how would the practice of nullification threaten the Union?
447829
The practice of nullification would threaten the Union because then any state could simply nullify the national laws, effectively canceling the power of the Congress and the national government. By denying the power of the national government to pass laws that apply to all the states, the states would make the union a union in only a name, since each state could act independently in any matters, including taxation and foreign policy, and there would be no body that could make the states act together as a union.
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
927929
I think you are on the right track. Exposing Judges to the electorate does undermine their judicial Independence. I think the best solution is a Judicial review committee of fellow judges not to uphold or strike down rulings ( we already have an appeals court system) but to rate the job performance of judges and give guidance. This Body would be empowered to give private and public rebukes and when necessary refer judges to legislative bodies for Impeachment in extreme cases of judicial misconduct. this would impose a buffer between judges and the electorate preserving judicial Independence while still exposing them to peer review and ultimately the electorate for severe misconduct.
543629
I would. If the Union is not doing their job, then secede and set up a government that will! Our government is disfunctional and republicans and democrats alike do not listen to the voters anymore. They do whatever they please as long as it lines their pockets. Personally, I get tired of paying my income tax so politicians can give it away to the rest of the world. SECEDE NOW!
923552
The law has yet to be enacted which would contain answers to all of your questions such as fines and consequences if one refused to register or answer the call. Let's hope the call for a draft gets defeated soundly!!\n\nChow!!
1081059
It depends on the organization's by-laws. It may or may not be legitimate, but the person elected certainly doesn't have to take the position it they don't want it.
21725
No provision of the Constitution allows secession.  This was a contested theory, of course, because no state had tried it, and many states thought they still reserved the right to secede.  New England even considered a plan well before the Civil War to secede, under the Hartford Convention of 1814.\n\nThe structure of the Constitution, however, seems to deny a secession theory.  The Constitution may be amended by 3/4 of the states, which means that 1/4 of the states could be bound by a law they did not agree with.  It doesn't seem like that a state could just secede if they wanted to, since the very structure of the Constitution bound states with laws they didn't agree with.\n\nThe Civil War, then, was not "illegal."  The President used troops to prevent a rebellion.  The Confederacy had violated the structure of the Constitution, and it had circumvented legal methods of achieving its desires (e.g., legislation, constitutional amendment).
152268
Probably neither. Obviously the law would be in violation of the first amendment, and thus the court would have to analyize the law using strict scrutiny.
265986
U.S. Code, Title 4, Section 1:\n\n"(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning." \n\nThe key phrase here that makes this different than a protest is "...destroyed in a dignified way...". It should be done in private, or a respectful ceremony. If you want to take it even a step farther, I've heard from some, but can't find it online, that you should also bury the ashes. \n\nAs for folding the flag, check out the second link below. Fold it up good and tight, and only the union (field of blue with the stars) should be showing. No red and white should be visible at all.
139746
If marriage is a "status" bestowed upon a couple by the state, then the state denying someone based on sexual orientation better be able to stand up to constitutional muster. Without going into a long dissertation of equal protection/fundamental rights issue, I, professionally, cannot see how, discrimination based on an immutable characteristic could withstand a const'al challenge. \n\nNow, personally, I could care less what two consenting adults do. Besides, How can it be any worse than heterosexual marriage rates, which are roughly 50%? \n\nAnd everyone that thinks it's a "slippery slope" to concerns they find abhorrent, remember, at one time it was thought inconceivable that women or blacks could vote, etc. because of all the damage such rights would cause. Looking around, I fail to see any damage from removing the voting disenfranchisment that women and blacks had to endure. So, the slippery slope argument is really, just a knee jerk irrational reaction.\n\nAnd, additionally, for those that start spewing the crap about marriage being a covenant with god, STFU. It's a status deigned BY THE STATE, not your boogey man in the clouds.
663090
I doubt it'll work out. They'll probably have future arguments about this. If one member submits to the other's requests, at least ONE of them will end up unhappy because they were "forced" into making that choice.
756351
If the acts were unconstitutional they would be overturned by the Supreme Court.  The Court has already ruled that certain rights of prisoners of war must be considered.
980014
To law abiding citizens it seems to appear no threat on the surface. Why would it bother or affect me? The underlying fact remains that it could happen to you. It could affect you. A neighbour or co-worker you angered in some way, phones a pal in the government, abuses happen, remember the real "red menace " of the McCarthy years. Because this Act gives anyone the ability to suspend the one right America had defended since birth is indefensible due to it's very almost uni-lateral design. Even if you are truly innocent, this Act means that you could not present that evidence and you have no recourse? Don't sound American to me.
642981
1. It shows the people in the union how powerful they can be when they work together.\n\n2. It is perceived as a direct threat to the companies management and profitability.\n\n3. Our government now in the USA is extremely Pro business and is against anything Big business is against.
625165
I think so. It was definitely helped along by radicals on both sides but I don't think either the issue of slavery or that of whether or not states had a right to secede (A major point of debate and contention since the ratification of the Constitution), would ever have been resolved otherwise. It's unfortunate but sometimes that's just the way it is. In the end our country was much better off though.
1019908
Violation of separation of powers between the three branches, violates the very basis of the constitiution.  Could also have effect on national security by disclosing classified information and on executive priviledge.
137893
My understanding was that the election directly caused the start of secession of states in the South from the union since Lincoln was known for his stand on slavery. The crisis was already at a boiling point by that time already due to non-handling/concessions on slavery of previous administrations.