The judicial branch can decide if laws are "constitutional" or not.

 

If a case arrives to them that shows the law is unconstitutional.

 

yes but the final desicion is up to the legislative branch. If I recall correctly they can decide whether it is constitutional or not but they cannot override a law.

As someone kindly said already, individual states can already nullify federal laws in the USA. Even to rafity new laws you need a majority of states agreeing with the legislation.

 

 

 

For example, the federal government has no authority in dictating same-sex marriage or abortion laws. Those are decided by each state themselves, and are illegal or legal depending on which state we're talking about (for example, abortion is legal in some states)

 

 

 

The federal government can also try and stall, say, stem cell research by cutting or removing their funding. That doesn't mean single states can't fund stem cell research. There is no law prohibiting N.Y. state from using public funds to research stem cells even if the president or his cabinet in Washington D.C. disagree with it.

Isn't our government a mix of the two?

I already know that states have power but I don't agree with the idea of them having the power to nullify federal laws.

As someone kindly said already, individual states can already nullify federal laws in the USA. Even to rafity new laws you need a majority of states agreeing with the legislation.

 

 

 

For example, the federal government has no authority in dictating same-sex marriage or abortion laws. Those are decided by each state themselves, and are illegal or legal depending on which state we're talking about (for example, abortion is legal in some states)

 

 

 

Don't you think the federal gov't has too much power already? If nullification ever came up wouldn't the gov't override their desicion if they decided to nullify laws?

 

I may also like to point out the nullification crisis during Jackson's presidency. South Carolina was about to nullify a law and Jackson sent the Army down to SC to enforce it.

Ok, I see what you are getting at.

 

 

 

You are talking about nullifying laws that have been passed in the past, not laws that are in the process of being ratified.

 

 

 

In that case, yes...it's illegal.

(Not sure if I'm talking about the same thing as Templar)When segregation was nationally banned the governor of (forgot which state) refused to un segregate. In (forgot which state) they had to send the national guards with african-american children to get them into the school safely. Musta been a terrible experience for the african-american kids.

Ok, I see what you are getting at.

 

 

 

You are talking about nullifying laws that have been passed in the past, not laws that are in the process of being ratified.

 

 

 

In that case, yes...it's illegal.

 

Well, yes, technically, they are not laws until the president signs off on them.

(Not sure if I'm talking about the same thing as Templar)When segregation was banned. In (forgot which state) they had to send the national guards with african-american children to get them into the school safely. Musta been a terrible experience for the african-american kids.

 

I don't think you are.

 

I'm pretty sure the national gaurd answers to the state legislative.

oxymoron? National guard answers to state legislative

I think it was Madison who argues that states should have the right to suceed. Should the state be able to declare this if the Federal Gov't get's to powerful?

If it's becoming a dictatorship then yes, the states should revolt.

oxymoron? National guard answers to state legislative

 

May be. But let's stay focused.

sorry about the oxymoron thing, just had to say it

If it's becoming a dictatorship then yes, the states should revolt.

 

Then can a state nullify a law without federal intervention?

if the president bribes military personnel to back him and says he is the new king of america then yes

 

Basically only in extreme situations.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

Does the Federal Government have too much power to-date? Explain.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

 

 

 

Alas very true.

Templar, what's your opinion on the matter?

What the hell? Have you ever even looked at the Constitution?

 

Now, that is a stupid question. If I had never looked at the constitution I probably wouldn't even know what state right's are.

 

 

 

Ok, sorry about that. That was done hastily as I was dashing out the door.

 

 

 

But really, throw your own opinion out there. If all you're doing is asking us for ours, it really looks like all you want is for Tip.It to do your homework.

 

 

 

Anyway, the reason I said that mainly is because the poster who said that states can already nullify federal laws is correct. If you had perused the Constitution more thoroughly you would know this already. A law can't be passed if the states didn't approve of it in the first place. And if, at a later date, the law is called into question, it will be through a case of court. The Supreme Court can then decide if the law is constitutional or not if it really is that big of a deal.

 

 

 

I don't get what you're trying to argue, because you haven't stated (which is why people suspect you of using us for your homework.) Under the 10th Amendment, any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This is actually quite a lot of power. The expressed powers of the federal gevernment in turn must be followed by all the states, but as we said before the states have to be okay with following a law before it is even passed.

 

 

 

So, unless you put your own opinion out there and give us an idea of what we're talking about, all you have is a bunch of people going off on their own tangents with little organization.

I believe in a limited government, The governement exists BECAUSE of the states. I beleive that states( note plural) should be able to nullify federal law without federal intervention. I think the that they as a group could convene and decide whether or not to nullify a law that would affect many states. I also think that if a law is made that affects one state that state should decide to accept it or not. The Job of the federal gov't would be to protect and serve the populus. In effect I would almost go back to the Articles of Confederation..to a degree.

 

 

 

Then again, I am young and I have a while to hone my political views..

What the hell? Have you ever even looked at the Constitution?

 

Now, that is a stupid question. If I had never looked at the constitution I probably wouldn't even know what state right's are.

 

 

 

Ok, sorry about that. That was done hastily as I was dashing out the door.

 

 

 

But really, throw your own opinion out there. If all you're doing is asking us for ours, it really looks like all you want is for Tip.It to do your homework.

 

 

 

Anyway, the reason I said that mainly is because the poster who said that states can already nullify federal laws is correct. If you had perused the Constitution more thoroughly you would know this already. A law can't be passed if the states didn't approve of it in the first place. And if, at a later date, the law is called into question, it will be through a case of court. The Supreme Court can then decide if the law is constitutional or not if it really is that big of a deal.

 

 

 

I don't get what you're trying to argue, because you haven't stated (which is why people suspect you of using us for your homework.) Under the 10th Amendment, any powers not expressly delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states. This is actually quite a lot of power. The expressed powers of the federal gevernment in turn must be followed by all the states, but as we said before the states have to be okay with following a law before it is even passed.

 

 

 

So, unless you put your own opinion out there and give us an idea of what we're talking about, all you have is a bunch of people going off on their own tangents with little organization.

 

No, I am doing a debate tomarrow and was wondering what I would get back if I asked that question..believe me, I don't need Tip.it to do my homework.

 

 

 

What I am trying to say is that the Federal Government has too much power. Ok the states have the power to take a federal law to court but not necessarily nullify it. Plus, since the gov't has more powered than what is given them, if it did go to the Supreme Court it would probably be dismissed within a couple of hours.

 

I would also like to point out the Nullification Crisis during Andrew Jackson's Presidency. South Carolina tried to nullify a law and Mr. President sent the army to enforce it.

No, you don't want a few states running wild while the other states are all like, "pmg yooz gawtah fallow da cawnstatootcin"

 

 

 

My answer probably doesn't make sense/I completely misunderstood the question, but oh well, this is the first time I've posted in a politic-type thread :wink:

Probably why you should read whole thread instead of just the first post.

 

 

 

Which is why mutiple states would decide on nullification of laws, not just one, but that is just my opinion.