For all of you applauding Jerry Brown for signing the Nullification of the NDAA provisions,

[Are_grits_groceries]

you do realize you just jumped over the line to be with the Teashitters who want to nullify many Federal laws.
Please don't try to tell me that THIS is different because........
It all boils down to one thing. States trumping Federal laws they don't like.
Do you really want to go there?

The Federal laws are the only things at many times that enforce such things as equal rights and many other items that are essential.

I am not going to argue with you over the NDAA and how bad that provision is. It should be changed IMO. However, choosing to try it California's way opens up a box that dwarfs Pandora's.

[sendero]

1. Not THIS again.

.... agreeing with the Teahadists on ONE ISSUE does not make one a Teahadist.

Your "with us or against us" level of thinking is worthy of a Bushbot.

The NDAA is an odious law regardless of which party is responsible for it. Brown did the right thing.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I did not say people WERE Teashitters.

I SAID they were now on the same side with them on a very dangerous issue.

Brown did NOT do the right thing. There are many Federal laws that Teashitters don't like and consider odious. They feel as strongly as you do about the ones they don't like.

Choosing to trump Federal law with state law is a path we better not go down.

People scream to high heaven when states pass laws nullifying the ACA or gun control provisions.

In this case, it is with the Constitution or against it.

[sendero]

4. Well...

.. in this case Brown is with the Constitution and the NDAA supporters are not because there is little doubt that provisions of the law are blatantly unconstitutional. But, our judicial system is just as broken as congress so that avenue for remedy is pretty much closed.

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. There is a lawsuit headed to the Supreme Court.

There have been mixed rulings from lower court Federal judges. I don't like SCOTUS but they could do anything with their ruling regardless of what their prior rulings have been.

The statement you just made could be written by anybody about any law.

Do you really want the US to have an a la carte Constitution where states choose what laws they want to obey?

[sendero]

7. Of course that is a loaded question..

.... and so one couldn't answer it in a blanket way. This is not about the rights of states it is about a law that should have never been passed and there being SOME kind of remedy.

[Are_grits_groceries]

9. To repeat my point one last time.

your statement could be written by ANYONE with strong views about certain laws. They think some laws should never have been passed. They think there is no remedy.

There are remedies, but they are neither easy or short.

It IS a loaded question in that nullification is a bullet that could kill our system of government.

The Southern states seceded basically because they wanted to nullify any anti-slavery items.

You want The Articles Of Confederation to be brought back? Even worse laws? No laws?

[sendero]

11. While you cleverly cherry pick..

... the situations in which I would agree with you, there are many where I would not. Marijuana laws for example, or all drug laws even better. There is simply no credible reason for the Feds to be involved AT ALL, but there they are. And their courts are not going to change that, they have a vested conflict of interest in the matter.

You are simply saying "there is no answer" and I'm not agreeing. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[randome]

3. Agree with you on the technicalities of it.

And Federal law will still win out. But sometimes it's important to send a message and Brown did that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[Are_grits_groceries]

5. Well, that means hoo-rah for all the governors

who send messages. The applause you hear is also partly coming from people who agree with this tactic to change a lot of laws. It's not a bandwagon to be on IMO.

[bemildred]

8. Both state and federal governments habitually overreach, so naturally there are disputes. nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

10. True.

However, there are a lot of states with extremely crazy people in charge. NC is an example of them running amok. They get control and off they go.
I don't want to give any of them any kind of inferred support for nullification.

These are strange days.

[bemildred]

12. You can't just go by who is on what side, you have to look at the merits.

When the Feds are full of shit, I want the states to resist. When the states are full of shit, I want to Feds to make them behave.

[gejohnston]

13. nullification started with

Wisconsin and Vermont in the 1850s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850#Nullification

The founders found that a loose confederation did not work, but created a federal system as the next best thing. Most modern democracies created federal systems, not exactly the same as ours but still not unitary.

While not quite the same thing, I support California just like I would have supported Wisconsin and Vermont.

[reddread]

14. Jerry Brown is scum

there, I said it. He has more cover than the Bush family, and fewer real principals that dovetail
with the needs and traditions of the American people.
Has no business running this show, again.
But enough power to get there.
Just like Jeb in 2016.