Just askin’ questions in Utah
In January, the governor of Utah signed the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act.” The law sets up a process for the state to overrule or otherwise ignore federal rules and decisions.
For now, the law is just performative right-wing Republican bafflegab. While it appears to set up a challenge to the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” Governor Sandall denies this:
“Our attorneys have indicated to me that the process that’s in place is constitutional,” he said. “It doesn’t have a constitutional (issue) simply because it’s a process. Any kind of resolution may or may not be deemed constitutional.”
Of course, the Constitution only means what the SCOTUS says it means.
It remains to be seen whether Utah has the testicularity to actually defy federal law. For now, they’re just askin’ questions.
Does the US Constitution apply in Utah?
Andrew Jackson had an ap for that.
Though he was a slaveholder himself, Jackson repudiated those who, like John C. Calhoun, were prepared to destroy the Federal Union in defense of slavery. And his defense of the Union was not merely abstract. In July 1832, when he heard that South Carolina’s legislature was planning to “nullify” the tariff, the President said with his characteristic vigor:
“They can talk and write resolutions and print threats to their heart’s content.
“But if one drop of blood be shed there in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find.”
You recall, no doubt, his dismissive attitude toward the Supreme Court when it came to native Americans right to their land.
Yep,
Jackd
Not sure. the famous “let them enforce it” was in a reference to a case about Georiag’s right to decide who is allowed on Indian land.
He had a hand in the trail of tears, but that is not what the famous quote was about.
As for the forced evacuation of the Indians, consider that the white men were going to exterminate them anyway, maybe Oklahoma was the best he could do for them.
Do you know he adopted an Indian orphan as his own son?
I am no scholar, but I think it is dangerous to hate someone because you heard a story about them.
It was related.. See Worcestor v. Georgia, asserting Federal supremacy over states when it came to control of Indian lands.
Jackd
I am used to being disageed with about my opinions, and getting used to the idea that I am sometimes wrong as to facts. But it does not look to me like your citation is the source of Jacksons famous dismissive comment about the Supreme court.
Nor what is has to do with his “dismissive” atitude toward state nullification of federal law.
so i looked it up. you are probably right. a summary of the case i read a few years ago did not make clear the connection between that case and the removal.
to be even more honest, i am not sure this one (summary) does either, but i can see that in the whole scheme of the events they are connected.
Coberly,
I always appreciate your willingness to take a second look at things.
Not the first time the Mormons renounced their citizenship and declared War on US
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state’s own constitution). There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.
… Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification. The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. … (Wikipedia)
Dobbs
I think the War Between The States settled that question. Secession might not have been treason in 1861. But it would be today.
On the other hand, I can’t see the government enforcing it. Given popular opinion it will be less destabilizing to just ignore them…..up to a point.
Me, I’d just put razor wire around Texas, put up checkpoints, and require an oath to obey the laws of this country before allowing citizens of Texas to enter the United States.
Can a State Constitutionally Secede? | AHA (historians.org)
Can a State Constitutionally Secede?
Dubuque Herald, November 11, 1860
well, yes. the last sentence says it all. secession is abandoning the constitution of the united states. exactly. that’s the point. see Declaration of Independence.
meanwhile, even if the Dubuque Herald says it’s so , doesn’t make it so.
Even James Madison, who, you know, had something to dowith writing the Constitution, said that at some point reality would trump the Constitution (not that Trump).
And if it’s not clear, I entirely agree with Lincoln, even if what he did was not exactly Constitutional.
The South thought slavery was a live or death issue for them, enabling them to convince themselves that secession was the (perfectly legal) answer. [note the idea originally came from resisting the Alien and Sedition acts, which were entirely unconstitutional. that resistance being authored by Jefferson and Madison.
There is a complex relatonship between the need for “law’ and the perfectly obvous fact that “law” can become supid and unjust..at least in the eyes of people who think they are in a strong enough position to defy it.
i think what this coes to, for me at any rate, is that arguing the constitution is ultimately irrelevant…though it might help shape public opinion. what is ultimately relevant is do you (or the other you)have the power to enforce your views.
so, back to Jackson’s ap after all.
whether or not jackson was a good guy or a bad guy.
power is not just immediate military power…of course we do…but political power to manage the unintended consequences of use of force.