Same with secession: it is a right too, but the feds have muddied the waters so I would be happy with an amendment making it clear, even though arguably it’s “unnecessary”. The state has made unnecessary things necessary by its predictable chicanery.

Would not such a request be an explicit recognition that now the right to nullify does not exist (when it clearly exists, see Woods, Nullification)?

If you’re willing to note other incentives I’m all ears and happy to agree if they seem sensible.

My point is simply that they are not beholden to the federal governing bodies or dependent on them in the way that the modern nullification view insinuates.

This statement, if honestly put forth, is naive, I’m afraid.

Now – you are exactly right that Supreme Court justices are appointed by other branches of government. This is precisely why I think it would be better to have election of Senators by state legislature and repeal authority for the state legislatures. But there’s nothing about the Supreme Court being a court in Washington D.C. that introduces a problem here.

“The system is designed so that the power resides in the state so that the state is the final arbitrator and that the individual states are ultimately answerable to local constituents.”

Are we reading the same Article 3? Power resides in the states to be sure. I am struggling to see support for your conclusion that final arbitration does. Could you cite something to that effect?

I think people who make your case vastly overstate this issue of a “final judge”. Our final judge may not always agree with you, but that is hardly the same as saying they are biased in favor of the federal government

Seeing how Supreme Court justices are appointed by the actions of the other two branches of government then I don’t see why it would come as a shocker that the they are going to appoint people that agree with their political viewpoints.

In case your not getting what is being said here:

The Supreme Court is a balance for government power in the same way that Congress controls the government budget and the Executive branch has the power of the veto. This is designed to _slow_down_ bad legislation to prevent politicians from taking advantage of shocking events and temporary extreme sways in public opinion to pass power-grabbing legislation.

The Supreme Court is made up of pro-federal-government judges because that is what the other branches of the federal government wanted to be in there. The Supreme Court, like everybody else in the planet, are just going to act on their own self interest. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Supreme Court is NOT the ultimate power or counterweight for Federal power. It is PART of the Federal power.

The system is designed so that the power resides in the state so that the state is the final arbitrator and that the individual states are ultimately answerable to local constituents.

But that is thrown out the window with everything else a hundred years ago.

Might I submit, Stephan, that you are wrong to say that scineram is arguing from ignorance and that the wedge between you and scineram emerges from a difference in your views on “the whole point of having the union in the first place”.

It seems unnecessary for you to accuse others of ignorance, when this seems like the far more likely explanation for your disagreement.

and if it did–good.

Nobody is arguing that a Federal elected body can force a state to violate the terms of the original pact.

The argument is that nullification is wrong because it would allow individual states to violate the terms of the original pact when constitutionally legitimate Federal action is deemed inconvenient.

It’s precisely because of the anti-Constitutionalism of nullification that people are opposed to it.

I think people who make your case vastly overstate this issue of a “final judge”. Our final judge may not always agree with you, but that is hardly the same as saying they are biased in favor of the federal government. Biases may emerge from time to time and the decision making isn’t perfect, but I don’t see any reason to believe it is systematically imperfect. The case that the Supreme Court is beholden to the Federal Government is very weak, and it’s always a case that is made by citing innuendo and personal dissatisfaction with decisions, rather than evidence or even logic.

Now – that’s not to say the actual institutions of governance couldn’t be more balanced – they can be. The actual institutions of governance are quite imbalanced, which is why we see a drift towards the federal government (the Supreme Court can’t make all adjustments… some disputes never come before it). That’s why I support the Federalism Amendment. But that’s a very different argument from the argument that federalism itself is a “contradiction in terms”.

The Federal government was meant to be the steward of the common military defense and to ensure the individual states weren’t violating the rules lain out in the Constitution, mainly ensuring the free movement of people and goods between the borders. Anything that extends beyond this duty can be nullified.