing stupid. They just passed a preemptive nullification of federal gun laws."

In fact, only their senate passed it -- it now moves to their house. Do I need to explain bicameralism to you? *sigh* Liberals.

My point on Jackson was that the executive branch under Jackson set a precedent that attempting to nullify or flaunt federal laws could be dealt with force. This precedent, though not legal, still has force itself and has been used in several cases, such as integrating southern schools. I never claimed force was the reason that nulligication is unconstitutional

Honestly, this nullification is blustering to make a point and that is that theybelieve the 2nd Amendment to be sacrosanct. What the nullification in advance gives them is a guarantee the issue will be brought before SCOTUS where they feel they will win. Are they right about winning? Depends on how the law gets written. We all know that the interstate commerce clause was used to rewrite the law about gun free zones after SCOTUS smacked it down the first time, and something similar would automatically be added, I'm sure, into any ban put in place by federal gun laws. The fact that there are few, if any, boutique gun manufacturers (small manufacturers who don't cross state lines with their sales) pretty much guarantees every gun to be under federal jurisdiction.

And I don't ever recall saying that the Supreme Court has always decided the constitutionality of actions of the fed government.

And by the way, would the Feds be willing to call out the military against the state? Maybe maybe not. The have the states by the balls with federal funds now . Do you think the federal government would let a state flaunt the government and the constitution by nullifying a federal law?

"This precedent, though not legal, still has force itself and has been used in several cases, such as integrating southern schools."

Actually, there is no such thing as binding precedent in the case of executive action. If you mean, "They've done it before, several times," then that is true. It does not follow that the executive will see fit to do it again, or that anybody can make him.

As I say, that's just a calculation of cold political realities in a current situation.

For example, Washington and Colorado are currently in open defiance of federal drug law, to the extent of beginning to make provision for licensing the sale of federally prohibited substances.

I think the odds that any President is going to call the militia on them is pretty low.

Talk about crazy stupid leftist states, though, eh?

"And I don't ever recall saying that the Supreme Court has always decided the constitutionality of actions of the fed government."

But you said it was their duty, implying (in the context you said it) it is also their prerogative, to the exclusion of others. I assumed you meant that it was how the system was designed.

If Draugnar is correct about nullification blustering - and I suspect he is - the move by the Alabama *senate* (thank you, Semck) may well be a very canny political maneuver, which means that, contrary to the OP, the Alabama legislature is very smart. Furthermore, this discussion is clear evidence that nullification is in fact *not* a dead concept. Dormant, perhaps; weakened, certainly; but definitely not dead.

Never once did I comment on the law or state rights in this not a single time I just calling you a 'per usual liberal hypocrite' for you ethnic slur (s)

Do as I say, not as i do for all I an allknowingliberal who will look down my nose at you