The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: That is what I thought when I heard of nullification

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: This from the Huffington Post: (see in situ)

That is what I thought when I heard of nullification

But, this is a great test! And, my congratulations to the Americans of Missouri for having a state legislature that at least has the spirit of the law of the law of the land.

The Constitution was an agreement to use Article V instead of nullification which was problematic leading up to the Constitution. So, in that way, nullification is going backwards.

There has been a concerted effort, and public schools have often participated "to dumb down" and selectively teach American government, history etc. Accordingly the logic of Article V replacing nullification goes forwards with the great contract. Now, implied here is that all rights are unimpaired in every way, so Americans maintain a true appreciation of Constitutional intent enabling states citizens to take their state to Article V in unity.

That's where states start to think nullification to enforce states powers. What has happened is that the abridging of free speech has disabled the people from supporting the states towards a proper Article V.

We shall see at least; if the state backs down from legal pressure, then if not-do the feds try to enforce outside of state control? Now, "does the state uphold its own laws?", becomes the question.

Examine this proposal for preparatory amendment at a new Article V forum.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?