California: Nullification now - Secession later?

 

Nullification as a constitutional theory rests on the belief that the United States is an artifact of an agreement among the states as to a form of government agreeable to them collectively and individually and that this agreement does not oblige the states to accept laws enacted by the US Congress that the states find unconstitutional.

The ability of the states to secede from the Union is thought to rest on the language of the Declaration of Independence which states the right of a people to determine the form of their government.  In addition to that, the US Constitution contains no language that requires states to accept that the union is indissoluble.  It may be argued that this issue was settle 150 years ago, but, in fact it was not.  Force majeure decided that test of the right of the states to secede, and that settled nothing.

California is now embarked on a course of nullification of federal law and regulations.  Becerra, the new AG of the state seems to see himself as a 21st Century  Joaquin Murietta, the mythic 19th Century leader of Hispanic resistance to US government authority.

The state is refusing to cooperate with federal authorities on a variety of immigration issues.  The state legislature has now passed a law that declares the state to be a sanctuary for people illegally resident in the United States.  Governor Brown is expected to sign this into law.  To my mind that signature will put California in a state of rebellion against the federal government.

From this to secession from the Union is a plausible step if the nullification of federal law is successful.  pl  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States

Comments

[kgw]

Calhoun's reply to Jackson's toast at a Jefferson dinner:
"The Union, next to our liberty, most dear," put it rather well.

[Laura]

...an we all thought Texas would be the one.

[Mikee]

If secession should occur, does than mean we can detain Kamela Harris as an enemy combatant?

[The Twisted Genius]

Is this really a nullification effort? I don't think California is denying the legality of federal immigration laws and regulations or denying federal authorities the right to enforce those laws themselves, just refusing to allow Californian authorities and assets to be used to help federal authorities enforce those laws. The effect may be damned near the same, but it's hard to legally call it nullification.

[Lars]

I think there are several differences between what was tried in the mid 1800's and what is tried today in California. For one, we do not know whether California will succeed. Secondly, we live in a totally different nation today.

Sorry, Col. Lang, but your premise is a very long stretch.

[Lemur]

My brother was in Cali recently and described it as a 'post-American society.' What Huntington described as the Anglo-WASP 'backbone' of America has snapped.

[TV]

Let 'em go.
Every time I've been in California, It felt like I was dealing with children.
"Have a nice day" and "I'm sorry" are the two most common phrases in the California lexicon.

[Jose]

Don't let the door hit California in the....

[mike]

California is the home of many (but not all) of our fruitcakes and nutjobs. But still, Cal produces over 14 percent of our national GDP. So their secession would bring the US below the GDP of the EU, with Cbina not far behind a closing fast.

Plus their is no way any US President would relinquish the 30 military installations in Cal. Especially the crown jewels of Vandenburgh AFB, Fort Irwin NTC, Naval Bases in San Diego & Coronado, and Camp Pendleton. Trump, or anyone else, would not give those up any more than Putin would have given up the home of the Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea. Or no more than Lincoln would have consented to give up Fort Sumter without a fight, or Pensacola or any other Federal forts.

[scott s.]

It seems to me very much designed to mimic the "personal liberty" laws enacted in the North in the 1850's. These laws were designed to avoid compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act. The Wisconsin act resulted in a celebrated case, Ableman v. Booth which eventually resulted in the Wisconsin Supreme Court opining that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have appellate review jurisdiction over an opinion of that court.

[blowback]

Where is Mike when you need him? I'm surprised that he hasn't blamed this nonsense in California on Russia yet, after all there was a Russian colony in northern California, Fort Ross, and I'm sure the Russians left ostavat’sja za spinoj in California to worm their way into positions of power after they evacuated? Perhaps the Clintonists Trotskyists running California should be purged.

Ostavat’sja za spinoj very loosely translates to stay behinds, a term used to describe Winston Churchill's Auxiliary Units in World War II.

[LondonBob]

Demographically California checked out a while ago. Interesting to watch how that plays out.

[Ted Burke]

With the continuing dissolution of the national border (and language and culture from rapidly changing demographics) by the ruling class, this seems to be less significant than it would've been even 10 years. This ain't your father's country anymore. It ain't your country anymore. This last election and the subsequent subversion and coup by the ruling class (the coup didn't need to be complete to be successful in neutering and redirecting Trump) has made me realize the whole political system and voting is a sham. Even in local elections your vote, and the votes of all citizens, is reviewed by a judge who will decide if your vote is "correct". And if it's not, they will simply overturn it. Soon the U.S. will be going to war to destroy Iran. And if your don't support our military attacking and destroying Iran in a pre-emptive war than you're unpatriotic. Maybe you should be unmasked and be harassed by the praetorian guard?!

[turcopolier]

scott s

what happened after that? Did Wisconsin stop enforcing federal law? pl

[turcopolier]

mike

IMO Canada would not use force to prevent the secession of a province. You imply that the US WOULD use force to prevent California's secession? pl

[rjj]

Where would the wildfire, drought, flood, landslide, dam failure, earthquake prone Peoples Republic of California get their disaster relief funding?

[turcopolier]

lars

I suppose you meant "secede" rather than "succeed." You should tell us how US society is "totally different today?" pl

[turcopolier]

TTG

IMO it is very easy to judge California's policy and law to be nullification. They are using California government to thwart federal law. They are doing it by enacting law designed to thwart federal law. They are seeking to nullify the effect of federal law within California's borders. pl

[The Twisted Genius]

Is not California and two dozen other states already engaged in nullification with their marijuana legalization laws? That Wikipedia entry on nullification specifically points out that these laws are not nullification, although that's just the opinion of one Wikipedia editor. I agree that the practical effect of these state laws on immigration enforcement and marijuana legalization are to nullify the Federal laws. I wonder if California will seek to hamper the actions of the Border Patrol along its border with Mexico or its long coastline.

[Bill H]

There seems to be a deterioration of the concept of democracy as majority rule, and a substitution that democracy is some sort of semi-organized anarchy. Voters are urged that they should not vote for what is in the nation's best interest, but should vote for what is in their own personal best interest. Federal legislators state emphatically that their duty is to act in the best interest, not of the nation as a whole, but rather in the best interest of their locality, be it state or local district. And now, increasingly, anyone who does not like a law that gets passed resorts to the courts to have that law overturned.

Who, if anyone, acts in service to the nation as a whole? Well, there's one outfit that's pretty good about keeping its mouth shut and serving the nation, although some of its upper ranks are...

[turcopolier]

TTG

Yes. The state laws legalizing marijuana are nullification of federal law. They are products of the Obama era and were not acted against because Barry was a pothead himself in his youth and favors free access to the weed. This was a grave mistake in precedent. I presjme that the available redress is for the federal government to sue the state in such a case. California has already acted to penalize companies bidding on or constructing portions of the barrier system on the southern border. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, and when and if they seceed from the Inited States they will plunge into civil war. At that time, when the civil war is raging, the United States will send in her troops to save lives and property. That eould be the end of at least 2 or 3 fantasied in the United States.

[Sam Peralta]

Col. Lang & TTG

These are complex issues. How do states push back what they believe are increasing interference by the federal government in what they consider are matters they should decide? And how does the federal government enforce the supremacy of their law over the states other than through military force?

Marijuana legalization have mostly been enacted by voters in states through ballot measures and not by state legislatures. States and counties view marijuana primarily as a revenue opportunity and secondarily as reducing the criminal element in the illicit trade.

[mike]

bb -

You speak the language pretty good. hmmm? Just joking! I have a couple of words & phrases also. There is a small group of Russians here in SW Washington and NW Oregon. The 'old' religion I think. Good people, as are all Russians.

[Lars]

No, that is not what I meant. The courts have not ruled on any of these matters and until they do, we don't know whether this will work or not.

As has been pointed out, this is not nullification, just not assisting the feds in their enforcement.