The issue of nullification was decided first, by the drafting of the Constitution, which was an express repudiation of the right of nullification previously present in the Articles of Confederation, and by the Civil War, which settled a rebellion partially based on it. Way back in 1970, Martha Mitchell said this country was going so far to the right no one would recognize it. She was more right than she ever imagined, and I have a feeling she imagined quite a bit. Anyway, let's just quote the actual Constitution and be done with this crap:
Nice try. The constitutional problems were discussed in the article if you read it but it's not going to be that easy with possibly over 50% of states taking up nullification. "There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare," Pearce said. "What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It's a killer."
All fifty could do it. Wouldn't matter from the POV of the Constitution. You're just proving, yet again, that you're a raving loon.
Now that would be one hell of a GREAT step in the RIGHT direction for Idaho.........DYSFUNCTIONAL CODEPENDENCY is accepted enslavement! :eek: Bust out of the FEDERAL CHAINS Idaho and run for your life!
He was spotted at a church on his knees PRAYING they find barry's LONG FORM VAULT COPY Birth Certificate in Hawaii.............. :eek:
Its as if the actual wording you posted didn't matter to anyone. "Supreme" ...they weren't talking about Diana Ross.
I really don't understand why we are complaining about nationalized healthcare here while we build hospitals and provide free medical treatment in foreign countries.
HOW DARE YOU!!! We are exporting "planned" CO-DEPENDENCY and it is our BIGGEST export these days!!!!!!!! :eek: