Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

[Chosen Daughter]

Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law


CNN Digital Expansion 2016 Andrew Kaczynski

By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN


Updated 12:05 PM ET, Sat November 10, 2018


(CNN) — Matthew Whitaker, the new acting attorney general, has said that states have the right to nullify federal law, but that they need the political courage to do so.

Whitaker, whom President Donald Trump announced as acting attorney general on Wednesday after he fired Jeff Sessions, made the comments during a failed 2014 run for the Republican Senate nomination in Iowa.

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

"The federal government's done a very good job about tying goodies to our compliance with federal programs, whether it's the Department of Education, whether it's Obamacare with its generous Medicare and Medicaid dollars and the like," he added. "But do I believe in nullification? I think our founding fathers believed in nullification. There's no doubt about that." ..........

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/09/politics/matthew-whitaker-nullification/index.html

Did they?


Did the Founding Fathers Believe in a Strong Federal Government? You Betcha.


 If there’s one thing that we know about the Founding Fathers,  it’s that they didn’t want a weak national government.

But there was a group who wanted a weak national government. They were called the anti-Federalists, and they were appalled by the proposed Constitution.  These believers in  small-government fought tooth-and-nail against adoption of the Constitution. They lost.

If the supporters of the Constitution had wanted a government “small enough to drown in a bathtub” (in the words of Grover Norquist), they already had one before the Constitution was even conceived.  The Articles of Confederation gave Congress few powers and made it procedurally almost impossible to exercise even those.  Norquist would have been thrilled: there was no tax power at all.

If he’d been around, Norquist presumably would have opposed the Constitution for authorizing new taxes.  Today’s tea party members would surely have been opponents of the Constitution as well. The Constitution is, first and foremost, a grant of power to the federal government. The Founding Fathers consciously sacrificed state sovereignty in the interests of national unity.

The whole point of the Constitution was to make the federal government much stronger than it had been.  The Constitutional Convention left no doubt on that score.  It explained its goals at the same time it made the Constitution public. Here are some key statements:

The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union . . .

It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. . .

In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union . . .

These statement are from a letter signed by George Washington after being unanimously endorsed by the Constitutional Convention. Nowhere does it say: “our goal was to make the federal government as small as possible.”

The text of the Constitution bears out the letter by promising among other things  a “more perfect Union” that would “promote the general Welfare.”  The Constitution also gives Congress an impressive list of powers.  The list includes the well-known powers to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several states” and to collect taxes to provide for “the general Welfare of the United States.”  But it also includes a host of other powers: raising an army, establishing uniform national laws on naturalization and on bankruptcy, coining money and regulating its value, issuing patents and copyrights, and making treaties. On top of that,Congress can make laws that don’t fall within this list of powers but are “necessary and proper” to carry them out.  The Europeans are currently suffering from the failure to give the EU similar powers......

http://legal-planet.org/2012/07/04/did-the-founding-fathers-believe-in-a-strong-national-government-you-betcha/


promising among other things  a “more perfect Union” that would “promote the general Welfare.”

It is dangerous to cede more power to states than they are given.  I think we could all find examples Federal laws we would like overturned.  We also could find Federal Laws which being overturned by our states would be devastating.  One would be immigration.

U.S. Constitution is Federal Law

Tariff Example:

http://www.oxfordfirstsource.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199794188.013.0266/acref-9780199794188-e-266

[Chosen Daughter]

Magazine | May 14, 2018, Issue



California Goes Rogue

By Mark Krikorian

April 26, 2018 10:21 AM   

 
Immigrant supporters protest during the Los Angeles City Council ad hoc committee on immigration meeting in Los Angeles, Calif., March 30, 2017. (Lucy Nicholson/Reuters)

 How the Golden State defies immigration law
 
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.

The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.

The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum. ....

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/05/14/california-sanctuary-state-defies-federal-law/

[roamer_1]

It is dangerous to cede more power to states than they are given. 

Bass ackwards.

[Chosen Daughter]

Bass ackwards.

By given I mean Constitution.  Do you agree that State governance is limited by the U.S. Constitution.  If Whitaker is talking about nullifying Federal Law that isn't Constitutional then I would agree with him.  We have the Supreme Court.  If he is talking about rogue then I don't agree with him.

I wanted to look at his twitter to see what kind of comments he makes.  But he has made his twitter private.  Not very good if you ask me.  Government needs to be transparent.

[truth_seeker]

Since the article talks about immigration in California, I'll note that Reagan was Governor, then President.

Culminating with his Amnesty in 1986.

This political event, perhaps more than any other since, created the idea of just getting into the states, then waiting.

Chances are you get jobs, schools, benefits, medical care. And eventually amnesty, legal status, even citizenship.


There was surprisingly little opposition at the time. I posi, that was because the real impact had not reached many places.

In California, we already knew about the process, whereby "seasonal" changed to "year round."

And we already knew how the process changed, from "housing in remote agricultural camps," to housing in your town and city.

Like the migrants walking northward, at first come the unaccompanied males.

Only later, does the entire famies get formed, and schools (medical and emergency services)  impacted.

Do you think that Governor/President Reagan gave the agriculture industry their way?

California was then, and remains now, the nation's largest agricultural producer.

[roamer_1]

By given I mean Constitution.  Do you agree that State governance is limited by the U.S. Constitution. 

@Chosen Daughter
No. I would say that the fed is limited by the Constitution - and all else is in the hands of the States or the people, respectively.

Technically, I am sure we are in grand agreement, you and I... I just like pickin nits. Because there are those here that  don't know better.

What is granted to the fed by the Constitution is the entire aegis and jurisdiction of the fed. It has no other authority. So again, technically you and I are in agreement, because anything the state or states could nullify would be unconstitutional powers in the first place.

But there are shades of gray.
MT nullified federal authority over guns and ammo manufactured within her borders. A fine distinction which does not infringe against (assumed) interstate commerce authority of the feds.

On the other side, you have California trying to nullify federal authority wrt illegal aliens and sanctuary cities - A direct challenge to Federal authority over illegal aliens, which in my mind, by the Constitution, is certainly and absolutely within the federal jurisdiction.

[Chosen Daughter]

Since the article talks about immigration in California, I'll note that Reagan was Governor, then President.

Culminating with his Amnesty in 1986.

This political event, perhaps more than any other since, created the idea of just getting into the states, then waiting.

Chances are you get jobs, schools, benefits, medical care. And eventually amnesty, legal status, even citizenship.


There was surprisingly little opposition at the time. I posi, that was because the real impact had not reached many places.

In California, we already knew about the process, whereby "seasonal" changed to "year round."

And we already knew how the process changed, from "housing in remote agricultural camps," to housing in your town and city.

Like the migrants walking northward, at first come the unaccompanied males.

Only later, does the entire famies get formed, and schools (medical and emergency services)  impacted.

Do you think that Governor/President Reagan gave the agriculture industry their way?

California was then, and remains now, the nation's largest agricultural producer.

Why I am really no Reagan fan.  Once the genie was out of the bottle it was the new fix every time we had way too many.  Not only that but Reagan was no Conservative.  I won't deny that he also did good things but we have this illegal immigration problem as a result of amnesty.

Here in Washington we are the same.  It wasn't that many years ago that people would poo poo anyone that talked about illegal immigration.  They were those people picking fruit and vegetable.  Seasonal migrants.  Then they started into construction and landscaping.  We created tax ID ITIN.  Now they have their own businesses.  They have mortgages and car loans.  Boats, and all kinds of toys on credit.  What government has done is unconstitutional.

DACA are now well educated and they hold very good white collar jobs.  Ted Cruz had an add during campaign about that:

http://time.com/4167503/ted-cruz-immigration-ad-2016-election/

[Chosen Daughter]

@Chosen Daughter
No. I would say that the fed is limited by the Constitution - and all else is in the hands of the States or the people, respectively.

Technically, I am sure we are in grand agreement, you and I... I just like pickin nits. Because there are those here that  don't know better.

What is granted to the fed by the Constitution is the entire aegis and jurisdiction of the fed. It has no other authority. So again, technically you and I are in agreement, because anything the state or states could nullify would be unconstitutional powers in the first place.

But there are shades of gray.
MT nullified federal authority over guns and ammo manufactured within her borders. A fine distinction which does not infringe against (assumed) interstate commerce authority of the feds.

On the other side, you have California trying to nullify federal authority wrt illegal aliens and sanctuary cities - A direct challenge to Federal authority over illegal aliens, which in my mind, by the Constitution, is certainly and absolutely within the federal jurisdiction.

Exactly why people who are on this bandwagon are wrong.  If they can nullify Federal Law it had to be unconstitutional in the first place.  What we have now though is rogue on state and Federal.  We see it in this election with illegal aliens voting.  Illegal immigration is..........illegal.  Yet our government has undermined the constitution.  Even created a way for them to set stakes in the land.  To owe huge debts to our banking system also.  I have mentioned the ITIN many time.  It doesn't generate much intrest.  Simply because who is going to complain when banks are making money?  But if they have loans then they have staked a claim.  They own homes and property.  Farms and businesses.

[Chosen Daughter]

I seriously question whether Matthew Whitaker is the right person for this job.  He has stated he only thinks judges should be New Testament Christians.  I checked Matthew Whitaker on the issues.  He has run for office but there is little to nothing on there about him.  He speaks about his faith.  Nothing says what his faith is.  What church or denomination.  His twitter is private.

This is what God says about a judges and Christianity:

1 Corinthians 5:

 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges[c] those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”


I believe in the Constitution of the United States.  Do we want a Democratic to appoint Muslims who rule by Sharia Law?

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Matthew_Whitaker.htm

Who is this guy?  Can't find anything.

[Absalom]

States Rights versus Centralized Government, deserves serious analysis.
Our Founders, especially Southerners, were strong advocates of States Rights,
our governing philosophy till the Civil War.
But that sad conflict eradicated the Agrarian Rural Democrats and elevated the
GOP, supported by the Northern Mercantile Class, to ascendancy for some 75 years.
The governance we have today is a direct result of that dynamic.
If we want to know why we are where we are, we should understand the pathway we took.

[Absalom]

States Rights versus Centralized Government, deserves serious analysis.
Our Founders, especially Southerners, were strong advocates of States Rights,
our governing philosophy till the Civil War.
But that sad conflict eradicated the Agrarian Rural Democrats and elevated the
GOP, supported by the Northern Mercantile Class, to ascendancy for some 75 years.
The governance we have today is a direct result of that dynamic.
If we want to know why we are where we are, we should understand the pathway we took.

-----------------
The States Rights issue is supported by the Principle of Subsidiarity,
a core of conservatism and articulated by the Ancient Romans.
It asserts that all issues involving governance should be settled at
the lowest, smallest and least centralized level of authority within
the nation/state.

[jafo2010]

The chatter from Whitaker already has me not liking the guy.  All this nonsense about states rights over the federal government is dangerous from my view, opening the door for states to succeed from the union.  California or parts within want to break away.  Other areas of the country will seek that path as well.

I do not see a bright future in the USA post Trump.  I see us resuming the NWO agenda and the destruction of our great country.

[240B]

Change the date to 2020
Change the banner to The United States of California (all 3 of them)
Replace the old White guy with a homeless Mexican
And they are done. They are independant.

[Chosen Daughter]

The chatter from Whitaker already has me not liking the guy.  All this nonsense about states rights over the federal government is dangerous from my view, opening the door for states to succeed from the union.  California or parts within want to break away.  Other areas of the country will seek that path as well.

I do not see a bright future in the USA post Trump.  I see us resuming the NWO agenda and the destruction of our great country.

I agree.

[Chosen Daughter]

Change the date to 2020
Change the banner to The United States of California (all 3 of them)
Replace the old White guy with a homeless Mexican
And they are done. They are independant.

California has not stayed in California.  Just as Mexico has not stayed in Mexico.  We here in Washington would have been better off if there had been a wall separating California from Oregon and Washington.  We have a saying.  Don't Californiate Washington.  Too late.

[240B]

California has not stayed in California.  Just as Mexico has not stayed in Mexico.  We here in Washington would have been better off if there had been a wall separating California from Oregon and Washington.  We have a saying. Don't Californiate Washington.  Too late.

@Chosen Daughter
That is why California will never sucede. The goal of all Liberals nationally in America is not about what they do, or their own life, or their own neighborhoods. The goal of Liberalism is to make YOU behave and think like THEY want you to, even it is by force of law.

The fact that you get good grades in school, or show up to work on-time everyday, or keep your neighborhood clean and safe, and go to Church or Synagogue, drives them absolutely out-of-this world bonkers. That's not supposed to be possible! You are supposed to be an unemployed, drug addicted, transvestite prostitute. Because according to their warped and frankly 'disturbed' thinking, that is all America has to offer to everyone. Unless you have what they call 'White Privilege', which has become their latest excuse for American success.

White Privilege (which Liberals apply to people of all races, btw) is nothing more than being a decent moral person who has enough common sense to get an education and to get a job (and keep it). That's it! That is all it is. That is why Liberals apply the term (White Privilege or Whitey) to normal, day to day, calm and successful Latinos, Asians, and Blacks. Because ambition, integrity, and basic consistency doesn't count in the Liberal worldview. It is the corrupt American society which makes people what they are, not the individual himself.

People only are successful because of birthright, race, or luck. That is why they hate successful normal minorities more they hate actual White people. That is why they say, "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT!" Because in the dark and disturbed world of a Liberal, it is not possible for any individual to individually succeed based on his own hard work and merit. They use this to postulate that a homeless drug addicted criminal is innocent. It is not his/her fault. It is America's fault.

The essential point of this screed is that California will never secede. Because if they did, they would lose most of their ability to spread their poison, vitriol, and loopy lunacy, to the rest of the nation. And that is their whole mission. California is not worried about what they do, or their State, or their own life; they are obsessed with what YOU do and YOUR life and YOUR State. That is their driving motivation. They would lose the ability to influence and disrupt those with San Francisco values if California secession actually happened.

[goatprairie]

Why I am really no Reagan fan.  Once the genie was out of the bottle it was the new fix every time we had way too many.  Not only that but Reagan was no Conservative.  I won't deny that he also did good things but we have this illegal immigration problem as a result of amnesty.

Here in Washington we are the same.  It wasn't that many years ago that people would poo poo anyone that talked about illegal immigration.  They were those people picking fruit and vegetable.  Seasonal migrants.  Then they started into construction and landscaping.  We created tax ID ITIN.  Now they have their own businesses.  They have mortgages and car loans.  Boats, and all kinds of toys on credit.  What government has done is unconstitutional.

DACA are now well educated and they hold very good white collar jobs.  Ted Cruz had an add during campaign about that:

http://time.com/4167503/ted-cruz-immigration-ad-2016-election/

"Not only that but Reagan was no Conservative"

 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

By given I mean Constitution.  Do you agree that State governance is limited by the U.S. Constitution.  If Whitaker is talking about nullifying Federal Law that isn't Constitutional then I would agree with him.  We have the Supreme Court.  If he is talking about rogue then I don't agree with him.

I wanted to look at his twitter to see what kind of comments he makes.  But he has made his twitter private.  Not very good if you ask me.  Government needs to be transparent.

that is exactly 180 degrees backwards.

The Constitution limits the power of the federal govt, not the states.

It cedes certain enumerated powers to the federal government, but was never intended to limit state powers.

[Chosen Daughter]

that is exactly 180 degrees backwards.

The Constitution limits the power of the federal govt, not the states.

It cedes certain enumerated powers to the federal government, but was never intended to limit state powers.

Well that sounds like a challenge to debate.  I have to go to work but be back later.

It is United States Constitution

If they were not bound by the Constitution they could do whatever they wanted.  Sharia Law anyone?

Article VI Claus 2 Supremecy

[GrouchoTex]

The 10 amendment is pretty clear on this.
Unfortunately, the courts have allowed the 14th amendment to override the 10th, too often.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well that sounds like a challenge to debate.  I have to go to work but be back later.

It is United States Constitution

If they were not bound by the Constitution they could do whatever they wanted.  Sharia Law anyone?

Article VI Claus 2 Supremecy

There really is no debate if you actually read the document.

States are the ultimate authority in it, as intended.

For that matter, the federal government cannot modify any part of it.  But 38 states acting in unison can, as well as firing Congress and the President, and dissolving the Supreme Court.

[Chosen Daughter]

There really is no debate if you actually read the document.

States are the ultimate authority in it, as intended.

For that matter, the federal government cannot modify any part of it.  But 38 states acting in unison can, as well as firing Congress and the President, and dissolving the Supreme Court.

The only way a state can nullify a Federal Law is if it is deemed unconstitutional.

Article VI clause 2

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The only way a state can nullify a Federal Law is if it is deemed unconstitutional.

Article VI clause 2

You did not even read what I wrote.

A state acting in unison with enough states can nullify all laws.  It is THE authority.

[Chosen Daughter]

You did not even read what I wrote.

A state acting in unison with enough states can nullify all laws.  It is THE authority.

I read it and that is not even likely.  So Article VI clause 2 is the Constitutional Law.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I read it and that is not even likely.  So Article VI clause 2 is the Constitutional Law.

You choose to obviate the Constitution because it is 'not likely'?

How liberal of you, to selectively enforce what you choose.