Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 12, 2012, 10:29 p.m. EST by john23 (-272)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Posting this so people know this is actually possible in their own state...urge your congressmen:


Probably the most dangerous legislation introduced since this country won its independence....needs to be rejected.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (5843) 7 years ago

Good post john.

Excellent. Resistance to police state growing.

Time to do something, before implementation begins.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

Sponsor Carl Levin "arrested" by Occupy Washington: http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/senator-levin-arrested-co-sponsoring-ndaa


Carl Levin -- despicable Democrat-in-name-only, fake progressive, evil prevaricator.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void" Marbury vs. Madison. NDAA is bad law, null and void.

Full text of Marbury v. Madison: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=5&page=137

[-] -3 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

The inherent right of revolution cannot be disputed; nullification short of war is valid, and that is the very reason Lincoln ultimately chose to engage the South.

So you are absolutely WRONG.

Look, it works like this... we all agree to play by the rules of the game before we lay our money down and roll the dice; if one party, dissatisfied with the outcome, subsequently discards rules of the play book to declare the play unfair, and retracts his gambling's, and just picks up the dice and walks off to start their own game, the rest of players get really angry.

But it's just a game and short of a fight there is nothing that can be done about it; America is not going to war with Texas.

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

This post has nothing to do with secession. But I think you know that and just think you are clever. It's the ol' strawman argument. You get paid for this stupidity?

NDAA is transparently unconstitutional and should be disrespected in every way.

[-] 0 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

Marbury speaks specifically to the right of the President to "appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States"; it does not speak to acts of Congress; it is inapplicable.

"No laws repugnant" dates to James I and is here nonsensically cited - the Supreme Court exists; this is self evident, and it exists for the sole purpose of judging "repugnance" of an act respecting the Constitution.

"Nullification" dates to Jefferson, and to the best of my knowledge, it has never been tested. And it has everything to do with secession because it is an act of secession; they do not overturn, they overrule - to overrule an act upheld by our Court as Constitutional is to overrule our President, our Congress, our Court, and to break with that document which binds us as a Union; it is to secede, and unfortunately given our court's long history of upholding acts of Congress that are repugnant to our Constitution, it is long overdue.

Contained within the Constitution is an inherent right of revolution. And therein lies the fallacy of Constitution as a "living" document because the supreme authority actually lies in the state and in its people to overrule an act of Congress and the court which has upheld it. But again this is an act of "nullification" - it is to nullify that which binds us - and the only way to enforce, as Lincoln concluded, is militarily through martial law.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

It's a start.

[-] 1 points by Zophim99 (12) 7 years ago

States must not be allowed to override the federal government. The National Defense Authorization Act is in place to assist the Obama administration and ensure our protection as they unify the world. You must realize, many bad people will resist world unification and attempt to harm obedient citizens. They need to be locked away now!

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

You had me going at first. OBEY. BUY. CONSUME. Let me drink some koolaid. Yes, I see now. You make perfect sense. What was wrong with me before?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

"He who sacrifices liberty for security deserves neither and will have none" Benjamin Franklin

There are very important reasons for having a system where the citizens can't be carted away without due process.....thousands of soldiers stood across from each other on fields and blew each others heads off to win the revolution so we could have these freedoms. Have we become so weak and scared that we will let these be stripped away because of this threat in the link below:


Think we need to man up a little....pretty sure those thousands of soldiers who died for our rights would be absolutely disgusted at how scared we've become as a nation that we'd just allow these foundational rights to be stripped like this.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 7 years ago

Well Said

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

We must agitate our state govt to pass such laws everywhere.

And get into the street to protest all pols who support this violation of our rights, And denounce the fear mongering, 'war on terror', propaganda that is at the root of peoples support for this obscenity!

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

well said

[-] -1 points by Saesneg (-166) from Linwood, NJ 7 years ago

I love it! They cannot constitutionally lose on nullification; nullification has never been addressed by the courts because short of a Lincoln civil war they cannot force any to the Union. This is a great subject; Lincoln's liberty as the focus of at least one book I can recall. My feeling is that Texas has already won.


[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

I'd want to secede from any government that can detain indefinitely and assassinate its citizens without a trial no matter what state i lived in.


[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

yeah...any substance? This isn't an issue to you?


[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

the article isn't talking about seceding...texas is just attempting to refuse to accept part of a federal law.

[-] -2 points by Coyote88 (-24) 7 years ago

"...needs to be rejected" says who?

[-] 1 points by NVPHIL (664) 7 years ago

The constitution.

[-] 0 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 7 years ago

It doesn't matter what your small brain thinks, the law is blatantly unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court says otherwise then the court is null and void.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 7 years ago

any sane person who understands whats in it.