Nullification - Constitutional Amendment

[LoveIsTruth]

Nullification Constitutional Amendment

• Since all political power rests with the people as the creators of the government, and is delegated from them, first to local, then to State, and then to Federal government; thus the people being superior to, and the masters of the government; and the States being the creators, and thus the masters of the Federal government, and since unjust law is no law at all,
  
  Therefore:
  
  The right of the juries, as the representatives of the people, to nullify any unjust, unconstitutional, or inapplicable law in the case before them, shall not be abridged. Juries must be made thoroughly aware, by any public court that hears the case, of this right of nullification.
  
  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.
  
  A Federal Law can be repealed in general via majority vote in a national referendum, or via vote of majority of the states via either state legislatures, or state referendums.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation:

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.


=============================
This amendment is part of 7. Please see here: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[LoveIsTruth]

Ok. I changed it. Is it better now? How's my English?

Thanks to everyone.

[Mahonri]

so according to this, if two thirds of the states do not repeal it, then it is considered just and Constitutional? NOT good.

The Problem is not with the Constitution, the problem is with us. As we learned from Elder Christofferson, there are no amount of laws to stop all bad behavior. If WE will not accept the yolk of Christ, we will be forced to uphold the yolk of Caesar.

[LoveIsTruth]

so according to this, if two thirds of the states do not repeal it, then it is considered just and Constitutional? NOT good.

Individual States can still nullify it according to this language. But when two thirds of the states nullify it, it has to be repealed and stricken down on the Federal level. Is it not what the language of the amendment conveys? Could you state it better?

The Problem is not with the Constitution, the problem is with us.

The problem is also with the Constitution. It fails to tell people WHY certain provisions are made. And since people don't know, or not taught the WHY, they are not empowered to defend it. And since ultimately only the people themselves could be counted upon to defend the Constitution, this lack of explanation and lack of plainness (at times) make the Constitution weak, which malady we seek to remedy with amendments like this one.

As we learned from Elder Christofferson, there are no amount of laws to stop all bad behavior. If WE will not accept the yolk of Christ, we will be forced to uphold the yolk of Caesar.

True. But that does not excuse us from the duty to make the laws as perfect and conducive to liberty as we possibly can. In fact, in the Book of Mormon, there is no other subject so talked about as the subject of government; it being second only to the subject of God and Christ. This shows the importance that our Heavenly Father assigns to this subject, in its tendency to effect the wellbeing of his children on earth!

[Mahonri]

I don't mean to sound rude, but I am sure I will. But it bothers me when folks think they know more than the Lord, and more than the Prophet.

The Lord said that anything more or less than it is evil.
The Prophet said there was only ONE, single, solitary flaw. You know better than him?

[LoveIsTruth]

I don't mean to sound rude, but I am sure I will. But it bothers me when folks think they know more than the Lord, and more than the Prophet.

I haven't said anything but what the Lord and the Prophets have spoken. Where do you find me contradicting them?

The Lord said that anything more or less than it is evil.
The Prophet said there was only ONE, single, solitary flaw. You know better than him?

Like the first and the great commandment to love God, branches out into multitude of corollaries, such as loving your neighbor, not stealing, not killing, etc. So does one fundamental flaw has many consequences. Opposing evil on all levels, is yours, and mine duty!

So viewd correctly, we agree .

Best wishes!

[LoveIsTruth]

North Dakota passes law to fully nullify all aspects of ObamaCare!

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[This truly is encouraging in that it dramatizes the fact that states are empowered by the Constitution to reject any federal law they consider to be unconstitutional. Now, if more states will do the same...] TenthAmendmentCenter posted 2011 May 9

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/20 ... tion-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(Cached)
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/realityz ... iedND.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LoveIsTruth]

Nullify Now! Tour Los Angeles May 28, 2011



Brilliant!

[wiser2]

I don't mean to sound rude, but I am sure I will. But it bothers me when folks think they know more than the Lord, and more than the Prophet.

The Lord said that anything more or less than it is evil.
The Prophet said there was only ONE, single, solitary flaw. You know better than him?

In D&C 98:5, the Lord said that the law of the land that supports the principle of freedom, in maintaining rights and privileges, with respect to all mankind, and is constitutional, can be supported (they would be justified in befriending it). In vs. 7, the Lord states that more or less than that type of law cometh of evil. In your post, you imply that the Lord said that the Constitution is just right, but the Lord only said that law that is constitutional, and applies to all mankind in supporting freedom is just right.

In addition, the Lord clearly does not think that the Constitution is just right. Consider, D&C 101:76-77:

And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you— According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

From the context of this passage we learn that:
1. People seem to be oppressed while under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
2. There seems to be some doubt as to whether any cure is possible under the Constitution.
3. The Lord "suffered" the constitution to be established.
4. The Lord commands that laws and the constitution be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; rather than stating that it is so.

The value of the Constitution is definitely relative to the goal. A major goal that the Constitution has met is nearly uniting (minus civil war, etc.)a conglomerate of people, states, and philosophies for 2 centuries. Its ability to do that is likely due to God's special influence. What it does not do great is protect all civil rights of all people all of the time, nor is it "true", in that it at least partially implied that slavery is tolerable. An error that cost our country many lives and much difficulty. So, while I believe that it is a critical piece in His plan, it is not the end goal, where He is the King, and there is justice and liberty for all, always.

In summary, I believe that you misread the scriptures related to the Constitution.

[wiser2]

My concern with this proposal is that it seems to disregard the idea of roles and responsibilities which create the critical checks and balances which will allow a government to remain rational. It is shifting too muchl of the power to the states, which is a severe mistake. The reason our government has functioned as well as it has is because no one body has much power. Our liberty depends on that at least continuing, if not becoming more true.

In general, there is nothing special about the idea of any one government body, nor non-government body. Given the opportunity, your neighbor, a stranger, your city, your county, your state, your federal government, or an international body can become an oppressive enemy. The point of the government that was established as a constitutional republic was to keep tension and balance between the various bodies such that they all prevented the others from doing that.

[LoveIsTruth]

My concern with this proposal is that it seems to disregard the idea of roles and responsibilities which create the critical checks and balances which will allow a government to remain rational. It is shifting too muchl of the power to the states, which is a severe mistake. The reason our government has functioned as well as it has is because no one body has much power. Our liberty depends on that at least continuing, if not becoming more true.

In general, there is nothing special about the idea of any one government body, nor non-government body. Given the opportunity, your neighbor, a stranger, your city, your county, your state, your federal government, or an international body can become an oppressive enemy. The point of the government that was established as a constitutional republic was to keep tension and balance between the various bodies such that they all prevented the others from doing that.

You still have that tension, but the ultimate power rests with the people, and the closer the level of government to the people the more authority it has. That is what this amendment is all about, and it is based on correct principles.

[wiser2]

You still have that tension, but the ultimate power rests with the people, and the closer the level of government to the people the more authority it has. That is what this amendment is all about, and it is based on correct principles.

I agree that there is still some tension. Concerning ultimate power, it rests with Jesus Christ. But, I agree that the people should have power to do good. But, they should not have power to do bad - like the people of WWII Germany and Japan. Notice that we have a constitutional republic and not a democracy. Why? Because the people can not be trusted to safeguard the individual in a conflict of interest situation. After consideration, I believe that I would support your proposal if the following changes were made:

1. Remove statements implying the states are more powerful than the federal government. The tension we talk about depends on them being balanced.
2. Require that a jury and a state body both must nullify a law to complete the process, and add penalty if in fact the nullification is not unjust nor meaningfully unconstitutional.
3. Remove the "not applicable" clause. I can't imagine why that would be worth nullifying.

It should be noted, that effectively juries have that power today. The problem is that the judge will use all sorts of propaganda to try to force them to believe otherwise. Maybe your proposal should include either a requirement for informing the juries, or punishment for lying about the right, or something.

[p51-mustang]

My concern with this proposal is that it seems to disregard the idea of roles and responsibilities which create the critical checks and balances which will allow a government to remain rational. It is shifting too muchl of the power to the states, which is a severe mistake. The reason our government has functioned as well as it has is because no one body has much power. Our liberty depends on that at least continuing, if not becoming more true.

In general, there is nothing special about the idea of any one government body, nor non-government body. Given the opportunity, your neighbor, a stranger, your city, your county, your state, your federal government, or an international body can become an oppressive enemy. The point of the government that was established as a constitutional republic was to keep tension and balance between the various bodies such that they all prevented the others from doing that.

It requires 2/3 of states to nullify a law so to me it wouldn't shift too much power to the states. Under this amendment, the balance between fed and state would still be fairly equal. The 17th amendment was passed with the goal to destroy states rights since the senate was to be elected and accountable to the state legislature. Repealing the 17th amendment would go a long way toward restoring the delicate balance of powers between state and fed.

[GadiantonRobber]

If the 17th Amendment were repealed, only 26 states would be required to prevent a bill from being passed into law in the US Senate in the first place. The nulification proposal would require a total of 34 states to overturn a bill that has already been passed into law, a much more difficult and drawn out process.

[LoveIsTruth]

If the 17th Amendment were repealed, only 26 states would be required to prevent a bill from being passed into law in the US Senate in the first place. The nulification proposal would require a total of 34 states to overturn a bill that has already been passed into law, a much more difficult and drawn out process.

You forgot that under this amendment any ONE state can nullify ANY Federal law within its borders!

[LoveIsTruth]

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.

[GadiantonRobber]

You forgot that under this amendment any ONE state can nullify ANY Federal law within its borders!

I wouldn't call that "nullification." It sounds more like "refusal to comply with" which would hardly make for a "United" States of America.

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.

Sounds good, but can you name one state with a structure of government where power is granted by the people from the bottom up (to city, to county, to state) with each level subservient to and accountable to the level beneath? Every state government I'm aware of does to its counties and cities just what the federal government is currently doing to the states (and that ain't good).

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 made the upper house (US Senate) subservient to the state legislatures that appointed Senators to represent them (the vertical check) while the lower house (US House of Representatives) was made up of people elected by the citizens of their voting districts to represent them (making for the horizontal check). If the states at that time had been on the ball, they would have implemented similar structures of government whereby county legislatures would have an upper house made up of people appointed by the city councils within the county to represent them, balanced by a lower house made up of people elected by the citizens of that county to represent them. The county legislatures, in turn, would appoint state senators to vote according to the county's wishes, balanced by a lower house of popularly elected representatives.

Nullification sounds to me like an attempt to put a small band-aid on a massive wound, as opposed to addressing the core problem of fixing the stucture of our governments (federal, state, county and local) that went haywire with the introduction of political parties.

[LoveIsTruth]

You forgot that under this amendment any ONE state can nullify ANY Federal law within its borders!

I wouldn't call that "nullification." It sounds more like "refusal to comply with" which would hardly make for a "United" States of America.

"Refusal to comply" IS nullification. And yes, it is "United" States of America, where "Union" is VOLUNTARY rather than forced. (Look up the difference between love and rape, to understand the "Union.")

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.

Sounds good, but can you name one state with a structure of government where power is granted by the people from the bottom up (to city, to county, to state) with each level subservient to and accountable to the level beneath? Every state government I'm aware of does to its counties and cities just what the federal government is currently doing to the states (and that ain't good).

The ultimate check on the government are the people themselves through the juries, that can nullify ANY law,--i.e. Federal, State or Local,-- in the case before them.

Nullification sounds to me like an attempt to put a small band-aid on a massive wound, as opposed to addressing the core problem of fixing the stucture of our governments (federal, state, county and local) that went haywire with the introduction of political parties.

State and Jury nullification is close to a cure all, because it is the the only structural mechanism (short of violence) that allows the people to hold the government in an iron check.


"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

--Thomas Jefferson.

[JerL]

Jury Nullification is a little easier to understand. The first time I saw this brought up on the forum I didn't understand It fully. Later I saw an article about jury nullification, that peaked my interest again. So this time I did some research and came across this website. They offer the best explanation of it that I have found.
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/histo ... -null.html

"Jury nullification of law," as it is sometimes called, is a traditional right that was rigorously defended by America's Founding Fathers. Those great men, Patriots all, intended the jury to serve as a final safeguard – a test that laws must pass before gaining sufficient popular authority for enforcement. Thus the Constitution provides five separate tribunals with veto power – representatives, senate, executive, judges – and finally juries. Each enactment of law must pass all these hurdles before it gains the authority to punish those who may choose to violate it.

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."

[LoveIsTruth]

Excellent points. Thank you.

[LoveIsTruth]

Montana judge is unable to gather a jury that is willing to convict a man on marijuana-possession charges. This is a sign of growing public disapproval of the so-called War on Drugs.Huff Post posted 2011 Dec 27 (Cached)

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

[LoveIsTruth]

Wyoming lawmakers consider a bill to study how to survive a collapse of the federal government. It would include plans to issue its own currency and to create a standing army – even strike aircraft and aircraft carriers. Trib.com Posted 2012 Feb 25

[LoveIsTruth]

Virginia legislature overwhelmingly nullifies the NDAA indefinite-detention law recently passed by Congress. Seven other states are considering similar legislation. The bill is opposed by the Governor, but the legislature could override his veto.
TAC 2012 Feb 28 (Cached)

[LoveIsTruth]

How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

I think the individual States must pass legislation NULLIFYING this Federal ruling, and asserting the dignity of the individual!

[LoveIsTruth]

Arizona's legislature passed a bill rejecting cooperation with the federal government to carry out indefinite detention of Americans under the NDAA bill, and it is awaiting a decision from Governor Jan Brewer. Virginia already passed a similar law as have a growing number of cities and counties. [We are not fans of the ACLU, which is proposing model legislation for this move, but we wholeheartedly approve of their action in this case.]
ACLU 2012 Apr 27

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;