Of course the state of Texas can refuse to disobey illegal federal legislation
and illegal federal regulations and illegal federal excutive orders.
The thing is what can congress legally do about it if they disagree with
Texas? Well one thing they can do is refuse to seat Texas representives and
Texas Senators.
Here is possibly another remedy from article 1 section 9" No state
shall, without consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on emports or
exports except what may be absolutely necessary for the excution its
inspectionn laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts laid by any
state on imports or exports shall be for the use of the tresury of the United
States.
Article 9 also says the federal government can not tax any exports from any
state nor can they give preference to one port over another or obligate vessals
bound to or from one state to enter, clear or pay duties in another state.
But the previous sub section I quoted does give congress the authority to
grant permission to a state to collect duties on both imports and exports above
the cost of the states insepections if the state turns over the surplus to the
federal government.
A state has the policing authority to not only inspect imports
coming from foreign countries and exports going to foreign countries but a
state also has the a policing authority to inspect imports from another state
and exports going to another state.
What can the US Supreme Court do? issue decesion and court orders but
like Jackson said " you made your decesion now enforce it"
What can the other individual states do or all 49 of them do?
The answer to that last one is easy they can secded from the US and all of
the other 49 can form a new federation and not invite Texas to join.
The voters of the other 49 states can also instruct their
representives and US senators not to seat representives and senators from
Texas.
Other states can get permission from congress to charge surplus duties
on their import and export inspections.
What can the president legally do?
Well one thing he can't do is send in the 82nd Airborne like IKe did or
any other US miltary units.
He or she can possible command miltia units to enforce the laws of the
union as Washington did in PA. durning the Whisky Rebellion.
But does violation of the laws of the union involve domestic violence?
If it does then the federal government needs the permission of the
state legislator in which the miltia is to act or the govenor if the legislator
can not meet.
BUt say the president does legally manage to arrest state officals, the
governor, state legislators, state judges, county sheriffs.
They have first a right to go before a grand jury within the state
before their case can go to trial.
A grand jury as they have in the past can judge the legislation, re
regulation, excutive order and refuse to indict.
If the grand jury does indict a jury can also judge the legislation,
regulation, excutive order and decide not guilty and thats the end of the
matter the federal government legally can not deprive the defendent in the case
of his or her life, liberty or property( which would include their money) even
if the defedent is the governor of Texas.--- In [email protected],
"Sasan" <sasan.sa...@...> wrote:
>
> Proposal in Texas governor's race is a legal and constitutional fiction
>
> http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/commentary-states-can-t-nullify-federal-law-217250.html?cxtype=ynews_rss
>
