Obama is choosing not to pursue because the Federal govt has been nullified by the vote of the people. The Federal govt wisely chooses to be very judicious in this matter because they risk a constitutional crisis and getting their people put in jail. -- The theory of nullification is solid. If I were arguing for it, I would explain to you and rulling by the Supreme countering a state nullification is an over reach of their power. The would need to be an amendment to the constitution to say a state a can not nullify in certains cases of police power, health, safety and more.
http://takebackthepower.us/Nullification.html It may have occurred to those visiting this site, and who have never before been exposed to its ideas and goals, that there is no precedent for the states to nullify a federal law (declare it void or unconstitutional). But there is! In June-July of 1798, the Congress passed what are known collectively as the "Alien and Sedition Acts." The Sedition Act made it illegal to publicly criticize the government or government officials. As an obvious restriction on free speech, in violation of the First Amendment, The Sedition Act was the most controversial of the Acts. Recognizing The Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson, then Vice-president of the United States, and James Madison assisted Kentucky and Virginia, respectively, to void The Acts within their borders. Jefferson drafted resolutions against The Acts for the Kentucky legislature. Madison likewise drafted resolutions against The Acts for the Virginia legislature. In November, the Kentucky legislature passed Jefferson's resolutions declaring the Acts void, and in December the Virginia legislature passed Madison's, declaring the Acts unconstitutional. Here is a portion of the Kentucky resolution (emphasis added): RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter so ever offered, to violate that compact... The states, Jefferson wrote, "have the unquestionable right to judge of [the Constitution's] infraction; and that a nullification, by [the states], of all unauthorized acts done under color of [the Constitution], is the rightful remedy." That's pretty strong language â "an unquestionable right" to be the judge; the "rightful remedy" being "nullification" of unconstitutional laws by the states. No equivocation there. Above we see that Jefferson believed that a "silent acquiescence" to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition acts was "highly criminal." The Kentucky legislature was duty-bound to act. The states today are no less duty-bound to act to restrain FedGov from acting unconstitutionally. The Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison (considered the "Father of the Constitution"), also in response to The Alien and Sedition Acts, made a similar declaration (emphasis added): "The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact [Constitution], proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/201...cation-and-the-supremacy-clause/#.Ua4v-EDvtIg What did the states ratify? They ratified a compact between the States to create a central government to which were delegated only enumerated powers, leaving all other powers to the states. Article VII leaves no doubt that the Constitution is a compact between the states, for it says the compact will hold âbetween the states so ratifying the same.â The powers delegated by the compact to the central government, as Madison said, are âfewâ and âdefined.â The powers reserved to the states are indefinite in number and undefined. Who is to say what the undefined and unenumerated powers of the states are? The central government cannot have the final say because it is a creature of the constitutional compact between the states. The creature cannot tell the creator what the limits of its powers are. Only the states themselves have the final say over what their undefined and unenumerated powers are. And Madison said that if the central government should intrude into the stateâs reserved powers, the states would have a âdutyâ to âinterposeâ and protect their citizens from harm.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were, however, never appealed to the Supreme Court, whose right of judicial review was not established until Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Subsequent mentions in Supreme Court opinions beginning in the mid-20th century have assumed that the Sedition Act would today be found unconstitutional.
1. For of all there is not surety based on mentions by the court. The court changes. To avoid a constitutional crisis Roberts made one of worst decisions in history - calling obmacare a tax. You certainly can not predict what this court will do. They have too many political and unqualified jurists on it in my opinion. 2. Marbury vs. Madison does not necessarily have to be respected by a state. Essentially the Court can say whatever it wants... if a state decides the court has no power of that area of the law... as would be its right under the constitution what is the Sup Ct going to do. It becomes a constitutional crisis.
It is well known that federal laws infringing upon the rights of the states are unconstitutional and can be struck down. Obamacare is new law and there are many areas that will be challenged and much of it may be struck down as infringing upon states rights.
maybe. are you saying the doj and the IRS respond to the political will of the president rather than their duties under the constitution? seems like you are making the case for states rights and nullification.
Name one case where a state law has successfully overruled The Supreme Court and kept in place a law ruled unconstitutional by The Supreme Court .