South Carolina houses passes bill that would make Obamacare implementation a crime

I most certainly am.

The most likely consequences, in my opinion, would be for the federal government to cut off all Social Security and Medicare payments to citizens of those states in rebellion. And, since I do receive Social Security, and have Medicare Part A, that would certainly affect me.

This would likely lead to an escalation of the conflict by the states affected; more specifically, they would probably make it a felony for any employer, doing business within the state, to withhold FICA and/or Medicare taxes from any employee's paycheck. And enforce that law, rigorously.

I would be perfectly sanguine with that...

 

One could just as easily have argued that slaves, during the mid-nineteenth century, should have just remained docile, and accepted their fate: After all, had they resisted, why, their owners might have simply killed them...

 

Thank God your insanity is shared by a limited number of people.

Revolt with your vote. We aren't some third world banana republic, is 2 1/2 years Obama will be gone, deal with it.

 

(1) I notice that you have not offered any examples of this selective enforcement of the law by attorneys general during Republican administrations (or even during other Democratic administrations).

(2) In any case, your argument amounts to a (rather blatant) tu quoque fallacy...

The above argument appears to imply that true nullification must be dependent upon the federal courts' sanctioning of the act.

That is not in keeping with my understanding of the term.

If the states should decide to defy federal law, openly--and to continue doing so, regardless of whatever the federal courts might say about the matter--that is certainly what I would describe as nullification...

 

Oh for the love of God....

If you continually ignore the speed limit, that doesn't nullify the speed limit law. Same thing here, SC isn't nullifying (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Apparently you don't need those benefits you've earned and have other resources. Do you think those that are utterly dependent on them will be equally sanguine?

 

LoL, ever read the Constitution?

 

The topic of the thread isn't examples of partisan AG's picking and choosing what they prosecute based on politics. Alberto Gonzalez in the Bush administration is a fine example, if examples are what you seek.

Nullification is dependent on something actually being nullified. When a state passes a law that is in contradiction with federal law, that does not nullify federal law. Nullification only happens when the federal government would attempt to exercise it's authority of law over state authority and fails. If there is no attempt by the federal government to do that, nothing has been nullified because the ability of the federal government to overrule the state law has not been nullified. When the federal government chooses not pursue that in court, it's authority has not been lessened nor is the authority of the state increased.

One example of a state thinking it can overrule the Federal government comes to mind quickly. That incident resulted in the National Guard escorting black people into the schools they were legally allowed to attend despite the opposition of local and state officials.

 

That is a false analogy.

If a state ignores a federal law--and is willing to do shatever is necessary to continue ignoring that law (which is precisely what I advocate)--that does amount to nullification.

Your interpretation of nullification would appear to be that it requires the federal courts' imprimatur...

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I am far from wealthy.

Apparently, you misjudge me...

 

Answer the question.

 

Do you live in SC?

 

No, it is not.

But I was responding directly to your assertion, in an earlier post...

And your examples of selective enforcement by then-President Bush's attorney general are...what, exactly?

Nullification happens whenever a state openly defies federal law; and continues to defy it, regardless of the pontifications of any federal court; and regardless of the potential upshot...

I am uncertain whether you are referring, here, to the incident in Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 (under Gov. Orval Faubus) or the one in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in 1963 (under Gov. George Wallace).

Either way, it amounts to a matter of cognitive dissonance for me; for, although I am pleased with the eventual outcome in both cases (i.e. the desegregation of the Arkansas public-school system and the desegregation of the University of Alabama), I am not especially happy with the way that those ends were achieved.

In short, I believe that the doctrine of states' rights was used in service to a most odious cause, in both of these cases.

But that certainly does not vitiate the core doctrine of states' rights, or prove that the federal government is usually wiser than state governments...

 

The SC itself has ruled they do NOT issue ADVISORY opinions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy

Nullification only happens when the Federal government CANNOT stop a state from passing or enforcing a law that contradicts federal law. In that case, the federal law was indeed nullified. If no attempt to stop the law is made, there is no nullification.

Who is wiser has nothing to do with it. This is a constitutional issue on which the Constitution is quite clear. Federal law trumps state law. Whether or not the federal government is more wise than a state government is a subject for the talking heads to pontificate on.

 

The Supremacy Clause only pertains to the SC's rulings, per some courts, in Ohio our SC is free to ignore an inferior federal court ruling on the same matter.

 

Um what?

The SCOTUS is inferior to no court. Hence the name, SUPREME COURT. No state court can counter them.

 

I said inferior federal courts, not the SC. Some courts have ruled inferior federal court rulings do not apply to them under the supremcay clause, and the US SC has NEVER squarely decided that, to my knowledge.

 

I do not.

What difference does it make?

 

The use of the passive voice (as in, "Mistakes were made"; or, in this case, "Allegations were that some of the attorneys were targeted for dismissal to impede investigations of Republican politicians or that some were targeted for their failure to initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters") is usually quite telling.

Moreover, to equate mere "[a]llegations" with The Unvarnished Truth is really quite a leap.

And it is, in any case, all in service to a fallacious argument--the tu quoque fallacy--as I have noted previously...

And I believe that this is, indeed, the case.

I have already noted what I believe the most likely scenario to unfold, as a result of this, would be...

Unequivocally, the so-called "Supremacy Clause" of the US Constitution does indicate that federal law takes precedence over state law. It would be silly to try to claim otherwise.

But again, my response is: So what?

 

I question your use of the word inferior here. A federal appellate court is not inferior to any state court. what you're talking about is merely a matter of jurisdiction, and yes there are many cases where even the SCOTUS does not jurisdiction over a state court. That doesn't mean someone won't try to get them to hear some of these cases, and heck sometimes they have even accepted cases where I believe they didn't have a constitutional right to rule; but as far as the SCOTUS is concerned federal courts are not inferior to state courts in any case. For example, if a federal appellate court ruled a law complied with the COTUS, then of course a state court couldn't claim that they were superior to the federal court and over rule the federal court, but they MIGHT rule that even if the law didn't violate the COTUS it does violate their own state Constitution.

A great example of this is Texas and DUI checkpoints. SCOTUS has okayed them at the federal level, but the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that they are not okay in Texas.

 

As I said, the Supremacy Clause, by some court's reasoning, only applies to a SC ruling.

I have case law to back that up.

 

They can think whatever they want, doesn't make it true. state courts have no standing to rule on federal cases. They don't even have the jurisdiction to over rule a federal circuit court. Just as federal courts have no jurisdiction to rule on state matters

That's why, for example, my wife might be trying a guy in district court, and he may file a motion in a federal court claiming a civil rights violation, and the district court nor a state court has jurisdiction, she must go before a federal judge for that matter.

You certainly don't have case law where a state court has over turned a federal court on a federal issue.

 

I don't know where you keep this getting legal mumbo jumbo.

Wrong again.

Pay attention, I did not say OVERTURN, I said they are not bound by it under the Supremacy Clause according to some courts, inlcuding the OSC.

 

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2001/2001-ohio-1581.pdf

 

What you have there is court ruling that says that most federal and state courts have ruled that a state court IS bound by a federal court's ruling, but that a few "experts" disgaree and that SCOTUS has not ruled yet.

I guess if you consider that a "win" good for you.

If a federal court rules that a city law violates the COTUS, then a state court can not rule that it does not. PERIOD because they do not have jurisdiction to even hear the case. FEDERAL courts rule on such matters, not state courts.

No different than a federal court has no standing to rule if something violates a state constitution.