Thomas Jefferson on the Tenth Amendment


#1

Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration – Tenth Amendment Center


#2

An interesting and informative piece of U.S. history, but a flawed theory:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”—Article VI, clause 2
A state can’t nullify federal law.


#3

A State can’t nullify legitimate federal law, the same Constitution clearly limits the scope of Federal Authority to very specific and enumerated powers.

ALL other matters not specified are matters for the people and the several States to decide for themselves.

Any Federal Government defender who cites this clause in defense of Federal Tyranny while ignoring the preponderance of clear limitations placed on the Federal Government in the very same Constitution is bastardizing the Constitution, not respecting the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;

This is the key element, it clearly limits what follows to those Federal Laws that are Constitutional and meant to pursue Constitutional integrity.


#4

It can nullify an unconstitutional one. State Nullification: What Is It? | Liberty Classroom


#5

I could make some kind of argument to *claim *unconstitutionality for literally any kind law I don’t like, that would *de facto *make the federal government very meaningless very quickly as any state could ignore any law it doesn’t like. You can’t pretend the Supremacy Clause doesn’t exist because you don’t like it, it’s *very *specific that a state *cannot *trump federal government the Supreme Court has upheld this again and again.


#6

The SCOTUS did not invalidate medical marijuana laws but they did still allow people using marijuana to be prosecuted by the federal govt.


#7

Gonzales v. Raich and state law wasn’t being challenged federal law was. The case (attempted) use the 10th amendment but nullification was never brought up, nor was the Supremacy Clause.


#8

Are you suggesting to only thing stopping medical marijuana laws from being struck down is the proper court case?


#9

It’s possible thinks but unlikely. First someone would need a reason to challenge the laws, meaning that either one would have to prove the medical marijuana laws are harmful to a particular person or group; that or the state itself would have to sue claiming their own law is unconstitutional/harmful (repealing is much easier and cheaper so not likely). Also you’d need a reason as to why the existing law is unconstitutional: no state is actually trying to stop federal enforcement of the law they’re simply refusing to enforce the law themselves and a state is perfectly entitled to do that. You’d need to prove the law is actively hindering federal enforcement…which would be very difficult considering the current administration isn’t trying to enforce it. I don’t see any such court case happening. Now if a state passed an act saying something along the lines of “Medical Marijuana is legal and the federal government isn’t allowed to arrest anyone in our state smoking medically prescribed marijuana” than it’s a different story altogether and that law won’t last.


#10

That sounds like defacto nullification


#11

It is if and only if the federal gov’t refuses to enforce the law. If Obama was so inclined he could sic every FBI agent he had to burn every marijuana crop, shutter every clinic, and arrest every doctor giving out a prescription in California if he so chose and the State of California would have no legal recourse. Barring that Congress could use their power of the purse and threaten to sever funding to any state refusing to support federal law. Theory of Nullification would imply that California could declare the law to be null and void within the boundaries of the state thus depriving the President, Congress, the courts or anyone in Washington of the power to arrest, detain, or fine anyone for medical marijuana use in California. Enforcement is actively prevented.


#12

Which is why I said defacto nullification because it would be a huge waste of time and money for the federal govt to do states job for them.


#13

Which in the end means that NULLIFICATION…not “nullification in effect”…is an unconstitutional pipe dream for the far right fringers as it always has been.


#14

The Federal Government was supposed to be pretty “meaningless” in regards to its involvement in the day to day life of American citizens, the “Nanny State” lovers were nowhere to be found amongst our Founding Fathers.

A military sufficient to defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Treaties regarding trade, tariffs and nation to nation affairs.
Assurance that commerce and contracts between the States was binding.
Provision for a Judicial system that applied law blindly to all citizens.
Provision for a Post Office that served all U.S. territories.
Assuring that the “God given Rights” outlined were not deprived to any citizen without Due Process.

For the average American the tax burden to accomplish these goals was minimal and the regulations from Washington were basically non existent unless you were a criminal.

“Meaningless” in other words.

ALL the schooling
ALL the charity
ALL the building requirements
ALL the economic concerns
ALL the economic regulations
ALL the retirement concerns
ALL the medical concerns
Almost all the transportation concerns
Almost all the tax burdens

Were **LOCAL **

Representatives that you could meet, that attended your own Church, that had family and friends who would have to endure the consequences of whatever they implemented, that had children who would have to live with the education they received at the same schools as your kids, who had to live in and amongst the buildings that were constructed; HANDLED EVERYTHING RELEVANT TO DAILY LIFE.

If a War broke out, the Federal Government became relevant.
If a new technology (like telephone/telegraph/railroad) was thought to be a great way to fastrack economic development, the Federal Government became relevant as a means to jump start or “promote the general welfare” by helping get it up much quicker than the market alone would achieve the same goal.

That was about it, that is about the extent that the Americans citizens would have to deal with the Federal sword.

Your claim that “any law can be called unconstitutional” just reveals your lack of respect for the very clear ideas spelled out by our Founders that were intended to avoid the very monstrosity that we have allowed to rise today.

This bastardization is breaking the back of our economy
Putting entrepreneurs in a straightjacket
Creating generational poverty and dependence
Stripping property rights
Stripping 2nd Amendment Rights
Stripping 1st Amendment Rights
Condemning future generations to destitution
And killing the spirit of rugged individualism that made America the greatest beacon of prosperity and liberty in world history.

State law most certainly CAN trump Federal Law, the day we stop cowering before these Socialist’s monsters will be the day we leave something of value for posterity, right now we are on track to expect nothing but spit on our graves for the mess we have made of our Founders blood and sweat.


#15

[quote=“Cam, post:13, topic:38943”]
Which in the end means that NULLIFICATION…not “nullification in effect”…is an unconstitutional pipe dream for the far right fringers as it always has been.
[/quote]Hey, Cam, am I a far right fringer? What kind of fringer am I? Were you a fringer when the social conservatives, states rights, anti-abortion, pro-conservative, one-man-one-woman crew were in command of your party?


#16

No, not a flawed theory. “IN PURSUANCE THEREOF” did you miss that part? If the law doesn’t fit within the authority granted in the Constitution, it’s not a legal law anyway and can be nullified.


#17

Fringer= Outlier…not only to the party but to the general population. IF you believe in the doctrine of nullification…Yup …you fit the bill.
I was never a FRINGER because my views were all within the mainstream of society …if not the republican party as a whole. There’s a difference between a more centrist view of SOME items on the agenda…and a views held at the extreme fringes.
Here…I’ll put it simply… Chris Chritie and Joe Manchin… centrists…not fringers. Code Pink & Nullifiers =Fringers

Now…to be fair…only the real whack jobs get to be fringers in multiple areas. I’m afraid you haven’t earned all those merit badges yet! :smiley:


#18

You are absolutely correct…it can be nullified by the Supreme Court. Glad we’re in agreement.


#19

The federal government only has supremecy in constitutional laws. That is designed to create uniformity. The states are sovereign and can reject encroachments on that sovereignty.