nope. I would say that the court can say the application of a law in a given case is not allowed, nullifying that one case.

5/20/2009 10:37:28 PM

Quote :

"I want the crushing inefficiency so as to act as a limit on the judiciary. That's one of the benefits, actually."

the inefficiency is actually why this

Quote :

"But, it also removes the impetus for lower gov't agencies to act upon the unjust law, as they know that the ultimate effect will be their loss."

would never happen

there is ZERO point in arguing over Marbury V. Madison, its not going to change at this point so lets get back to the OT

5/20/2009 10:50:32 PM

^^ So essentially, you're simply arguing for de facto nullification rather than de jure nullification.

Why are you arguing this, again? You still haven't grounded this distinction in the Constitution.

5/20/2009 11:04:30 PM

if you don't see how I have made the distinction, then you clearly have reading comprehension problems

5/21/2009 8:03:14 PM

If you're unwilling to explain why the Constitution allows de facto nullification but wouldn't allow de jure nullification, then you're clearly full of crap.

5/21/2009 8:54:19 PM

Secession would be feasible for any state that isn't dependent on military bases to drive big sectors of their economy, unless you think the SC National Guard really needs Ft. Jackson and all the Naval facilities in Charleston.

Not to mention, would the NCAA keep playing games against SC teams? What about other sports teams? What about events, conventions, etc. held by national organizations? Why would any organization concerned with the US market bother giving to SC the privileges they can possibly obtain right now?

"Secession" would only work if you had all states or a section of states decide to affirm state's rights while still maintaining the current business and trade networks, otherwise you'll have a few islands of pariahs outside the US, where all the money can be made.

If we want to re-assert the constitution and the rights of the states, we need national (or maybe sectional) leadership on the issue. Have a president re-assert these rights for all states and end unconstitutional federal programs in the states (while encouraging the states to take up these programs on a state level should they want them). This is why I think it makes more sense for strict libertarian conservatism on a national scale. If Obama didn't have a stimulus, then the states would have likely thought up something. Instead, you have a stimulus and conservatives at the state level blocking what could be the only opportunity for stuff like unemployment benefits. It would be better if they just told the states to do it all.

[Edited on May 22, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2009 1:58:46 PM