Thread: Need help

I am trying to understand the difference between interposition and nullification.

If interposition is where the states legislators intercede on behalf of the citizens of that state, then they have the authority and obligation under the Constitution to not follow federal mandates or laws should they violate a citizens rights as per the Constitution, and, if the federal government does not perform its constitutional duties then the state(s) legislators have the ability to implement and enact laws that will protect the rights of the citizens of said states.

An example that was given was AZ1070. Beings the feds were unwilling to perform their duties to uphold their obligations as outlined in the Constitution to protect our borders, Gov. Brewer and the Arizona state legislator were bound to use interposition to protect the citizens of Arizona.

As with nullification, this process is used, or was, as I was told that nullification was ruled unconstitutional back in the 50's by the Supreme Court, as a means to just nullify or disregard a law passed and thrown upon the states. (Thought I had read somewhere that our founders intended for us to be able to use the nullification process when the federal beast overstepped its enumerated powers.)

Is there something more that I should try and understand? Am I in the ball park concerning this issue? Anything that could be straightened or added, or redefined would be appreciated.

There are people in Indiana that are wanting to get the legislators of Indiana to interpose on behalf of the citizens to defeat ObamaCare. They feel that Florida's lawsuit is not the path for Indiana as our state constitution provides for relief as well.

TIA

This is on Wikipedia,

Interposition, is an asserted right of a state to protect their individual interests and its citizens from federal violation. The third resolution of the Virginia Resolution of 1798 took to task the over-reaching powers of the Federal Government.

"That this Assembly (Virginia) doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states that are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."

With this resolution, Madison asserts that states are "duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil." Although perhaps difficult to embrace with a casual reading, the intent is plain...the state (meaning the executive, legislative and judicial branches of state government) have a duty to stand between the federal government and the citizens of the state and defend against encroachment on the rights of a sovereign state.

Hopefully more and more people are getting involved at the state and local level.

Interposition is a doctrine of states' rights to limit federal government. Many consider it a debatable and dubious doctrine due to the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Interposition normally refers t a right of U.S. states to offset federal violation or abridgement of states' rights considered unconstitutional. Madison said states are "duty bound to interpose" federal government encroachment on sovereign states. Interposition implies states resisting Federal encroachment through filing federal lawsuits, starting a constitutional amendment to clarify and protect the states, or even using nullification. However, states could use interposition without nullification.

Nullification on the other hand is the legal theory that a state has the right to specifically invalidate any federal law or policy that state believes unconstitutional. A good example would be South Carolina's "Ordinance of Nullification" (regarding the Tariff of 182 confrontation with the United States government in 1832. South Carolina went so far as to prepare its Military to resist anticipated federal enforcement of the tariff. The theory of nullification implies that all states are sovereign and were the "creators" of the United States, and therefore had some final authority concerning powers of the federal government. Nullification battles and debates were the precursors to the American Civil War. So in Nullification a state would enact legislation that "nullifies" a particular federal law or policy deemed unconstitutional. Nullification would be considered part of the interposition process.

Thanks Mark.

Nullification on the other hand is the legal theory

Is the word "theory" the correct wording here?

Just heard a radio interview with Dr. Thomas Woods. According to Woods nullification would be a political option not a theory as it has been used on several occassions in the past by several different states during the 19th century. Time to dust off the options and tell the feds where they belong.

Dr. Woods has just finished writing a book on the nullification process. Should be available to those that may be interested in any and al techniques availavble to cut off athe knees the legs of Leviathan.

The book is titled Nullification.

I believe Woods also has a web site, thomaswoods.com.

Those states that have used the nullification process in the past were northern states.