View Poll Results: This amendment is consistent with true principles of liberty and I would support it.

Voters
63. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    45 71.43%
  • No.

    18 28.57%
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 127 of 127

Thread: Nullification Constitutional Amendment

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by OReich View Post
    The federal government protects individual rights better than the states.
    It violates them better too. History shows that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OReich View Post
    If this amendment were passed, then Chicago could go back to taking away ppl's guns. This amendment would allow states to nullify the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment would no longer guarantee gun rights at the state level. I think Chicagoites should be allowed to own guns. Therefore the 14th amendment should continue to be upheld in Illinois and every other state. I like gun rights. This amendment sucks.

    Same goes for the rest of the Bill of Rights at the state level. There's nothing libertarian or free about choosing state law supremacy over federal supremacy. Some states have crappy laws.
    The beauty of this system, I am proposing, is that if a state has a bad law, it is much easier for the people to change it (because they are closer to that level of government) than a bad federal law, and it is also possible to vote with your feet and to move to a different state with better laws, thus naturally shrinking unjust states, and growing just ones.

    Both of these advantages are lost if the bad laws are Federal and forced upon the whole country.

    Moreover, the amendment says: "The right of individual States, as the representatives of the people, to nullify unconstitutional or unjust Federal Law within their borders shall not be abridged." Notice a law can be nullified only if it is unjust. Who would you want to be the judge of what is just: Federal government or the people who live locally? I'd say justice is justice anywhere. It is science like mathematics. Whoever has it should be able to prove it, and has a right to enforce it.

    This amendment simply says the obvious, that injustice can be stopped at any level it is found at, and the people have the right to nullify the injustice of both Federal and State governments. It is a perfectly sound principle of justice.

    I say it again: ANYONE at any level has a right to nullify injustice or an unjust law, because an unjust law is null and void by definition. In the language of the amendment: "unjust law is no law at all." So, all this amendment does is restates this obvious truth, so that corrupt judges cannot hide it anymore.
    Last edited by Foundation_Of_Liberty; 07-05-2015 at 03:32 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122
    CONstitutional Nullification Amendment
    I'd probably be much more interested in a ^^.

  4. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    It violates them better too. History shows that.

    The beauty of this system, I am proposing, is that if a state has a bad law, it is much easier for the people to change it (because they are closer to that level of government) than a bad federal law, and it is also possible to vote with your feet and to move to a different state with better laws, thus naturally shrinking unjust states, and growing just ones.

    Both of these advantages are lost if the bad laws are Federal and forced upon the whole country.

    Moreover, the amendment says: "The right of individual States, as the representatives of the people, to nullify unconstitutional or unjust Federal Law within their borders shall not be abridged." Notice a law can be nullified only if it is unjust. Who would you want to be the judge of what is just: Federal government or the people who live locally? I'd say justice is justice anywhere. It is science like mathematics. Whoever has it should be able to prove it, and has a right to enforce it.

    This amendment simply says the obvious, that injustice can be stopped at any level it is found at, and the people have the right to nullify the injustice of both Federal and State governments. It is a perfectly sound principle of justice.

    I say it again: ANYONE at any level has a right to nullify injustice or an unjust law, because an unjust law is null and void by definition. In the language of the amendment: "unjust law is no law at all." So, all this amendment does is restates this obvious truth, so that corrupt judges cannot hide it anymore.
    Not only can juries nullify a federal or state law in a specific court case, but state legislatures can and do permanently nullify a federal law.

    A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law. The "countermand amendment". I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...same-authority

    However, that does not not improve the peoples education which is vital to informed opinion that will be used in nullification approvals. This proposal makes an Article V convention safe because it sees the people informing themselves by ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law. The "countermand amendment". I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.
    My God! Chris! That's actually an interesting idea! And much safer than a full constitutional convention, from which all manner of frightening things could emerge.

    I would remove the word 'unconstitutional' from it, though. Let the states have the right to repeal federal code whether the Supreme Court or anyone else will agree it's unconstitutional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    My God! Chris! That's actually an interesting idea! And much safer than a full constitutional convention, from which all manner of frightening things could emerge.

    I would remove the word 'unconstitutional' from it, though. Let the states have the right to repeal federal code whether the Supreme Court or anyone else will agree it's unconstitutional.
    Wow, I actually made a post acptulsa approved of.

    Yes, the countermand amendment should really already be a part of the constitution. It's an extension of state nullification and a very efficient way to support states rights. They are having quite good luck with states and last I heard I think 18 states had drafted applications for an Article V proposing the countermand amendment.

  7. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher A. Brown View Post
    Not only can juries nullify a federal or state law in a specific court case, but state legislatures can and do permanently nullify a federal law.

    A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law. The "countermand amendment". I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...same-authority

    However, that does not not improve the peoples education which is vital to informed opinion that will be used in nullification approvals. This proposal makes an Article V convention safe because it sees the people informing themselves by ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech.

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution
    Nice! That is another way to do it. The only difference is that mine is a bit broader, as it allows a single state nullify an unjust federal law within its boarders; mine also mentions jury nullification, which is also important (because States can be as wicked as the Feds at times).

    But I do like the penalty provisions in yours. I need to think about that. Thanks for posting!

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by Foundation_Of_Liberty View Post
    Nice! That is another way to do it. The only difference is that mine is a bit broader, as it allows a single state nullify an unjust federal law within its boarders; mine also mentions jury nullification, which is also important (because States can be as wicked as the Feds at times).

    But I do like the penalty provisions in yours. I need to think about that. Thanks for posting!
    I too like the idea of the 10th amendment standing. Nullification of a specific federal law within a state is very important.

    I've spoken personally with Charles Kacprowicz and Mike Cooney and they both liked the notion of a lawful, peaceful revolution as I define it. However, they are committed to the countermand amendment which I appreciate.

    It comes down to a chicken and egg dilemma. Of course the countermand amendment is easier for states legislatures to comprehend and support. My strategy challenges them and the bad ones won't like that. But If I'm right and ALEC has been running a major scam for 20 + years, then enough states legislators are bought and paid for to hijack an Article V convention by conventions in 3/4 of the states without congress calling a convention; the needed 34 states will not apply for a convention in support of the countermand.

    In that case the people need to be ready to jump state legislators with the "constitutional intent" question and preventing the states from leaving out the people in approval of proposed amendments as well aspects of ratification.

    So, as much as anything else, my strategy is to prepare Americans to define constitutional intent properly, by completely tying definition of intent into the framing documents.

    I was testing ALEC and COS in 2012. My tests raised significant suspicions. Then when I saw the 12/4/14 video with Levin at the conference sponsored by ALEC, and Levin invited by COS, I about $#@!. I could find not connections between the two in 2012, but their positions espoused were as different as night and day. Now they are having conferences together. A little reasearch shows the Koch bros. Through ALEC financing numerous covert politic organizations. Riiiiiight! Things add up!

    So the chicken and egg thing comes down to IF the countermand amendment is not carried by 34 states applications for Article V, THEN, the Koch bros. Have infiltrated nearly 39 state legislations and are poised for a clandestine Article V convention. Meaning the strategy for a lawful and peaceful revolution is required to at least stop the hijacking.

    Consider that media hasn't said a word about the fact that for the first time in 226 years congress hassle a rule to count application for an Article V convention, which is MAJOR news, the clandestine convention is a possibility reinforced by the media non feasance. Also, congress is violating the intent of the constitution and not going back before 2014 to count and they stopped at 10. That's some inside info I got from FOAVC members.

    Accordingly I am hammering the public on forums with prime constitutional intent trying to get them ready to deal with renegade state legislations, and deal with them permanently to continue on to a REAL Article V convention with preparatory amendment that prepares Americans to know and define constitutional intent.

    In the case of my suspicions being correct, after the preparatory amendment, the first logical
    Amendment would be to make the countermand law. They facilitates states getting rid of bad federal laws without an Article V convention.

    After 5 to 10 years, after America has recovered from the intensive 40 years psyops of media, to confuse, divide and mislead the people, then another Article V will be needed to deal with what the infiltrated federal government has done in the last 150 years.
    Last edited by Christopher A. Brown; 07-09-2015 at 11:04 PM.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Similar Threads

  1. Nullification vs Constitutional Convention
    By LibertyEagle in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-05-2015, 09:32 PM
  2. Is Nullification Constitutional?
    By Occam's Banana in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 05:11 PM
  3. Democrats Push for Constitutional Amendment to Roll Back First Amendment
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-20-2012, 03:46 PM
  4. Tom Woods: Talking Nullification to Constitutional Sheriffs
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2012, 03:12 PM
  5. Idaho ObamaCare Nullification Bill Is Constitutional
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2011, 03:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •