Saturday, January 22, 2011

SCOTUS '58 or "Nullification"?

Despite everything we know, you could advise your kid to get into ConLaw.

Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, has announced plans to resort to an obscure 18th century legal remedy that recognizes a state’s right to nullify any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional.

The doctrine, known as nullification, has its roots in the brand of governance practiced by the nation’s founding fathers.

Well, yah, but:

One potential fly in the ointment for Idaho and other states considering nullification is the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Which means, of course, that a bunch of ConLaw types will spend a number of years collecting fees.


Anita Moore said...

Puts me in mind of an episode of All in the Family, where Archie and the Meathead are debating the Second Amendment. The Meathead cites to a 1939 Supreme Court decision to argue that the introductory clause of the Amendment means that the right to keep and bear arms does not inure to the individual citizen. Archie retorts: "The Supreme Court ain't got nuthin' to do with the law!"

(Of course, just a couple of years ago, the Supreme Court rejected the Meathead's interpretation of the Second Amendment...)

Beer, Bicycles and the VRWC said...

And it is true that SCOTUS has nothing to do with the law (not in any commonsensical way, anyway)