Which side do YOU view as right?

Ha, take it easy this is a discussion board not a boxing ring anywho. Besides, we both now that I can get carried away sometmies. Afterall, I am Oppie.

Anyways back to states rights.

You never answered my question on Nullification.

Do you expect him to? He's a regular Gen. Custer, doing what he can to not face the true situation.

Oppie you really need to read some HISTORICALLY acurate books on the War.... And no I dont think that Stuart was to harsh on you!

Thanks a ton, Gen. Lee and IBG. But anyway, I think that nullification is a truely good concept, not a sceme hatched from selfish motives of the States. When a venemous law such as the Sedition Act is passed, it should not only be the right, but the duty of the States to nullify and stop the spread of such unconstitutional jurisdiction. The Sedition Act is such a prime example, because it proves that none of our God-given rights, none of the truths that we find to be self-evident, and none of the ideals which we hold so dear, and often take for granted, are above the rule of law. Two of this coutry's first admendment rights, the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, were infringed and trampled upon, by the Sedition Act. Such a thought would be deemed rediculous, and beyond our wildest dreams, especially when it is mentioned that it occured in a time when the very men who wrote our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, were alive and in control of government. This shows how dangerous too much power is in the hands of government, when 'law and order' come before the rights of the people.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Do you expect him to? He's a regular Gen. Custer, doing what he can to not face the true situation.

Funny, you guys should be comedians:roll:

Will a mod come and delete that? It's off topic.... oh that's right, that was a mod, oh, how silly.... Stick to the topic oppie, and answer the questions.

You are right Jeb. The Alien and Sedition acts are prime examples for the right of nullification. (just supporting you so that Oppie doesnt decide that you made the whole thing up. lol)

Ha! Thank you Gen. Lee, it's much appreciated.

Actually I think nullification was a good idea, it gave more freedom to the states and acted as a levy between state and federal goverment. Even though it was the switch that through the machine of seccesion into motion, I still believe it was a just law.

Only thing about Nullification is that the government could be stopped in EVERYTHING by the States. Even if they tried to do good, they will still be stopped.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Only thing about Nullification is that the government could be stopped in EVERYTHING by the States. Even if they tried to do good, they will still be stopped.

Yes thats just the thing. I'm going to comepare it to giving the keys of a car to the underage passenger. Once the states are in control, some good things may happen, on the other hand there are some things that they cant handle that the feds need to take care of.

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Only thing about Nullification is that the government could be stopped in EVERYTHING by the States. Even if they tried to do good, they will still be stopped.

You said that they WILL be stopped if they try make good laws. I say that they CAN be stopped.
And thats a good thing in my opinion. Instead of there being such a powerful central impersonal illogical government that makes laws based on what they want and think would be great, you have a powerful more local personal logical government that makes laws based on what their people or state wants.

Example... in the 1800s the South was practically based on importing and exporting. It livelihood was based on importing exporting cotton... The majority of the money it made flowed through imports and exports. Very little of North was based on importing or exporting. The money it made did not flow through importing or exporting. So Congress which was controlled by the North desided that tariffs were a good way to ferry money from South to North. (example lets say $100 goes through Southern ports and $75 dollars goes through Northern ports. If the Government imposes tariffs of 50% the South will pay $50 and the North will pay $37.50. This money is added together to form a grand total of $87.50. This money is then spent equally on the North and South. So the Government uses $43.75 on the North and $43.75 on the South. But you see this isnt fair. The South paid $50 and only got $43.75 back. This is one of the results of a impersonal centeral government. The local government sees this as unfair and nullifies the tarrif.

So the South desides the tariff is unfair and nullifies it...

Another example... Big Central government takes the keys from everyone under 20... because not only is the majority of the government from cities but also because the majority believes that in the city it is to dangerous for those under 20 to drive. Now there is a minority of rural states in which it would be no problem at all for those under 20 to drive but there is not a right of nullification. All of the rural states have to go along with a stupid rule.

Another example... If each state is sovereign over its own afairs and one of the states needs a law that those under 20 maynt drive it can make that law without burdening the other states.

The Opposition wrote:

Iron Brigade General wrote:

Only thing about Nullification is that the government could be stopped in EVERYTHING by the States. Even if they tried to do good, they will still be stopped.

Yes thats just the thing. I'm going to comepare it to giving the keys of a car to the underage passenger. Once the states are in control, some good things may happen, on the other hand there are some things that they cant handle that the feds need to take care of.

Feds? that sounds dorky!

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

Another example... Big Central government takes the keys from everyone under 20... because not only is the majority of the government from cities but also because the majority believes that in the city it is to dangerous for those under 20 to drive. Now there is a minority of rural states in which it would be no problem at all for those under 20 to drive but there is not a right of nullification. All of the rural states have to go along with a stupid rule.

Another example... If each state is sovereign over its own afairs and one of the states needs a law that those under 20 maynt drive it can make that law without burdening the other states.

Gen. Lee, I've never heard about a law barring under-20s from driving. Please clarify if this was a hypothetical scenario, because you actually said "Another example..." I doubt that such a law exists, especially one passed by the federal government. In California, once you're 15 1/2, you can start drivers' ed, and you can receive your license, or a limited one, at 16. And if people under 20 weren't allowed to drive, wouldn't that be infringing on the rights of full-fledged 18 and 19 year-old citizens? Otherwise, a good post on the tariff situation.

You can get one as early as 14 if you are a farmer here in Idaho.

You can take drivers ed in NC if you're 14 1/2.

ahmmm...off topic.

You also have no power here

but you're still off topic.

We will nullify Coby's last post.

oh I see how it is.

Good. Cause I don't.

BACK ON TOPIC YOU SLACKERS! lol

you guys are mean.

Sorry everyone I should have said "Another example which is hypothetical." :D

Your agologetic friend
General Lee