Comments on: Did the Founders expect the Courts to Declare Laws Unconstitutional?

By: Judicial Review | The View From Montana

Judicial Review | The View From Montana — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:32:28 +0000

[...] of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado’s Independence Institute._http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/04/16/did-the-founders-expect-the-courts-to-declare-laws-uncons… Links: —— [1] http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/author/rob-natelson/ [2] [...]

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:16:06 +0000

@onetenther (Earlier comment edited here) Your comment is appreciated. My question is who gets to decide if a state’s nullifying action is reasonable? If Article 6 holds all laws of the U.S. as supreme, who makes the final judgement on federal limits? The misnomered anti-federalist were absolutely correct that the ratified constitution offered no specific guarantees. The Bill of Rights is the crucial keystone that supports the rest of the founders’ constitutional by-laws. Absent this structural element, the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. This reality has been well demonstrated by the socialist wannabes’ subversive tactics throughout the twentieth, and now the twenty-first centuries.

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:16:06 +0000

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:09:19 +0000

@onetenther Your comment is appreciated. My question is who gets to decide if a state’s nullifying action is reasonable? If Article 6 holds all laws of the U.S. as supreme, who makes the final judgement on federal limits? The misnomered anti-federalist’s were absolutely correct that the ratified constitution offered no specific guarantees. The Bill of Rights is the crucial keystone that supports the rest of the founders’ constitutional by-laws. Absent this structural element, the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. This reality has been well demonstrated by the socialist wannabes’ subversive tactics throughout the twentieth, and now the twenty-first centuries. (edited)

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:06:45 +0000

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:48:20 +0000

@Michael Boldin Thanks for sharing Brion McClanahan’s well written and informative article. I especially enjoyed the quote by William Davie of North Carolina, ” … Gentlemen should distinguish that it is not the supreme law in the exercise of power not granted. It can be supreme only in cases consistent with the powers specially granted, and not in usurpations.”.

Davie’s statement clearly answered my earlier question to Steve Palmer’s commentary “When are federal laws supreme?”.

By: Michael Boldin

Michael Boldin — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:56:53 +0000

@West Texan Article 6 does NOT hold “all laws of the US as supreme” as you mentioned.

We have many articles on this subject – but here’s one for starters:

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/29/whos-supreme-the-supremacy-clause-smackdown/

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:25:30 +0000

@Jon_Roland @onetenther @Lex_Rex I like the compact idea. Thanks for sharing.

By: Jon_Roland

Jon_Roland — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:20:10 +0000

@West Texan @onetenther @Lex_Rex
We have a “nullification commission” proposal that would establish a kind of state grand jury to hear complaints of usurpation by federal actors. A finding that the action was unconstitutional triggers noncooperation by state actors. That would provide a process for organizing noncooperation. See http://nullifynow.net

By: West Texan

West Texan — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:07:30 +0000

@onetenther Your comment is appreciated. My question is who gets to decide if a state’s nullifying action is reasonable? If Article 6 holds all laws of the U.S. as supreme, who makes the final judgement on federal limits? The misnomered anti-federalist were on target as the ratified constitution offered no specific guarantees. My rationale for viewing the Bill of Rights as the critical keystone which supports and gives legitimacy to the rest of the founders’ constitution. Absent this structural element, the U.S. Constitution wouldn’t have been worth the paper it was written on. This reality has been well demonstrated by the socialist wannabes’ subversive tactics throughout the twentieth, and now the twenty-first centuries.