posted
Sort of. Check this out. They have determined that:
all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force.
all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force."
the use of the general welfare clause to evade the Ninth and Tenth Amendments is invalid.
They've also created a committee to get other States to "concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories."
It goes on to declare that the institution of an obligatory "national service" program or laws regarding religion or firearms, or declaring martial law, either by legislation or executive order will constitute a violation of the Constitution and will result in all of the powers previously delegated to the Federal government being withdrawn and returned to the States.
posted
That makes me recall: Knew someone from NH who basically said there was this group (name escapes me) that could be a controlling block of voters so that they could basically get [fill in the blank] done if they decided to act. I don't talk to him anymore because he's a jerk, so I'm afraid my sketchy memory is the only thing that's going to do any digging on that topic.
Their state motto couldn't be any more fitting, though.
Posts: 691 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
...and all kinds of crazy stuff gets debated. Very little of it, especially sensational stuff like this, actually passes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't South Carolina pass something similar a few years ago. It didn't turn out so well for them as I recall.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Didn't South Carolina pass something similar a few years ago. It didn't turn out so well for them as I recall.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Didn't South Carolina pass something similar a few years ago. It didn't turn out so well for them as I recall.
I spent about 13 seconds thinking "what did SC do that ended badly?" and then i was like ooooooh.
IP: Logged |
posted
When Alabama seceded from the Union on January 11, 1861, Winston County seceded from Alabama, and every child in Maycomb County knew it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the Free State of Winston. I've played a concert there. It's just a tad off the interstate. EDIT: To add: Some of the Mormon Hatrackers might be interested that the city of Nauvoo is in the Free State of Winston. Utah (spelled Eutaw) is a day's ride (on a mule) south.
quote:Didn't South Carolina pass something similar a few years ago
When are you from?
Maintaining a tenuous hold on now. Few is a relative construct. (and when you have as many cousins as I do, that's a lot of construction.)
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Giving Lyrhawn the benefit of the doubt, I think he was answering the year that Artemisia was born, making her around 20-30 by the time the aforementioned South Carolina pronouncement was made. I'm almost positive Lyrhawn knows *that* particular range of dates in U.S. History.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, I know Artemisia was kind of a cute girl back in classical Persia. But, Artemisia Tridentata (three teeth)is the botanical name for a plant that is not often referred to with a feminine article.
For the record, I do not have a personal recollection of classical Persia.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BandoCommando: Giving Lyrhawn the benefit of the doubt, I think he was answering the year that Artemisia was born, making her around 20-30 by the time the aforementioned South Carolina pronouncement was made. I'm almost positive Lyrhawn knows *that* particular range of dates in U.S. History.
Actually, I wasn't referring to the Civil War at all. I thought we were all talking more specifically about the Nullification Crisis where South Carolina proclaimed the right to declare null any law that they felt violated the constitution.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Lyrhawn. I wasn't thinking of that and I just reading about it last week. I was making a joke about prelude to the Civil War. There is no new mischif under the sun. Bad ideas, like bad cucumbers, will certainly come up again.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well the Nullification Crisis didn't go so well for them either, what with being politically pistol whipped by Jackson and all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well the Nullification Crisis didn't go so well for them either, what with being politically pistol whipped by Jackson and all.
See, those Democrats never could take a joke.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you actually read the WA, OK and MO bills?
New Hampshire's proposed resolution is channeling John C. Calhoun and threatening to nullify any law that violates their interpretation of the constitution in pretty. It's incredibly aggressive in tone and scope.
WA, OK and MO on the other hand are issuing very lightly worded statements that say "oh, by the way, we're our own states, just to let you know, so, if you could please stop passing laws that infringe on our states' rights, we'd appreciate it. Thanks!" They might as well pass a resolution that says the sky is blue for all the revelation that passing a resolution saying their are states brings about.
Edit to add: AZ's is a little more aggressive, but same basic message.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:originally posted by Lyrhawn New Hampshire's proposed resolution is channeling John C. Calhoun and threatening to nullify any law that violates their interpretation of the constitution in pretty. It's incredibly aggressive in tone and scope
*cough* the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions written by Thomas JeffersonPosts: 399 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually the Virginia Resolution was written by Madison.
But either way, Calhoun was the one who was at the root of South Carolina's reactionary moves for several decades, and more specifically the nullification crisis. Ironically he was also one of the more stabilizing influences that kept them from seceding before 1860, and when he died, along with Clay, in the 50's, there wasn't much to stand politically in the way of the fire eaters from taking control and seceding.
I guess yeah, if you want to go back further, they'd be channeling Jefferson and Madison, and perhaps this will be as far as it goes, but if it actually goes further, we're in Calhoun territory. Jefferson and Madison were laying down a framework that was used in both the nullification crisis and to a degree the Hartford Convention before it. When you actually start declaring laws null and void, you're beyond memos.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
