[pcfixer]

Originally Posted by PSM

I’ve read the email you posted several times and I can’t really tell which side of the nullification issue he comes down.

Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she? I can’t find a real name for her. Her bio on her blog:



OK, fine. So, a “strict constructionist” is saying that we need to ignore a provision of the Constitution that may help solve the problems we face to solve those problems? Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution?

I’m not against nullification, per se. When we moved here to SE AZ, after the Monument Fire, Tombstone’s aqueduct from the Huachuca Mountains had been damaged and they needed to repair it. The Feds said that they could only repair it using the methods that were used to build it in the 1800s. At the time, Sheriff Dever was still alive and I felt that he should have challenged (nullification of law or policy), with a posse if necessary, the Forrest Service and allowed the repairs to the water system for a city in his county. He did not and local citizens went up with shovels and sidearms to repair it.

That said, why is she throwing out the Constitutional provision rather than adopting both options? The Constitutional provision is explained, and amendments offered, in Mark Levin’s book. He started The Landmark LegalFoundation in 1976 fighting against abuses of the Constitution and worked in the Reagan Administration. Publius Huldah has done what, exactly?



I'm sure Mr. Levin would love to know that.

This guy does a pretty good job of saying what I wanted to: http://www.redstate.com/roguepolitic...ntion-process/

In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?

Pat

Now this Publius Huldah person, who is she?

I asked Richard Fry that question. His answer is the name is a, quoted "Her pseudonym is Publius Huldah. Publius is the pseudonym for Madison and Hamilton in the Federalist papers and Huldah is prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 22, and 2 Chronicles 34. " Sorry if that doesn't help.

Where is nullification mentioned in the Constitution?

Not being an attorney, I'd say most of this is found in the 10th Amendment.

"Michael Boldin is the founder and leader of the TAC, a national group. He is the number-one spokesperson on behalf of TAC. Boldin believes he and TAC are the leading entity and spokesperson educating and promoting "state nullification".

The Legal Basis for Nullification

First, "nullification" as espoused by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 is in fact constitutionally based. Jefferson said of it:
“. . . whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force..."

So in Jefferson's view nullification is predicated on an unconstitutional act, i.e., an act outside the general government's enumerated authority as delineated in the Constitution. Madison also had this belief.

Another way to say "unauthoritative, void, and of no force" is to say "null," which legally speaking means “having no legal validity.”

Five years later, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the same principle in a formal holding. Chief Justice John Marshall said for the Court:

"... a law repugnant to the Constitution is void...."

Chief Justice Marshall made it clear that this was a general principle of constitutional law, not just of the U.S. Constitution. Marshall did rely upon specific language in the Constitution as part of the Court's support for this holding. Marshall noted:

"It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank." (Emphasis added.)

Marshall was quoting Article VI clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution also known as the Supremacy Clause. Subsequently the Court in addressing unconstitutional enactments has stated:

"An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void, and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment."
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371,376-77 (1879)

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, 426 (1886)

These cases tell us that an unconstitutional enactment is ipso facto (by that fact itself) null and void, and not enforceable.

I like your story about rebuilding the dam. Maybe some nullify effects in that The People took care of business.

To make this more a layman's term, I'd say nullification is that which the government, state, local cannot enforce because those laws are not ethical or not moral as to the Oath we all took when held up our right hand. I think also part of this is the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States. Just my thoughts.

Our rights are from our Creator not the government.

In the end, both courses are probably a fool’s errand. Then what?

As an SF soldier you would rather the enemy die for his country than you die for yours!