Quote:


It has been done if I recall, been found to be constitutional.  However, that was done by a private citizen.  That is not the same as a State passing a law barring the IRS from working within the state.

Quote:


Yes, some are.  That doesn't mean they could do it.  They could ban the IRS tax collection and do all State collections and pass whatever money they are required to to the federal government.

Apon creation of the constitution, The States had complete Sovereignity. The states where its own independant goverment. The claberation of all the states was supposed to be limited and used for only major issues of concern.

Problem was consistant debates of this process and ralling protests against each other. One of the major debates was indeed infact that a law created by this calaberation could be rightly ignored by the states that oppose it.

Issue is when did all this change exactly ? its scattered.. most prominent reference is 1819:

"The people of the United States have seen fit to divide sovereignty, and to establish a complex system. They have conferred certain powers on the state governments, and certain other powers on the national government. [DUAL SOVEREIGNTY]

As it was easy to forsee that questions must arise between these governments thus constituted, it became of great moment to determine, upon what principle these questions should be decided, and who should decide them. The constitution, therefore, declares, that the constitution itself, and the laws passed in pursuance of its provisions, shall be the supreme law of the land, and shall control all state legislation and state constitutions, which may be incompatible therewith; and it confides to this court the ultimate power of deciding all questions arising under the constitution and laws of the United States.

The laws of the United States, then, made in pursuance of the constitution, are to be the supreme law of the land, anything in the laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding...

...The powers delegated to the state sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty, created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the state sovereignties were certainly competent. But when,'in order to form a more perfect union;' it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all. The government of the Union, then (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case), is, emphatically and truly, a government of the people. In form, and in substance, it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exerciased directly on them, and for their benefit."

McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall.

Some could say one of the first greatest oversights to the constitution.

As this thread has been led off on several tangents, and it, of course, in my estimation, would be very difficult to resurrect the purpose thereof, I will simply say;

Everyone should obtain a copy and read 'Is Secession Treason' by Albert Bledsoe and edited by Paul Dennis Sporer.  The book was originally published in 1866, basically immediately after The Civil War. The time element was very much closer to the time of the founding, and in my estimation, the research was very well done. I am only through eleven chapters, but so far, Mr Bledsoe has pilloried Senator Daniel Webster and Chief Justice Storey, taking them to task for the error of their ways.

He has first, proven the States acceded to the new government. He has, as well, laid to rest whether the Constitution is a compact among the states, and has shown exactly what was meant by 'We The People' at the time of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

He has also shown evidence of the expressed reason for the ratification by the nine states, what was meant by it, and that, as we have touched on, the states that did not ratify would not be members of the new union and not forced to join. He expressly deals with the question of the original sovereignty of the states, their continued sovereignty, and by acceding to the union, could by definition, secede from such.

I highly recommend a reading of the book.

Quote:


I'm not surprised, SH. Old Bledsoe was such a sorry SOB, any good Yankee Fella sure wouldn't be caught dead reading his works, eh?