[quote]pushharder wrote:
Read what I wrote. I said and implied that a desire to go a lot of places, even ones that don’t carry a specific desire, will be necessary if you want to win our wager. In other words you will have to have been a whole lotta places that you didn’t even want to visit in particular if you want to have a chance at me buying you that bottle of bourbon.[/quote]
You mean like for work? Ok, thanks for that clarification of the obvious.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But yet YOU have “specialized in the Pacific Northwest” in this thread. The “resting” need be done by you.[/quote]
This is getting silly - no, I haven’t “specialized” in the Pacific Northwest, I referenced the anti-government bozos who consistently take up residence there (and they do), and you began blabbing about how I needed to get out and see the country, meet my countrymen, etc. I said I had, and that’s the end of it.
Some do live in the South, but less and less, and that is in part because Southern states are so much smaller and available land is less plentiful, and there are lots of black people in the South, which they don’t care to be around. And they are as much bozo as the Pacific Northwestern brethren, and any of their brethren located pretty much anywhere.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
State nullification is legitimate as a response to the federal government defrauding people’s rights, and federal veto is a legitimate response to a state defrauding rights. That’s why you can find examples of each in his writings.[/quote]
Incorrect - because if “nullification” exists as a legitimate exercise, and the “federal veto” exists as a legitimate exercise, then states would simply “nulllify” the “federal veto” of their laws, making the “federal veto” a nullity.
Meaning, you can’t have one with the other. Why in the world would you provide a mechanism for a “federal veto” of state law if a state can simply “nullify” the federal decision?
Libertarian (il)logic at its finest. [/quote]
On the other hand, the Supreme Court will most certainly, and rightfully, strike down a state law if it is unconstitutional. I know that’s not exactly the same as federal veto, but it is the federal government striking down a state law.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that no citizen is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no court is bound to enforce it. THAT is the principle of the Supremacy Clause. It prohibits any branch of government, at any level, from making or enforcing a law that is in disagreement with the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Have you read the book?[/quote]
Of course not.
Is that a fact? Well then, do I retroactively get to provide you with the “standard internet response of STFU” on all of things on which you have tried to opine about but clearly haven’t read up on? You know, like the Federalist Papers? The Anti-Federalist Papers? Madison’s letters on secession and nullification? The history of American gun laws predating the Civil War and 14th Amendment?
C’mon.
I did, of course I haven’t read it. Why would I? If I want a history of (federal) gun laws in the United States or I want to learn the history of the events the book refers to, I will read the actualy history, not some schmaltz with a corny cover of an ATF officer standing over Lady Justice.
So, it doesn’t serve as reliable history, and it is told as a revenge fantasy on the meal ole ATF. No thanks. Not a good use of my time.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/[/quote]
I’ve written chapter and verse on nullification - do a search. Nullification is a fantasy, and I am not interested in revisiting it via the ever present libertarian reset button.
And? So? How does that help you in claiming Madison really, really, really was a libertarian?
If we are talking about the actual policy, there is a practical difference in having Congress strike down a state law - since Congress is democratic, representative, and elected, and therefore reflective of poplar will - and a court, which exercises its jurisdiction to strike down unconstitutional laws independent of popular will.
Oh yeah? I’d like to read that. Can you cite?
No, the principle of the Supremacy Clause is that federal law trumps state law, but only within the space that federal law can operate. Madison’s veto power extended to all state and local legislation and was not confined to only those areas where federal law occupied the space.
As an aside, I really am enjoying the libertarian advocacy of the federal government having the plenary power to strike down state laws on Congressional whim. No really - this is incredible entertainment.
JayPierce, I also note how you skipped over my point about how it is impossible for both nullification and a federal veto to exist. Care to try and rebut it?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/[/quote]
I’ve written chapter and verse on nullification - do a search. Nullification is a fantasy, and I am not interested in revisiting it via the ever present libertarian reset button.[/quote]
Right there in the link I cited, it gives modern examples of state nullification of federal law.
It’s you who are living in a fantasy.
And? So? How does that help you in claiming Madison really, really, really was a libertarian?[/quote]
When did I post that? Did I say I’m a Libertarian? Madison, in my view, was a Constitutional Republican; in favor of government, so long as it’s on a short chain.
I addressed this preemptively. It still functions as an avenue for the federal government to strike down an unconstitutional state law, therefore it protects the rights of the people.
Oh yeah? I’d like to read that. Can you cite?[/quote]
http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm
No, the principle of the Supremacy Clause is that federal law trumps state law, but only within the space that federal law can operate. Madison’s veto power extended to all state and local legislation and was not confined to only those areas where federal law occupied the space.[/quote]
You’re talking out of both corners. “Within the space that federal law can operate” means “in accordance with the Constitution”, because the Constitution defines the the space in which federal law can operate.
So yes, a federal law trumps a state law, but only in accordance with the Constitution.
Not plenary. Not Congressional whim. Only in accordance with the Constitution.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
Ah, so the worst the IRS is going to do if you take it not quite up the ass like a good little sheeple by passively resisting is to throw you in a cage.
They only kill you if you actively protect what you worked for.
I am sorry, you are right, that is a very, very, significant difference.
You are totally not a serf now.
So, if a Somali highwayman lined up cages along his highway where he threw people in that did not pay him, as a warning to others, he would be totally ok, right?
[/quote]
If I am a serf, then surely you are as well (Austria, no?). Why have you not moved to Somalia or Waziristan or some other place where men are free from all or most of government’s shackles and the sun shines upon liberty and righteousness?
If I thought of myself as a serf, I’d do anything to change that. Anything less would be cowardly, no?[/quote]
Nah, we just evade taxes.
You have to remember that our Fish and Wildlife service does not have SWAT teams.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JayPierce, I also note how you skipped over my point about how it is impossible for both nullification and a federal veto to exist. Care to try and rebut it?[/quote]
I thought maybe, seeing as how you are so educated, you might be able to put two and two together and figure out that both federal and state governments have an avenue to keep each other in check.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/[/quote]
I’ve written chapter and verse on nullification - do a search. Nullification is a fantasy, and I am not interested in revisiting it via the ever present libertarian reset button.[/quote]
Right there in the link I cited, it gives modern examples of state nullification of federal law…
[/quote]
That link is informative. I won’t comment on nullification–the examples offered are, shall we say, mighty thin–but the reference to Madison’s Report to Virginia in 1800 would serve as an example, an example of lack of context.
Jefferson had a pathologic hatred of courts–unelected, powerful, distant entities which might at a stroke make him pay his debts and end his life-long personal indulgences, or “freedoms.” This hatred he communicated quite freely to Madison, his amanuensis in the political theater, and the hatred had real consequences. In 1800, Jefferson’s fear was that his Republic would be undone by a class of judges, serving for life, and appointed by hated Federalists. So, read in context, Madison’s Report is specifically directed against Federal district judges exercising power within Virginia or contrary to Virginia law. THe last paragraph is a jaw-dropper:
“However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.”
Essentially, he is arguing that the Courts are not the final arbiters of the law–and we know how Marbury v Madison ended. Split decision?
And the 14th amendment closed this argument
Mr Woods is clearly a bright fellow, but a selective interpreter. Read in the context of political shenanigans of the times, Madison was once again abandoning a previously held opinion, not necessarily for principles, but for political reasons, peculiar to the time.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Right there in the link I cited, it gives modern examples of state nullification of federal law.
It’s you who are living in a fantasy.[/quote]
There is no modern analog to nullification, because none of those acts were recognized or enforced as such. They were mere toothless expressions. Moreover, read, for a primer:
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/if_men_were_angels
Nullification is an absurdity, and James Madison and Andrew Jackson, among others, agree.
Push cited “Little Jimmy” as soemone who protected libertarian liberty from Leviathan-loving types like me, only to learn that in fact Madison initially wanted the federal government to have plenary power to override the states in any legislative action they took. He has yet to square that circle. That was the entire point of getting into this line of argument.
But judicial review is not the same as Congressional power to veto any and all state laws it deems fit. Such a veto power would vest enormous power in the federal government, and make a dog’s breakfast of state’s rights.
Uh, nope. You said the Supreme Court ruled that a person wasn’t bound to follow an unconstitutional law. Let’s see the case.
[quote]You’re talking out of both corners. “Within the space that federal law can operate” means “in accordance with the Constitution”, because the Constitution defines the the space in which federal law can operate.
So yes, a federal law trumps a state law, but only in accordance with the Constitution.[/quote]
Correct, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, but Madison’s purported “federal veto” was not bound strictly to interpeting the constitutionality of state laws - it provided power to veto generally.
Incorrect. Read the Madison letter - he suggested veto in any and all circumstances.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought maybe, seeing as how you are so educated, you might be able to put two and two together and figure out that both federal and state governments have an avenue to keep each other in check.[/quote]
Um, no - as I explained earlier, what is stopping a state from “nullifying” a Congressional “federal veto” of a state law? The power of nullification makes a federal veto a toothless exercise because the state isn’t in any way bound by the veto - the state can simply nullify the veto. The federal veto carries no weight because the state is free to completely ignore it.
I’ll slow things down:
State: “We just passed a law prohibiting blacks from owning guns.”
Feds: “That is a terrible law. We hereby vote 535-0 to veto such a bad law. Your law prohibiting blacks from owning guns is hereby overturned.”
State: “We just voted 100-0 to nullify your law overturning our law prohibiting blacks from having guns. Once again, blacks are prohibited from owning guns in our state. So go pound sand, feds.”
Feds: “Damn.”
That’s putting “two and two together”, Einstein.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Nullification is an absurdity, and James Madison and Andrew Jackson, among others, agree.
…
[/quote]
Ditto.
And among those others was…Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Kentucky Resolutions–at least according to Madison himself.
(refer to Brookhiser, again, pp 240-243)
When South Carolina proposed nullifying the tariff, Calhoun called on (Madison’s) Federalist #51, and the legislators reprinted Madison’s Repoprt to Virginia. But Madison himself, in a letter to the North American Review, specifically denied that the Report was pro-nullification.
When confronted by Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, Madison published two letters in apologia of Jefferson, explaining that long-lived men “without exception” show “apparent if not real inconsistencies.” Madison stressed all the times that Jefferson had called repeatedly for reining in the states, particularly when TJ was in the Continental Congress. Noted Madison, “It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers…shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them.”
So much for the historical basis of nullification.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I thought maybe, seeing as how you are so educated, you might be able to put two and two together and figure out that both federal and state governments have an avenue to keep each other in check.[/quote]
Um, no - as I explained earlier, what is stopping a state from “nullifying” a Congressional “federal veto” of a state law? The power of nullification makes a federal veto a toothless exercise because the state isn’t in any way bound by the veto - the state can simply nullify the veto. The federal veto carries no weight because the state is free to completely ignore it.
I’ll slow things down:
State: “We just passed a law prohibiting blacks from owning guns.”
Feds: “That is a terrible law. We hereby vote 535-0 to veto such a bad law. Your law prohibiting blacks from owning guns is hereby overturned.”
State: “We just voted 100-0 to nullify your law overturning our law prohibiting blacks from having guns. Once again, blacks are prohibited from owning guns in our state. So go pound sand, feds.”
Feds: “Damn.”
That’s putting “two and two together”, Einstein.[/quote]
Seemed a bit to fast for your own good - lets slow it down some more…
State: “We just passed a law prohibiting blacks from owning guns.”
Feds: “That is a terribly unconstitutional law. Your law prohibiting blacks from owning guns is hereby overturned.”
Why so stuck on some of Madison’s ideas that didn’t go through?
No it isn’t. That’s “making a fallacious argument.” That’s not the way the nullification process works, and you can’t nullify a veto (a veto is not a law, it is denial of a law). There was never, to my knowledge, a proposed provision for a state to override federal veto. Nor was there a provision to veto state nullification.
Where was it that you were educated?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Only a bozo would present a review of a book not having read the book.[/quote]
Good to know. That would be more useful if I had offered a review of the book.
More reliable than actual history? Of course not. So why would I bother, when all I care about is the history and I couldn’t care less about adolescent revenge fantasies about the evil ATF?
No thanks. Based on what I have learned about, I probably couldn’t get through the first hundred pages. The best kind of history is the kind that at least tries to be dispassionate and objective, and I don’t any reason to think that this book does “straight” history. I’ve got a pretty decent nose for crap literature, and that looks like complete waste of time.
Once again, an invention. You “get a feeling that’s how I’ve traveled the country” by my refusal to read that book? Really? How could you possibly conclude that? See how foolish it looks when you just make unsupported inferences based on nothing but what you want to believe?
C’mon, Push. Enough.