SC

South Carolina’s First Nullification Test

S.C. Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) is leading the fight to nullify federal statutes which authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens – a flagrant violation of our constitutional right to due process. Davis’ legislation targets provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 – which the administration of…

S.C. Sen. Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) is leading the fight to nullify federal statutes which authorize the indefinite detention of American citizens – a flagrant violation of our constitutional right to due process.

Davis’ legislation targets provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 – which the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is currently fighting to uphold in federal court.

Here’s the text of Davis’ legislation …

No agency of the State, officer or employee of this State, solely on official state duty, may engage in an activity that aids an agency of the armed forces of the United States in execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or any subsequent provision of this law in the detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Section 3, Article I, and Section 14, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution.

The bill – which cleared the left-leaning State Senate by a 25-15 vote – is being praised by Tenth Amendment advocates.

“If enough states step up and simply refuse to cooperate with federal kidnapping, it will definitely throw up significant impediments and obstacles in (the federal government’s) way,” said a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center.

Indefinite detention was ruled unconstitutional last year by U.S. District Court judge Katherine Forrest – who issued an order enjoining the government from engaging in the practice. Unfortunately a federal appeals court struck down that ruling – leaving the authorization in place.

Nullification has been a hot issue at the S.C. State House this year, with most of the attention focused on a bill by S.C. Rep. Bill Chumley targeting Obama’s socialized medicine law.

As noted previously, we have no problem with nullification … however we want to see lawmakers putting their money where their mouths are on fiscal issues (a.k.a. putting more of our money in our wallets and pocketbooks). To his credit Davis has done that, although he’s one of only a handful of lawmakers at the State House who can say that.

***

Related posts

SC

News Flash: Jesus Is Not Your Boyfriend

Will Folks
SC

Upstate Elementary School Sexual Assault Case Headed For Trial

Will Folks
SC

Palmetto Past & Present: South Carolina’s ‘Buckeye Rebel’

Mark Powell

76 comments

BigT March 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Sounds like “Succession” talk to me…
I love to see FITS paint his cheap-hack @$$ into these corners. He bashes SC as backwards, yet his boy Davis is breakin’ out the ol’ Stars and Bars that cause so much shame for the pop culture libs like the Self-Loathing FITS…
Just like FITS claims to HATE Status-Quo, disgraced, Career politicians…yet he is embarrassing (or is it Whoring) himself for the Establishment train wreck called Sanford… LMAO..

Reply
BeaufortTiger March 26, 2013 at 3:58 pm

It’s secession, not succession, you freak show.

Reply
Daniel Encarnacion March 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm

You know in December 1860, the South Carolina secession instrument’s first complaint listed was repeated use of nullification by northern abolitionist states against the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. So no. The only time secession has been used in US history it was AGAINST the use of nullification.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm

SC is a wonderful state, huh! lol…

Reply
BigT March 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm

I hear Siberia is nice this time of year. Why don’t you go over there…and make sure to let them know how much you HATE them, like you Hate America and SC….huh!…LOL….

Smirks March 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm

The only one spewing vitriolic hatred like a complete shill is you.

Ben March 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm

I wonder what BigT is. This is what I think. Overweight. Dull. High-school graduate. Attends church occasionally. Watches pornography on the web. Masturbates before sleeping. Divorced. No hobbies. No friends. Watches lots of TV. Does not mow his lawn or wash his car. Showers 2x / week, smells bad. Obsessed with fitsnews. Family members do not call him. Does not participate in social events. Eats microwave food. Has a dog who is his best friend.

BigT March 27, 2013 at 11:09 am

Funny how you leftwing idiots must Vilify that which you are too stupid to understand.
Why not just open your mind???

BigT March 26, 2013 at 6:52 pm

You must be descended from one of the wealthy democrat families, who were the very small fraction who owned slaves…Yet yall ended up responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands…It’s like today’s Obama voter. So many, suffer so much, so, so few liberal elitists can have so much that they could never earn if they had to work for it….Nice…

Reply
Mark B Hopp March 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Thanks Daniel…the revisionist history is unfolding via the internet. Keep it going!

Reply
Daniel Encarnacion May 13, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Read the secession instrument for yourself at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. It isn’t revision. It’s a primary source document. I’ll quote from it: “…The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution…”

BigT March 26, 2013 at 2:58 pm

Sounds like “Succession” talk to me…
I love to see FITS paint his cheap-hack @$$ into these corners. He bashes SC as backwards, yet his boy Davis is breakin’ out the ol’ Stars and Bars that cause so much shame for the pop culture libs like the Self-Loathing FITS…
Just like FITS claims to HATE Status-Quo, disgraced, Career politicians…yet he is embarrassing (or is it Whoring) himself for the Establishment train wreck called Sanford… LMAO..

Reply
BeaufortTiger March 26, 2013 at 3:58 pm

It’s secession, not succession, you freak show.

Reply
WeThePeopleSC March 26, 2013 at 6:12 pm

You know in December 1860, the South Carolina secession instrument’s first complaint listed was repeated use of nullification by northern abolitionist states against the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. So no. The only time secession has been used in US history it was AGAINST the use of nullification.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 6:25 pm

SC is a wonderful state, huh! lol…

Reply
BigT March 26, 2013 at 6:47 pm

I hear Siberia is nice this time of year. Why don’t you go over there…and make sure to let them know how much you HATE them, like you Hate America and SC….huh!…LOL….

Smirks March 26, 2013 at 8:05 pm

The only one spewing vitriolic hatred like a complete shill is you.

Ben March 26, 2013 at 8:43 pm

I wonder what BigT is. This is what I think. Overweight. Dull. High-school graduate. Attends church occasionally. Watches pornography on the web. Masturbates before sleeping. Divorced. No hobbies. No friends. Watches lots of TV. Does not mow his lawn or wash his car. Showers 2x / week, smells bad. Obsessed with fitsnews. Family members do not call him. Does not participate in social events. Eats microwave food. Has a dog who is his best friend.

BigT March 27, 2013 at 11:09 am

Funny how you leftwing idiots must Vilify that which you are too stupid to understand.
Why not just open your mind???

BigT March 26, 2013 at 6:52 pm

You must be descended from one of the wealthy democrat families, who were the very small fraction who owned slaves…Yet yall ended up responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands…It’s like today’s Obama voter. So many, suffer so much, so, so few liberal elitists can have so much that they could never earn if they had to work for it….Nice…

Reply
nctenther March 26, 2013 at 9:16 pm

Thanks Daniel…the revisionist history is unfolding via the internet. Keep it going!

Reply
WeThePeopleSC May 13, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Read the secession instrument for yourself at http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp. It isn’t revision. It’s a primary source document. I’ll quote from it: “…The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution…”

Vanguard16 March 26, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Who is being detained??

Reply
Michael Boldin March 26, 2013 at 6:07 pm

well, idiot, you wouldn’t know. And when the federal judge asked the government’s lawyers if they were using indefinite detention in defiance of her temporary order blocking it, they refused to answer yes.

this is serious business – left, right and center are opposed to it all over the country. Except South Carolina – which is an embarrassment – only republicans oppose NDAA and work to nullify it while the left makes excuses and votes against those bills.

What a joke.

Reply
lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Not true.

Reply
jan March 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm

“only republicans oppose NDAA”

Yea right, well if they oppose it why did they enact it in the first place. The bill originated in the Republican controlled house.

Reply
Vanguard16 March 26, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Who is being detained??

Reply
Michael Boldin March 26, 2013 at 6:07 pm

well, idiot, you wouldn’t know. And when the federal judge asked the government’s lawyers if they were using indefinite detention in defiance of her temporary order blocking it, they refused to answer yes.

this is serious business – left, right and center are opposed to it all over the country. Except South Carolina – which is an embarrassment – only republicans oppose NDAA and work to nullify it while the left makes excuses and votes against those bills.

What a joke.

Reply
Lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:29 pm

Not true.

Reply
jan March 27, 2013 at 12:42 pm

“only republicans oppose NDAA”

Yea right, well if they oppose it why did they enact it in the first place. The bill originated in the Republican controlled house.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Finally, a fight SC should be fighting. We need to destroy indefinite detention. It is an embarrassment just how many people voted yes on NDAA, as well as Obama signing it.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Finally, a fight SC should be fighting. We need to destroy indefinite detention. It is an embarrassment just how many people voted yes on NDAA, as well as Obama signing it.

Reply
?tion March 26, 2013 at 3:23 pm

Fits preaches day in and day out about government waste. Nullification IS government waste. Nullification WILL NOT hold up in federal court if any of these bills have any actual teeth to them. If there are actual penalties for aiding the federal government (fines, imprisonment, some could argue that even the designation of having committed a crime without any other penalty) they will not be recognized by the federal government and state officials seeking to enforce such a law will be held in contempt.

These aren’t wild abstract thoughts I’m throwing out there… It’s settled law. Passing nullification bills distract from actual legitimate legislative business and trigger lawsuits that are paid for by the state (ergo they are paid for by our tax dollars).

TLDR: These bills are purely political stunts to curry favor with voters and lack any kind of actual enforcement mechanism.

Reply
Moman50 March 26, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Fits is a well known supporter of political “stunts” i. e. most of the legislation passed by our Republican led legislature ;accordingly,his support of this one by his “boy” Davis is no surprise.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

NDAA needs to be challenged in SCOTUS regardless of whether or not nullification would hold up. Indefinite detention is a serious attack on constitutional rights. It is far better than what we usually piss money away fighting in courts, like license plates and iffy laws.

Reply
? March 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Yay, a principled stand on the NDAA from someone on the left…now if we can just get all of you to start bitching about the war(s) again maybe something will change.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm

lol… I’m not for the wars, but a lot of people who shouted down Bush are oddly quiet now. Pretty shameful as it is one of Obama’s worst broken promises.

Reply
People Against NDAA March 26, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Yes, this response will be a bit lengthy, but it is necessary to dispel some of the myths here.

“Nullification” will not hold up in court. Nullification is, technically, unConstitutional.

However, this bill is not nullification. In order to nullify something, there must be something there to nullify. With the NDAA, there is not.

Why?

All laws that are unConstitutional are null and void from their inception (Marbury v. Madison). The NDAA is already void, and the only thing certain legislation needs to do is recognize that fact. The pieces fall into place from there.

The enforcement mechanism is the Oath of Office. Each LEO, member of the Armed forces, elected official and Federal LEO take an Oath to the Constitution. If they break that oath, they are no longer granted the protections of that office if someone wanted to step in.

If the NDAA is declared unConstitutional, no person who upholds an Oath can enforce it. Period. If they are, they will be arrested under the criminal statutes of SC for kidnapping, battery/assault, and murder as applicable to the NDAA.

There’s no need to nullify, all the state needs to do is declare it unConstitutional and enforce that rule. That’s how you protect the rights of the people of South Carolina.

Reply
Mark B Hopp March 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm

I think by declaring it unConstitutional you are thereby “nullifying” it…see also Jury Nullificaiton.
Nullification is legal and constitutional.
The only questions is this: Who decides what is or is not constitutional??

The answer is certainly NOT the Supreme Court!!
Why would the founders have created the federal gov’t through the states just to give the final POWER to 5 out of 9 unelected people who are appointed to LIFETIME seats by the closest seat we have to a dictator (the office of the president)??????

Seriously…we know the fouders were very logical people so why this????

They would have never signed that or set up the constitution with that.

Reply
People Against NDAA March 27, 2013 at 1:58 am

Nullifiy

“1. to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract.
2.
to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.”

There is no law there to nullify, so it is impossible to make the NDAA legally void, inoperative, or deprive it from consequence.

We are not nullifying, but recognizing the existing nullity of the law.

Secondly, the Supreme Court is but one of the arbiters of the Constitution. The States have the power, along with the Legislature and the People, to recognize something as unConstitutional. In fact, every elected official who takes an Oath has this right. If they did not, according to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, it would be “…worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or take the oath would become equally a crime.”

No, we did not give the full power to the Supreme Court, as that would upset the checks and balances our system was designed upon. Even still, they are a crucial element to protect the rights of the people from Federal encroachment.

Reply
Mark B Hopp March 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm

The idea that a federal government will police itself…great strategy. The time has to come to educate society on what the supreme court’s role is. They issue an “opinion” and that is all.

Based on your logic (and the logic of legal “experts”) The founders set up a federal government that would not only police itself but use 5 unelected officials who are appointed by the closest seat to a dicatator (the office of the presidency) which the states created.

The Supreme Court found Slavery perfectly legal and the northern states defied this. They also upheld that the feds could detain Asian citizens during WWII for many years.

This is the true history…not legal precedent hoisted on us by “legal experts”.

The Supreme Court can not and is not the final arbitor in an argument between the states that created it…period. The time has come for the people and the states to do what we’re suppose to do…it’s called civil disobedience.

You have been duped by the lies of history

Reply
Jan March 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm

The states did not create the Federal Government. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Read the first paragraph of the Constitution, if you want to know who created the Federal Government.

Reply
Mr. G March 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

You don’t ask the government for permission to nullify an illegal law. It is an act of defiance–

Reply
?tion March 26, 2013 at 3:23 pm

Fits preaches day in and day out about government waste. Nullification IS government waste. Nullification WILL NOT hold up in federal court if any of these bills have any actual teeth to them. If there are actual penalties for aiding the federal government (fines, imprisonment, some could argue that even the designation of having committed a crime without any other penalty) they will not be recognized by the federal government and state officials seeking to enforce such a law will be held in contempt.

These aren’t wild abstract thoughts I’m throwing out there… It’s settled law. Passing nullification bills distract from actual legitimate legislative business and trigger lawsuits that are paid for by the state (ergo they are paid for by our tax dollars).

TLDR: These bills are purely political stunts to curry favor with voters and lack any kind of actual enforcement mechanism.

Reply
Moman50 March 26, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Fits is a well known supporter of political “stunts” i. e. most of the legislation passed by our Republican led legislature ;accordingly,his support of this one by his “boy” Davis is no surprise.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 4:39 pm

NDAA needs to be challenged in SCOTUS regardless of whether or not nullification would hold up. Indefinite detention is a serious attack on constitutional rights. It is far better than what we usually piss money away fighting in courts, like license plates and iffy laws.

Reply
? March 26, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Yay, a principled stand on the NDAA from someone on the left…now if we can just get all of you to start bitching about the war(s) again maybe something will change.

Reply
Smirks March 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm

lol… I’m not for the wars, but a lot of people who shouted down Bush are oddly quiet now. Pretty shameful as it is one of Obama’s worst broken promises.

Reply
People Against NDAA March 26, 2013 at 7:12 pm

Yes, this response will be a bit lengthy, but it is necessary to dispel some of the myths here.

“Nullification” will not hold up in court. Nullification is, technically, unConstitutional.

However, this bill is not nullification. In order to nullify something, there must be something there to nullify. With the NDAA, there is not.

Why?

All laws that are unConstitutional are null and void from their inception (Marbury v. Madison). The NDAA is already void, and the only thing certain legislation needs to do is recognize that fact. The pieces fall into place from there.

The enforcement mechanism is the Oath of Office. Each LEO, member of the Armed forces, elected official and Federal LEO take an Oath to the Constitution. If they break that oath, they are no longer granted the protections of that office if someone wanted to step in.

If the NDAA is declared unConstitutional, no person who upholds an Oath can enforce it. Period. If they are, they will be arrested under the criminal statutes of SC for kidnapping, battery/assault, and murder as applicable to the NDAA.

There’s no need to nullify, all the state needs to do is declare it unConstitutional and enforce that rule. That’s how you protect the rights of the people of South Carolina.

Reply
nctenther March 26, 2013 at 9:14 pm

I think by declaring it unConstitutional you are thereby “nullifying” it…see also Jury Nullificaiton.
Nullification is legal and constitutional.
The only questions is this: Who decides what is or is not constitutional??

The answer is certainly NOT the Supreme Court!!
Why would the founders have created the federal gov’t through the states just to give the final POWER to 5 out of 9 unelected people who are appointed to LIFETIME seats by the closest seat we have to a dictator (the office of the president)??????

Seriously…we know the fouders were very logical people so why this????

They would have never signed that or set up the constitution with that.

Reply
People Against NDAA March 27, 2013 at 1:58 am

Nullifiy

“1. to render or declare legally void or inoperative: to nullify a contract.
2.
to deprive (something) of value or effectiveness; make futile or of no consequence.”

There is no law there to nullify, so it is impossible to make the NDAA legally void, inoperative, or deprive it from consequence.

We are not nullifying, but recognizing the existing nullity of the law.

Secondly, the Supreme Court is but one of the arbiters of the Constitution. The States have the power, along with the Legislature and the People, to recognize something as unConstitutional. In fact, every elected official who takes an Oath has this right. If they did not, according to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, it would be “…worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or take the oath would become equally a crime.”

No, we did not give the full power to the Supreme Court, as that would upset the checks and balances our system was designed upon. Even still, they are a crucial element to protect the rights of the people from Federal encroachment.

Reply
nctenther March 26, 2013 at 9:07 pm

The idea that a federal government will police itself…great strategy. The time has to come to educate society on what the supreme court’s role is. They issue an “opinion” and that is all.

Based on your logic (and the logic of legal “experts”) The founders set up a federal government that would not only police itself but use 5 unelected officials who are appointed by the closest seat to a dicatator (the office of the presidency) which the states created.

The Supreme Court found Slavery perfectly legal and the northern states defied this. They also upheld that the feds could detain Asian citizens during WWII for many years.

This is the true history…not legal precedent hoisted on us by “legal experts”.

The Supreme Court can not and is not the final arbitor in an argument between the states that created it…period. The time has come for the people and the states to do what we’re suppose to do…it’s called civil disobedience.

You have been duped by the lies of history

Reply
Jan March 27, 2013 at 12:46 pm

The states did not create the Federal Government. You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Read the first paragraph of the Constitution, if you want to know who created the Federal Government.

Reply
Mr. G March 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

You don’t ask the government for permission to nullify an illegal law. It is an act of defiance–

Reply
Stephan March 26, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Why not just leave the Union – that way we can all march up from Savannah (after we finish deepening the port – thanks Nikki) and lay waste to Columbia again. It was a real BBQ last time.

Reply
Michael Boldin March 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm

yeah, because opposing indefinite detention is some kind of weird right wing action. are you living in a cave dude? ACLU is one of the leading advocates of states passing laws to refuse compliance with NDAA indefinite detention.

Reply
Stephan March 26, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Why not just leave the Union – that way we can all march up from Savannah (after we finish deepening the port – thanks Nikki) and lay waste to Columbia again. It was a real BBQ last time.

Reply
Michael Boldin March 26, 2013 at 6:09 pm

yeah, because opposing indefinite detention is some kind of weird right wing action. are you living in a cave dude? ACLU is one of the leading advocates of states passing laws to refuse compliance with NDAA indefinite detention.

Reply
Tom Davis is full of shit March 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm

I look forward to Tom Davis standing up for the next American citizen with an Arab-sounding name who is detained under this law.

Reply
lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Especially if the little bastard just gunned down an assembly of unarmed troops.

Reply
Tom Davis is full of shit March 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm

I look forward to Tom Davis standing up for the next American citizen with an Arab-sounding name who is detained under this law.

Reply
Lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:27 pm

Especially if the little bastard just gunned down an assembly of unarmed troops.

Reply
katlaurenscounty March 26, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Guess what, comrades – All citizens are subject to indefinite detention without due process; relocation, and seizure, on US soil, during peacetime

US ARMYReg, FM 3-39.4 new in 2010 (supercedes regs Bush expanded during his tenure). See page 10-9. Asserts SECDEF has authority under Title 10 USC Section 331, Insurrection Codes, for ‘exception’ to Posse Comitatus ( thanks to Bush Exec order) to order US citizens to be ‘interned/relocated” and controlled by “Civilian Affairs”. Indefinitely, till “rehabilitated”. Citizens who are interned because they are accused (not adjudicated) of crimes to be handled differently than citizens relocated because of ‘national interest’.

Reply
katlaurenscounty March 26, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Guess what, comrades – All citizens are subject to indefinite detention without due process; relocation, and seizure, on US soil, during peacetime

US ARMYReg, FM 3-39.4 new in 2010 (supercedes regs Bush expanded during his tenure). See page 10-9. Asserts SECDEF has authority under Title 10 USC Section 331, Insurrection Codes, for ‘exception’ to Posse Comitatus ( thanks to Bush Exec order) to order US citizens to be ‘interned/relocated” and controlled by “Civilian Affairs”. Indefinitely, till “rehabilitated”. Citizens who are interned because they are accused (not adjudicated) of crimes to be handled differently than citizens relocated because of ‘national interest’.

Reply
lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:30 pm

WTF, did Nim give Tom one of his balls back.

Reply
Lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 6:30 pm

WTF, did Nim give Tom one of his balls back.

Reply
ddean62 March 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Can any of our “representatives” at the State House read? We lost the late war of whatever. That dog will not hunt. They might look at Federal Marshals do, serve many federal warrants. At one time the Marshal’s Service had a contract at the Lexington County Hilton. The hot baloney is suppose to be very good.

Reply
Mark B Hopp March 26, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Um, actually Nullification has worked to stop in it’s tracks The Real ID Act of 2005 (passed under Bush’s admin after 9/11) and to date 34 states have passed laws refusing to implement it.

Reply
ddean62 March 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Was not that a civil matter that states did not have to implement?

Reply
ddean62 March 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm

Can any of our “representatives” at the State House read? We lost the late war of whatever. That dog will not hunt. They might look at Federal Marshals do, serve many federal warrants. At one time the Marshal’s Service had a contract at the Lexington County Hilton. The hot baloney is suppose to be very good.

Reply
nctenther March 26, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Um, actually Nullification has worked to stop in it’s tracks The Real ID Act of 2005 (passed under Bush’s admin after 9/11) and to date 34 states have passed laws refusing to implement it.

Reply
ddean62 March 26, 2013 at 9:25 pm

Was not that a civil matter that states did not have to implement?

Reply
lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 10:50 pm

Lets take note here boys that sic’s bro love Tom Davis has taken on the nullification of laws concerning the 10th amendment. There’s no risk or teeth in his proposed legislation for if he wanted he could have worded it to say that such laws would not be enforced within the boundaries of the state. This is simply status quo Davis. Same same as his deafening silence on the Savannah River sellout, his backing of a sure loser for President, his invisible actions against an unethical governor, etc etc. He could have proposed nullification of laws concerning the 2nd, 4th, or 5th, amendments but those would have required an actual display of political courage. Nope just more tilting at straw men.

Reply
Lowcorider March 26, 2013 at 10:50 pm

Lets take note here boys that sic’s bro love Tom Davis has taken on the nullification of laws concerning the 10th amendment. There’s no risk or teeth in his proposed legislation for if he wanted he could have worded it to say that such laws would not be enforced within the boundaries of the state. This is simply status quo Davis. Same same as his deafening silence on the Savannah River sellout, his backing of a sure loser for President, his invisible actions against an unethical governor, etc etc. He could have proposed nullification of laws concerning the 2nd, 4th, or 5th, amendments but those would have required an actual display of political courage. Nope just more tilting at straw men.

Reply
charlestonvoice March 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm Reply
CharlestonVoice March 26, 2013 at 11:37 pm Reply

Leave a Comment