Rasmussen Poll: Nullification more popular than unpopular

[Anarchist420]

Link.

I think nullification is an excellent idea. Historically, the "classical liberal statesman of the Old Republic" Jefferson and second generation American statesman and intellectual John C Calhoun were in favor of it while Jackson and Clay were both opposed to nullification.

Also, it's interesting to note that if you take the undecideds out, then 55% support nullification and 45% oppose.

Your thoughts?

 

[Brainonska511]

The early 1800s called. They want their political issue back.

 

[Agent11]

It isn't quite as old fashioned as you may think. You could draw parallels to the legal wrangling the president has been involved in regarding laws he views as unconstitutional, also sheriffs have stated they would refuse to enforce laws they view as unconstitutional.

It is a valid argument.

 

[thraashman]

It isn't quite as old fashioned as you may think. You could draw parallels to the legal wrangling the president has been involved in regarding laws he views as unconstitutional, also sheriffs have stated they would refuse to enforce laws they view as unconstitutional.

It is a valid argument.

Nullification last I checked is generally viewed as invalid within the United States. Though seeing as the most common use of nullification in this country came when all white juries acquitted white people for crimes against black people. And considering who posted this topic and his love for the racist Ron Paul. I must say I'm not surprised that he thinks it's an excellent idea.

 

[FaaR]

If - as a state - you're going to pick-and-choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and all other states do the same, to what extent then can you even be said to be one nation anymore?

What about international treaties made by the US if state X says, "no we're not going to abide by the nuclear weapon test ban anymore", then what?

 

[nextJin]

the racist Ron Paul.

Good one! Excellent and to the point, I agree with this statement I seen him in white robes burning a cross just yesterday. He also killed minorities in his medical trade on purpose iirc, horrible horrible individual.

@OP

"Jury" Nullification can be a good thing and a bad thing, it can be a good thing when obviously ridiculous laws are trying to be enforced on people and it can be bad when as mentioned above a 1960 mentallity in the deep south lets people like the satanic devil and racist bastard of a man Ron Paul on juries.

Would it happen now? Likely not. I think "Jury" Nullification is a great idea that needs "GASP" certain stipulations like having a bunch of racist Ron Pauls on a jury against a minority woman. That scenario wouldn't play out well, jury selection would have to be diverse.

"State" Nullification is a bit different because the Civil War pretty much ended it. It's in the same category as Succession, you can talk about it all you want. But as soon as you try big daddy government is going to crush you hard.

 

[fskimospy]

Nullification is illegal, end of story.

 

[Greenman]

If - as a state - you're going to pick-and-choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and all other states do the same, to what extent then can you even be said to be one nation anymore?

What about international treaties made by the US if state X says, "no we're not going to abide by the nuclear weapon test ban anymore", then what?

Each state would have to sign on to the treaty. Which might not be a bad idea at all.

 

[Jimzz]

Rasmussen Poll... Hahahaha.

"Rasmussen Reports 24th out of 28 polls in accuracy"
"Rasmussen 20th out of 23 pollsters for accuracy in the 2012 elections"
"Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points"

Rasmussen is a right wing "poll" for people looking for something to back up what they want.

 

[IBMer]

44% agree with the States rights to nullify federal law...

Lets also poll those people with who are their state representatives. 99% wouldn't even have a clue, yet they would give them that power.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nullification is illegal, end of story.

Illegal, yes, but not the end of the story. What is illegal is determined by those with the most power, not by those who happen to be right. They aren't equivalent. That's always been true, but nothing to be proud of.

Much of what happened in the civil rights movements was illegal, end of story, too.

 

[fskimospy]

Illegal, yes, but not the end of the story. What is illegal is determined by those with the most power, not by those who happen to be right. They aren't equivalent. That's always been true, but nothing to be proud of.

Much of what happened in the civil rights movements was illegal, end of story, too.

I probably should have said unconstitutional.

While it's true that laws can change, there's no way I can foresee an elimination of the supremacy clause in the Constitution without the United States no longer being the United States.

So barring a revolution, nullification is illegal, end of story. If there's a revolution, what's legal doesn't really matter anymore.

 

[Atreus21]

Was reading wikipedia about the 10th amendment, which cites the interpretation of the 10th amendment from United States v. Darby:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

That's a remarkable interpretation. It essentially renders it meaningless. The wording to me, if it means anything at all, implies exactly the opposite: all is surrendered which is not explicitly retained.

 

[fskimospy]

Was reading wikipedia about the 10th amendment, which cites the interpretation of the 10th amendment from United States v. Darby:

That's a remarkable interpretation. It essentially renders it meaningless. The wording to me, if it means anything at all, implies exactly the opposite: all is surrendered which is not explicitly retained.

The 10th amendment is pretty much meaningless, yes. In that way it's much like the 9th amendment, which is also meaningless. It doesn't confer any new powers, it's just thought of as a reference on how to read the rest of the Constitution.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I probably should have said unconstitutional.

While it's true that laws can change, there's no way I can foresee an elimination of the supremacy clause in the Constitution without the United States no longer being the United States.

So barring a revolution, nullification is illegal, end of story. If there's a revolution, what's legal doesn't really matter anymore.

I think the concept of nullification is somewhat more complex than the technical term. Nothing you have said is false, and I won't argue that the Supremacy clause is unnecessary. Our government is based on hierarchy, and it simply won't work for individual states to form alliances, tax other states, have wildly varying standards for a great many things, etc.

That does not mean however that might makes right, except for those who wield power. For everyone else "do as you are told" doesn't always sit well. In that case individual states do have some power which is not llegal nullification.

I'll give an example. If you look at I-93 through NH, you'll see a rather odd thing. The interstate stops, being a massive roadway and becomes narrowed, reduced to one lane each way at points. The reason for this is that the US wanted a "standard" for construction, which meant destroying the greatest natural area in the state. Now the Federal government hadn't the authority then to tell NH that it must obey and wreck it's natural treasures, but it did what it usually does and tried to compel NH by threatening to withhold funds, in essence blackmailing them. That's business as usual, but in the state of "live free or die", the NH motto, the citizens got a bit huffy about the whole affair and told Uncle Sam to take his six lane highway and shove it.

That caused some consternation because the Feds didn't want to back down, but they wanted a highway. So the compromise is what we have today, a functional roadway, and one of the most beautiful areas in New England preserved. It's a very satisfactory result.

Now what if the Federal government became so powerful, that it could have acted unopposed? You'd have smashed the area and got a shiny highway. I think that's what bothers many who support nullification. The relative power of one entity has increased, while that of the states and individuals diminished. What if the Federal government said that it had the right by way of the Commerce clause to build to it's specifications, and it's specifications alone? What if that highway was being built today? What would you say about the state refusing to back down? You might cite the Supremacy clause, or Commerce or whatever and claim that by rights, the states haven't any. The result would have been ruination on principle. In today's political environment that's exactly what I think would happen.

That brings us to nullification again, and a reason for increasing support. The best solutions aren't always given by the greatest power, and obedience to the law doesn't make right and people resent it.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the concept of nullification is somewhat more complex than the technical term. Nothing you have said is false, and I won't argue that the Supremacy clause is unnecessary. Our government is based on hierarchy, and it simply won't work for individual states to form alliances, tax other states, have wildly varying standards for a great many things, etc.

That does not mean however that might makes right, except for those who wield power. For everyone else "do as you are told" doesn't always sit well. In that case individual states do have some power which is not llegal nullification.

I'll give an example. If you look at I-93 through NH, you'll see a rather odd thing. The interstate stops, being a massive roadway and becomes narrowed, reduced to one lane each way at points. The reason for this is that the US wanted a "standard" for construction, which meant destroying the greatest natural area in the state. Now the Federal government hadn't the authority then to tell NH that it must obey and wreck it's natural treasures, but it did what it usually does and tried to compel NH by threatening to withhold funds, in essence blackmailing them. That's business as usual, but in the state of "live free or die", the NH motto, the citizens got a bit huffy about the whole affair and told Uncle Sam to take his six lane highway and shove it.

That caused some consternation because the Feds didn't want to back down, but they wanted a highway. So the compromise is what we have today, a functional roadway, and one of the most beautiful areas in New England preserved. It's a very satisfactory result.

Now what if the Federal government became so powerful, that it could have acted unopposed? You'd have smashed the area and got a shiny highway. I think that's what bothers many who support nullification. The relative power of one entity has increased, while that of the states and individuals diminished. What if the Federal government said that it had the right by way of the Commerce clause to build to it's specifications, and it's specifications alone? What if that highway was being built today? What would you say about the state refusing to back down? You might cite the Supremacy clause, or Commerce or whatever and claim that by rights, the states haven't any. The result would have been ruination on principle. In today's political environment that's exactly what I think would happen.

That brings us to nullification again, and a reason for increasing support. The best solutions aren't always given by the greatest power, and obedience to the law doesn't make right and people resent it.

The federal government has the power to regulate the size and construction of the interstate highway system, without question. They could have mandated NH make it to different specifications then, and now. Just because they have the power to do something doesn't mean that that's the best way to do something though, which is why the feds went a cooperative route.

 

[WelshBloke]

Each state would have to sign on to the treaty. Which might not be a bad idea at all.

Good luck getting any international treaties signed like that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The federal government has the power to regulate the size and construction of the interstate highway system, without question. They could have mandated NH make it to different specifications then, and now. Just because they have the power to do something doesn't mean that that's the best way to do something though, which is why the feds went a cooperative route.

No, they could not have. That could only have happened if the interstate system was built, and that was contingent on NH accepting funds. At the time NH was considered to be within its rights to refuse it.

Maybe nullification isn't such a bad thing if the Federal government and it's supporters feel that it rules us to such a degree.

 

[fskimospy]

No, they could not have. That could only have happened if the interstate system was built, and that was contingent on NH accepting funds. At the time NH was considered to be within its rights to refuse it.

Maybe nullification isn't such a bad thing if the Federal government and it's supporters feel that it rules us to such a degree.

Whether nullification is a good thing or a bad thing, it doesn't exist because it's unconstitutional. In areas where the federal government is acting within its powers the states always lose.

As for the highway system, the feds could absolutely have forced NH to build their interstate roads to whatever specification they wanted. The roads are created for the explicit purpose of interstate commerce.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As for the highway system, the feds could absolutely have forced NH to build their interstate roads to whatever specification they wanted. The roads are created for the explicit purpose of interstate commerce.

That was not the opinion at the time. It was considered like seat belt laws. States enacted them because of the threat of withholding federal funding.

Seriously though, the justification of interstate commerce has become the "right" that the federal government could use to regulate absolutely everything and remove all rights from states and individual. The standard is now "if it potentially involves a cent which MIGHT affect another then we control it". That's disturbing to me.

 

[fskimospy]

That was not the opinion at the time. It was considered like seat belt laws. States enacted them because of the threat of withholding federal funding.

Are you claiming that people believed that the federal government regulating the interstate highway system was unconstitutional at the time? Can you provide any evidence for this? Just because the federal government funds things one way doesn't mean it lacks the power to do it a different way.

Seriously though, the justification of interstate commerce has become the "right" that the federal government could use to regulate absolutely everything and remove all rights from states and individual. The standard is now "if it potentially involves a cent which MIGHT affect another then we control it". That's disturbing to me.

The primary explicit purposes of the interstate highway system was to facilitate interstate commerce and provide for the national defense. I have a hard time thinking of an area where federal power is more clear.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you claiming that people believed that the federal government regulating the interstate highway system was unconstitutional at the time? Can you provide any evidence for this? Just because the federal government funds things one way doesn't mean it lacks the power to do it a different way.



The primary explicit purposes of the interstate highway system was to facilitate interstate commerce and provide for the national defense. I have a hard time thinking of an area where federal power is more clear.

Would you show a law where the Federal government can force a state to construct a highway? They can regulate what is built. What is the legal penalty for failure to obey an order to construct? When do they send in troops and arrest the state house? How long a term of imprisonment do they serve? References to laws at the time showing the terms would be helpful.

 

[fskimospy]

Would you show a law where the Federal government can force a state to construct a highway? They can regulate what is built. What is the legal penalty for failure to obey an order to construct? When do they send in troops and arrest the state house? How long a term of imprisonment do they serve? References to laws at the time showing the terms would be helpful.

None of your requests make any sense. That's not how the legislation was written, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the federal government has that power.

There have been no legal penalties written for defying such things because it isn't done. If a state were to continue to refuse lawfully enacted legislation and court orders to comply with it, eventually of course the federal government could intervene and remove whatever officials were acting illegally. If the state resisted with armed force, of course troops would be sent in to arrest those responsible. EDIT: The most likely offense would be contempt of court, therefore fines and imprisonment would be in order. If they attempted to obstruct justice, were complicit in the death of any federal officials attempting to enforce the law, etc, the sky is the limit. Life sentences, the death penalty, etc.

You seem to be getting increasingly agitated and irrational in this thread. I'm frankly baffled as to why you are trying to argue this.

 

[LightPattern]

That was not the opinion at the time. It was considered like seat belt laws. States enacted them because of the threat of withholding federal funding.

Seriously though, the justification of interstate commerce has become the "right" that the federal government could use to regulate absolutely everything and remove all rights from states and individual. The standard is now "if it potentially involves a cent which MIGHT affect another then we control it". That's disturbing to me.

Agreed.

 

[NetWareHead]

I'll give an example. If you look at I-93 through NH, you'll see a rather odd thing. The interstate stops, being a massive roadway and becomes narrowed, reduced to one lane each way at points. The reason for this is that the US wanted a "standard" for construction, which meant destroying the greatest natural area in the state. Now the Federal government hadn't the authority then to tell NH that it must obey and wreck it's natural treasures, but it did what it usually does and tried to compel NH by threatening to withhold funds, in essence blackmailing them. That's business as usual, but in the state of "live free or die", the NH motto, the citizens got a bit huffy about the whole affair and told Uncle Sam to take his six lane highway and shove it.

That caused some consternation because the Feds didn't want to back down, but they wanted a highway. So the compromise is what we have today, a functional roadway, and one of the most beautiful areas in New England preserved. It's a very satisfactory result.

Ahh the section of 93 that passes through Franconia Notch State Park. Here is a pic of I93
going through that park....literally surrounded by mountains: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/I-93_Franconia_Notch.jpg You can see even tighter pictures using streetview on google maps. Yeah no way is a 4 lane highway getting crammed in there without taking down major parts of mountains and destroying lakes.