[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Corrupt Government
See other Corrupt Government Articles

Title: 217th anniversary of signing of Kentucky resolution of 1798 what we've forgotten
Source: The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu ... n-of-1798-what-we-ve-forgotten
Published: Nov 16, 2015
Author: Joe Wolverton
Post Date: 2015-11-17 19:19:05 by Dead Culture Watch
Keywords: We don
Views: 6505
Comments: 65

On this day, November 16, 217 years ago, Governor James Garrard of Kentucky signed into law the first of two landmark pieces of legislation known to history as the Kentucky Resolutions. The first bill was passed by tthe Kentucky state House on November 10, 1798 and by the Senate on November 13. The bill was then signed into law by Governor Garrard three days later. As is widely known, the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 was authored by Thomas Jefferson (shown), while a companion measure introduced in the Virginia state assembly was written by his frequent collaborator, James Madison. The measures were reactions by the two first-tier Founders to the enactment by President John Adams of the Alien and Sedition Acts during the summer of 1798.

Those pernicious pieces of legislation (four acts in all) granted the federal government new and expansive powers. The so-called Alien Acts were used by the president to declare foreign residents in the United States to be enemies of the state and to have them jailed and deported. The Sedition Acts, on the other hand, endowed the president with the power to outlaw and punish any criticism of the Adams administration considered by the executive branch to be “seditious.” The former “laws” obliterated due process while the latter violated the right of Americans to speak freely and to criticize the government, as protected by the First Amendment. The summer before the passage of the Sedition Act, a strong-arm tactic taken by John Adams against a political adversary hit Thomas Jefferson very close to home: the prosecution of Samuel Jordan Cabell. It was one of the events that eventually compelled him to pen the principles of nullification in 1798. Samuel Jordan Cabell was a congressman representing Thomas Jefferson’s home district in Virginia. In May 1797 a grand jury returned a presentment of libel against Cabell (incidentally, as a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, Cabell voted against ratification of the Constitution). What was Cabell’s crime? He sent a letter to constituents criticizing the administration of John Adams. That’s it. That was the sum of his seditious plot. A letter to voters in his district calling out some act of the president with which he disagreed. For this effrontery to his authority, John Adams charged Cabell with “endeavoring at a time of real public danger to disseminate unfounded calumnies against the happy government of the United States.” That was Samuel Jordan Cabell’s predicament — caught in the spokes of a federal conspiracy — until Thomas Jefferson learned of the grand jury’s action. In response to the presentment handed down against his congressman, Jefferson anonymously (for even the author of the Declaration of Independence feared being found openly questioning the national government) petitioned the Virginia House of Delegates asking that the members of the grand jury be punished. Upon learning of Jefferson’s petition in defense of Cabell, James Monroe counseled his fellow Virginian that he would be better off making his request to Congress instead of the state government. Jefferson’s response makes it clear what the Sage of Monticello thought of Monroe’s understanding of the true seat of sovereignty. He knew that “the system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground.” If the people were to sit still, would we lose everything, he warned. Who did Jefferson believe had the right and the responsibility to protect citizens from federal abuse of power? The states. “It is of immense consequence that the States retain as complete authority as possible over their own citizens,” he wrote. From this masterfully crafted letter in response to Monroe, we see that before he penned his views on the proper constitutional relationship between state and national government in the Kentucky Resolutions, Jefferson understood, shared, and promoted the principle of state authority to check federal overreaching. Within a month of Congress’s passage of the Sedition Act, Jefferson had written the first draft of the Kentucky Resolution, declaring in its first paragraph: That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force. Then, as he did in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson lays out the manifold violations of the Constitution committed by the federal government. Next, he proposed a sound solution to the tyranny: Therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them. Kentucky’s state lawmakers and governor agreed. In fact, on November 7, 1798, Governor Garrard spoke to the members of the Kentucky Legislature, rehearsing to them the strident opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts already enacted by many of the commonwealth’s counties. Garrard warned the representatives that Kentuckians were “utterly disaffected to the federal government.” He said that Kentucky and all states retain the power to “applaud or to censure that government, when applause or censure becomes its due.” He concluded his remarks by encouraging the state legislators to reaffirm their commitment to the union and to the Constitution by firmly renouncing “all unconstitutional laws and impolitic proceedings” of the federal government. After reading the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, one wonders why in the last decade or so since the beginning of the undeclared but never ending “War on Terror,” has there been no wholesale multi-state repudiation of warrantless wiretapping, warrantless pat-downs at airports, warrantless death by drone, warrantless GPS tracking of cars, the near abolition of habeas corpus and codification of the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law. Why have the states so completely and meekly abdicated their rightful position of power? Why have they deserted their posts as sentinels set to watch for the approaching advance of federal absolutism? Why do Americans look to Washington for cures to diseases bred by the swarms of would-be dictators that infest that former swamp? Why do we sit idly by as congressmen, courts, and the president conspire to reduce our state governments to mere colonies of the federal empire? Are state lawmakers and governors now so accustomed to their servitude that a benign stupor is their only reaction to the placement by the federal government of tighter and tighter chains around their necks? Nullification, as defined by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, is the most powerful weapon against the federal assault on state sovereignty and individual liberty. As Jefferson explained, states, as creators of the federal government, have the authority to nullify any act of the federal government that exceeds the constitutional boundaries of its delegated powers. By applying the principles Jefferson expounded in that seminal document, states could simultaneously rebuild the walls of sovereignty once protected by the Constitution, in particular the 10th Amendment, and drive the forces of federal consolidation back to the banks of the Potomac.


Poster Comment:

Laws and rights have never meant anything, the government will do as it pleases.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#9. To: Dead Culture Watch, Roscoe (#0)

Nullification, as defined by Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, is the most powerful weapon against the federal assault on state sovereignty and individual liberty. As Jefferson explained, states, as creators of the federal government, have the authority to nullify any act of the federal government that exceeds the constitutional boundaries of its delegated powers.

It was really an act of desperation as going through the courts would have been a futile gesture. The U.S. Supreme Court was 100% Federalist.

217 years later, it is solid fact that states cannot attempt to nullify an act of the federal government without the U.S. Army showing up at their door. As the U.S. Supreme Court, President Eisenhower, and the 82nd Airborne explained, Jefferson and Madison did not prevail on the question of state nullification.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)

Cooper at 4:

We are urged to uphold a suspension of the Little Rock School Board's plan to do away with segregated public schools in Little Rock until state laws and efforts to upset and nullify our holding in Brown v. Board of Education have been further challenged and tested in the courts. We reject these contentions.

Cooper at 17:

Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, ... denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State. This must be so, or the constitutional prohibition has no meaning." Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347. Thus the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws; whatever the agency of the State taking the action, see Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313; Pennsylvania v. Board of Directors of City Trusts of Philadelphia, 353 U. S. 230; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1; or whatever the guise in which it is taken, see Derrington v. Plummer, 240 F. 2d 922; Department of Conservation and Development v. Tate, 231 F. 2d 615. In short, the constitutional rights of children not to be discriminated against in school admission on grounds of race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers, nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted "ingeniously or ingenuously." Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128, 132.

Cooper at 18-19:

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, "to support this Constitution." Chief Justice Taney, speaking for a unanimous Court in 1859, said that this requirement reflected the framers' "anxiety to preserve it [the Constitution] in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against resistance to or evasion of its authority, on the part of a State . . . ." Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506," 524. No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it. Chief Justice Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in saying that: "If the 'egislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . ." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136. A Governor who asserts a power to nullify a federal court order is similarly restrained. If he had such power, said Chief Justice Hughes; in 1932, also for a unanimous Court, "it is manifest that the fiat of a state Governor, and not the Constitution of the United States, would be the supreme law of the land; that the restrictions of the Federal Constitution upon the exercise of state power would be but impotent phrases . . . ." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U. S. 378, 397-398.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   0:23:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: nolu chan (#9) (Edited)

217 years later, it is solid fact that states cannot attempt to nullify an act of the federal government without the U.S. Army showing up at their door.

The recreational pot sales states seem to be getting away with nullifying the enforcement of federal drug laws.

And several states managed to nullify the subsidy requirements of the ACA. They refused to set up the required state exchanges and got the federal subsidies anyway.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   0:33:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Roscoe (#10)

The recreational pot sales states seem to be getting away with nullifying the enforcement of federal drug laws.

No, that would be the Obama administration not enforcing the drug laws. The Federal drug laws apply in all 50 states, and with a new administration, some states may find their decriminalization actions to be actively opposed by the Federal government.

And several states managed to nullify the subsidy requirements of the ACA. They refused to set up the required state exchanges and got the federal subsidies anyway.

Nobody has nullified the subsidy "requirements" of the ACA. Setting up state exchanges was voluntary per the ACA. They chose not to volunteer.

In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court (dubiously) upheld the tax credits in States with a Federal Exchange. No matter how much one may disagree with the opinion, there is not doubt that, in fact, the argument against the provision of tax credits by the Federal Exchanges failed.

King v. Burwell, S. Ct. 14-114 (25 Jun 2015) slip op.

Syllabus at 2:

Held: Section 36B’s tax credits are available to individuals in States that have a Federal Exchange. Pp. 7–21.

Opinion of the Court at 10:

By using the phrase “such Exchange,” Section 18041 instructs the Secretary to establish and operate the same Exchange that the State was directed to establish underSection 18031. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1661 (10th ed. 2014) (defining “such” as “That or those; having just been mentioned”). In other words, State Exchanges and Federal Exchanges are equivalent—they must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions, and serve the same purposes. Although State and Federal Exchangesare established by different sovereigns, Sections 18031 and 18041 do not suggest that they differ in any meaning­ful way. A Federal Exchange therefore counts as “an Exchange” under Section 36B.

Opinion of the Court at 21:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is con­sistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Con­gress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   12:43:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: nolu chan (#13)

No, that would be the Obama administration not enforcing the drug laws.

Correction: Yes, that would be the Obama administration, and the DEA, and the Justice Department, not enforcing the drug laws so those states successfully nullified an act of the federal government without the U.S. Army showing up at their door.

Nobody has nullified the subsidy "requirements" of the ACA.
Yes, they did. States exchanges were explicit requirements of the law for the receipt of the subsidies. The states nullified the Act of Congress without the U.S. Army showing up at their door, albeit with the assistance of subsequent judicial legislation by the Court.
Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.
Semantically null hyperbole.

Let's compare.

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting:

The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.

The majority's arguments were empty and self-serving rationalizations for making law from the bench. You do admit that, right?

So as we can see, your hypothetical U.S. Army invasions of states are far from inevitable. They are, in fact, exceedingly rare. Your premise collapsed.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   18:14:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Roscoe (#18)

so those states successfully nullified an act of the federal government

No, the Federal government not enforcing a law does not equate to the State nullifying it. If a new administration comes in and enforces it, the State remains unable to nullify a federal law.

The state has merely eliminated prior state criminal statutes, and has not volunteered to enforce federal law.

Nobody has nullified the subsidy "requirements" of the ACA.

States exchanges were explicit requirements of the law for the receipt of the subsidies. The states nullified the Act of Congress without the U.S. Army showing up at their door, albeit with the assistance of subsequent judicial legislation by the Court.

Never happened, and your interpretation of the law (and mine) is contradicted by the interpretation of SCOTUS. SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter. If the State sets up an exchange, applicants may be eligible for and receive a subsidy. If the State chooses not to set up an exchange, the Federal government sets up an exchange and applicants may be eligible for and receive a subsidy. No State has nullified anything.

The majority's arguments were empty and self-serving rationalizations for making law from the bench. You do admit that, right?

I have previously voiced my disagreement with the majority opinion. A four-justice dissenting opinion does nothing other than record dissent. Our opinions are merely opinions. The majority opinion becomes law.

So as we can see, your hypothetical U.S. Army invasions of states are far from inevitable. They are, in fact, exceedingly rare. Your premise collapsed.

No, your premise is non-existent. The has been no state nullification of any part of the ACA. The States that brought suit, LOST. The ACA is still there, stumbling along on its deathmarch to fiscal meltdown.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-18   22:29:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: nolu chan (#21)

No, the Federal government not enforcing a law does not equate to the State nullifying it.

It absolutely does. In the case of state recreational pot sales, the federal government has selectively surrendered the enforcement of its federal drug laws and has NOT sent in the U.S. Army. The federal government's surrender is so abject that we now have different federal enforcement standards, state by state, with the state standards controlling the federal enforcement levels.

Our opinions are merely opinions. The majority opinion becomes law.
Legislatures make law. The Court's opinion is no more a law than my opinion. Nor does the Supreme Court have the means to enforce its decrees. Its rulings stand at the pleasure of Congress and the President. Or haven't you noticed Obama repeatedly ignoring court rulings without consequence. The Court doesn't command the U.S. Army. Familiarize yourself with Ex parte Merryman.

Let's move on to another example of successful state nullification of federal law. The Federal 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act prohibited states from having speed limits higher than 55 miles per hour. Multiple states nullified the law by simply posting the federal limit then NOT enforcing it. The law was a standing joke, laughed at and openly violated by millions in multiple states across America. No U.S. Army invasions occurred. Congress surrendered, first amending and then later repealing the law.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-18   23:08:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Roscoe (#22)

No, the Federal government not enforcing a law does not equate to the State nullifying it.

It absolutely does.

It absolutely does not. A Federal failure to enforce a law is not a State nullification of a law.

Change the president, to one who sees fit to do his job, and enforcement of the law may resume.

Legislatures make law. The Court's opinion is no more a law than my opinion.

The majority of federal laws are not written by the legislature. Administrative agencies write most of them.

http://law.justia.com/cases/

Check out Case Law.

The Common Law system of law without case law is an impossible concept.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-23   13:42:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

#29. To: nolu chan, roscoe, Y'ALL (#26) (Edited)

Roscoe--- Legislatures make law. The Court's opinion is no more a law than my opinion. Nor does the Supreme Court have the means to enforce its decrees. Its rulings stand at the pleasure of Congress and the President.

Amazingly enough roscoe and I agree about this clearly verifiable constitutional fact. -- It is a pity that nolu chan cannot explain WHERE he was misinformed, and WHY he continues to insist that the SCOTUS can make law..

nolu-- The majority of federal laws are not written by the legislature. Administrative agencies write most of them.

You're confusing administrative regulations with laws written 'in pursuance' of our Constitution.

law.justia.com/cases/

Check out Case Law. --- The Common Law system of law without case law is an impossible concept.

How silly that you think your link to case law proves your point.

As I've posted before, case law applies to the case specified... They are NOT the 'law of the land'. ---- Only laws written "in pursuance thereof" are valid.

tpaine  posted on  2015-11-23 14:11:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com