Semck- my point is, and has Been that the constitution says that federal laws trip state laws and that if a state attempts to nullify federal sovereignty the federal government has the power to enforce the decree. This makes the action effectively futile which until very recently made it a dead concept.

And I think there is plenty of difference. States pass conflicting laws (btw if i am correct these were not laws passed by the legislature they were referenda which are likely more problematic and unfortunately being from an old state I cannot speak intelligently on these issues)

The Alabama potential law would nullify an act of congress and thereby deny Congress's authority.

But I'm glad we can both have our opinions on this

@WRB I see what your saying and I completely agree. If a state tried to nullify ObamaCare I would think they were wrong but they are doing something unconstitutional in response to a law that is unconstitutional.

Hell, California has laws that conflict with Federal law and the Feds don't even try to intervene cause they know they can't win the argument before SCOTUS (marijuana laws where the pot is grown and sold in state, so no interstate commerce authority).

@ WRB

I wouldn't be quick to criticize Alabama when most of the federal gun laws on the books right now are laws that anyone with a rudimentary understanding of law would know is unconstitutional.

When the Supreme Court has become as politicized and unreliable as it has, Alabama is not wrong to give a symbolic middle finger to the federal government and more specifically the Obama administration.

@HumanWave The point I was trying to make was the Congress and government simply doesn't have the power to force this on the states if they really don't believe in it. Yes they have the legal power but they simply dont have the military power or the popularity

HumanWave,

"Semck- my point is, and has Been that the constitution says that federal laws trip state laws and that if a state attempts to nullify federal sovereignty the federal government has the power to enforce the decree. "

Actually, though, both sides would agree with that. And both sides would agree that *unconstitutional* federal laws do NOT trump state laws (or have any force at all). It says, after all, "laws made in pursuance [of the Constitution.]"

None of that is at issue, so it's not true that Alabama is denying Congress's authority.

At issue, rather, is just who gets to decide when a law is unconstitutional. I agree with you that that is a federal prerogative, but there are non-stupid (even if wrong) arguments for other positions.

Name on interesting legal OR historical argument that states that one single state can nullify a federal act. The only state that ever tried that was South Carolina in response to the tariff. The principles of 98 didn't even go that far. The argued for nulligication but only as the result of a coalition of states

I am glad that @Gunfighter has paraphrased my earlier statement better

Sadly, I must off for the evening. Thank you for the lively discussion.

"(marijuana laws where the pot is grown and sold in state, so no interstate commerce authority)."

Actually, the SCOTUS already ruled that this is indeed "interstate commerce" because it drives the price of interstate cannabis down by .0000000000001 cents. I don't recall the name of the case, but it was during the Bush regime. Further proof that a constitution that can be 'interpreted' by a bunch of government lawyers can't be trusted to serve as an effective check on the power of the state, no matter what the high school civics textbooks say.

@HumanWave I am not talking about what happened a long time ago I am talking about now and in this current situation the Federal government cannot force the states to take on an unconstitutional law

Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy Clause because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.

That is not exactly Fed > State. When there is a power specifically enumerated to the Fed govt and a state passes a law in conflict with the Federal position on that enumerated power, Fed > State. AL and other states, like TX and KS, are saying that what is coming out of DC is NOT so enumerated -- as evidenced by the 2nd Amds clear wording "...shall not be infringed."

@ HumanWave

Like I said, it's a symbolic gesture, and a very smart one politically. The constituents of these politicians DO NOT like gun laws, and this gesture will make them happy.

Also, it's not like any sheriff or police chief west of the Mississippi or south of the Mason-Dixon Line is going to enforce any gun law that the federal government passes.

Also, I'm not sure but I think that state supreme courts can find federal laws unconstitutional.

"The principles of 98 didn't even go that far. The argued for nulligication but only as the result of a coalition of states "

That is false, HumanWave. The '98 resolutions said that *because* the states were in a compact (that is, the Constitution), therefore "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

Notice the "each party."

This was written by Jefferson and Madison. I find their argument unconvincing, as do you. But that should get you off to the races in terms of looking for intersting historical/legal arguments. Have a good evening.

"Name on interesting legal OR historical argument that states that one single state can nullify a federal act."

Resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act. What do I win?

@MichiganMan the only thing is they don't have the power to prevail

@Texas: good, I'm glad you were able to see what I was saying. If Congress passes new gun control legislation (which I think is unlikely), then Alabama is free to challenge it through legal means. Nullification is not one of them.

@Gunfighter: like I said before, I'm not going to turn this into a debate on the constitutionality of gun laws, as I don't think that was HumanWave's intention in starting the thread. I also don't think it matters because even if a federal law was unconstitutional, a state still does not have a right to nullify it.

I do think there is a problem with the "symbolic middle finger" in Alabama's action because it seems like something a stubborn child would do, not something befitting a body tasked with improving the lives of its constituents. I think it encourages political rancor and disrespect for the rule of law.

@WRB What I was saying is Alabama won't go through legal means when if they go by military means they will be met with more success

Well this was a good debate but I am leaving now cya later

"I think it encourages political rancor and disrespect for the rule of law."

Good. The "Rule of Law" has been used to justify no end of injustice and tyranny throughout history, and the pendulum has swung so far in the government's legal favor in this country that just about anything that undermines it is a positive thing in my opinion.

@Texas, if that's true, then it's a more damning indictment of Alabama's integrity than the bill itself.

"Also, I'm not sure but I think that state supreme courts can find federal laws unconstitutional."

In theory, even lower state courts can.

Actually, state courts can find that federal laws violate state constitutions, but not the federal Constitution. That is the jurisdiction of federal courts.

@Tolstoy: What I'm making is an objective statement, not a normative statement. Alabama cannot legally nullify an act of Congress. Whether it SHOULD be able to is another issue that I frankly don't wish to discuss right now.

@ WRB

The Alabama State Constitution includes a right to bear arms clause, so an Alabama state court could find a federal gun law unconstitutional.

Tolstoy + 1. Respect for the "rule of law" has been used to justify terrible things in the past.

It's true that states can give their citizens more rights in their state constitutions than they possess under the federal Constitution. The remedy still remains a suit against the law, not nullification.

"Alabama cannot legally nullify an act of Congress."

The older I get and the more government atrocities I see, the less concerned I am about "legality". In a few years when Alabama starts arresting ATF and FBI agents for violating Alabama's nullification of a federal gun law enacted by a presidential diktat ("executive order") that has been certified as 100% constitutional by the panel of career government attorneys we call the Supreme Court, I will pop open an expensive bottle of champagne to celebrate.

And in any event, to the extent that state constitutions conflict with the federal constitution OR federal law, the state constitution must yield.