Who said there was a binding precedent? You seem to be reading into my posts things I never said or mean to say. The executive has established its power to enforce federal laws. Where you read about binding precedents beats the hell out of me.

Washington and Colorado passed state laws that conflict with federal laws. Again the federal government can deal with that, if they feel it is necessary, by withholding federal funds.

But still passing a positive law that disagrees with federal laws is a conflict with federal law is not open defiance of federal authority

@HumanWave why can't you get through your head that if the government witholds funds the state has no incentive to stay in the U.S. and therefore will Secede. As I have made clear before should the government try that it will be the death of America.

Can someone link to the text of the bill?

"Who said there was a binding precedent? ... The executive has established its power to enforce federal laws. Where you read about binding precedents beats the hell out of me."

Here:

"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"

Notice your use of the word "precedent," and your application of it to make an argument about the present.

Happy to help.

"Washington and Colorado passed state laws that conflict with federal laws.... But still passing a positive law that disagrees with federal laws is a conflict with federal law is not open defiance of federal authority."

It's not? Even when the fact that it conflicted with federal laws was an extremely frequently-referenced point throughout the campaign pro and con during passage?

Please explain.

"semck83 (226 )
09:04 PM
"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."

Read the next sentence which states that it is the federal prerogative all I was doing was pointing out that the Supreme Court is the institution that makes that decision, and by extension the federal govt. I never said anything about the evolution of that prerogative.

Notice how @HumanWave has no answer for my arguments.

I'm guessing, Texastough, it's because your 'arguments' are as much impotent bluster as this bill and just as tethered to legal reality.

I read what you copied and I quite clearly see the term *could* not *must* when I talk about the precedent which leads me to wonder what you are going on about...

I'm not a lawyer as you seem to be but I never said anything about it being binding instated that the executive established the power to intervene when states flaunt federal rule. What exactly do you think I am saying.

One is a positive law that conflicts with a federal classification. The other is an outright denial of federal authority

Well then disprove me. By all means what do you think would happen if the government withheld funds @WRB

Texas- you have no arguments I'd rather deal with semblance who does although I find them quite nitpicky in nature

well it appears as if I have won my argument so this is now getting kind of boring

I'm not a fortune teller especially of 14 year olds imaginary doomsday scenarios of a second civil war

haha @HumanWave a civil war is nitpicky. I don't know about all the legal shit that goes with this bill but I can see the obvious military consequences. You guys say I am just blustering but you have yet to prove my conclusion wrong

Yes you won the argument by asking me to predict the future and when I couldn't... Victory

haha well I am not 14 I dont change my profile and I am a highly recruited outside linebacker that is going to West Point so I know about military matters.

Let me repost this without auto correct

Texas- you have no arguments I'd rather deal with semcks who does although I find them quite nitpicky in nature

@HumanWave just use your logic if you liberals have any tell me what you think will happen.

HumanWave, sorry if I made my point poorly, or in a way that seemed to be mischaracterizing your position. Here is what I meant: you point that there is a precedent, and you do so in a way that suggests you think it is relevant. There are a couple things you could mean:

a) That the precedent is in some sense binding, or established a principle that will always apply. This is false. I guess we both agree on that.

b) It is not binding. It is just something that happened once in a particular set of circumstances. It might happen again, or it might not. This is true, but it doesn't really support any point, especially. What choices people make, and the political realities that surround them (as in, how people would react to their doing them) change with people and times. Citing what happened in 1818 and observing that it is a precedent (as, surely, it is, like everything that has happened in history) doesn't establish a single thing.

So either way, I fail to see how it establishes anything relevant. If you mean that the executive has *usually not* reacted well, and there are reasons to think they won't again, well, that is another thing. And perhaps you're right, but I don't think it's clear they'd use force.

As for Washington and Oregon: "One is a positive law that conflicts with a federal classification. The other is an outright denial of federal authority."

A distinction without a difference, imo. Both of them are saying, "We're going to do things this way despite what you say, and we dare you to come stop us." There's an argument to be made that the WA/CO one is worse, because it's a law that's actually going to have immediate effect if the federal government doesn't act promptly, so it puts the feds on the spot immediately to stand them down or not. The Alabama thing is some vague declaration with unclear import.

Semck deals with the legal issue I deal with the military issue. I never claimed to know anything about the legality of it

It has happened in the past. The state either goes without the funds or caves

@HumanWave do you really think the government will allow the union to fall apart if a state seceds?

@Texas, you seem to be the only one focused on the federal government's withholding funds from defiant states--which is not the issue here. The issue is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says that federal laws trump state laws. It is a long settled issue.

For me, the problem with this kind of action is that instead of working to better their communities, the Alabama senators voted to pass legislation that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of law would know is unconstitutional.

So, like HumanWave, I'm not really interested in what would happen if the southern states tried to revive the Confederacy.

@HumanWave sry I phrased that wrong. Do you think the government will really allow a state to leave the union?

To put it another way: the mere declaration that Alabama is in the process of maybe trying to make could never lead to a standoff of any kind (military, financial, or even legal). That could only happen once it tried to actually put it into effect by, for example, encouraging or allowing actual activities that contravened federal law -- which is exactly what Washington and Oregon are right now in the process of doing.

@WRB anyone with a basic law understanding would realise that the gun laws are unconstitutional.

I'm wondering if the anti-nullificationists believe that the northern states that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act were morally or legally wrong for doing so. Should northern sheriffs who refused to arrest escaped slaves have been thrown in prison? Should the federal government have cracked down on abolitionist mobs that attacked (and even killed) federal marshals returning fugitive slaves to their "owners"?

@WRB and also do you think that if we did try to revive the confederacy you guys would stand a chance in hell?

Thank you @Tolstoy

@Texas, I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me deliberately or if I'm not making myself clear. Even if Congress passes a law that a state thinks is unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that the can nullify it. The state could sue to get the Supreme Court to review the law, as states did for the Affordable Care Act, and the Court will have the final say.

I'm not going to engage you on whether gun control laws are constitutional (although the Supreme Court has decided this issue as well).