National healthcare nullification law on the books in Virginia

AHEM-- there's a difference between "not wanting anything done," and "not wanting anything done THAT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTION."

Maybe you don't know the difference-- CLEARLY you don't, in fact; perhaps you should run for Congress, you'd have plenty of company there.
Obama-voters obviously believe in benevolent dictatorship, where an all-powerful "Godfather" can wave his hand and "do a favor" for anyone that needs doing-- and they see this Health-Care law as simply "an offer we can't refuse."
And in their little world, that's how it SHOULD be... the problem with their idealistic fantasy, is that those of us who live in the REAL world have to pay for it.

Well, I've taught American gov't for 32 years and I cannot believe you are so lock-step ignorant about the ENTIRE Constitution. Probably you forgot all about the 10th amendment. You'll notice that your Art. IV, Sec. 2 speaks of "the laws of the United States (federal gov't) IN PURSUANCE THEREOF..." Ahhhh, so health care is not one of the 17 federal powers found in Art. I, Sec. 8! Get it? Therefore, it is not "in pursuance thereof". And while you're at it, read Madison's Federalist #45, where it says the fed's powers shall be "few and defined". Then try the Preamble to the BILL OF RIGHTS, something few gov't texts include. When you get done, you might want to recall your students of the last 28 years and told them you gave it to them WRONG.

Yeah, James?

The key words there, are "which shall be made in Pursuance thereof".

In other words, those laws which AREN'T made in pursuance of the Constitution, are NOT the law of the land.

So WHO DECIDES whether a law is pursuant? The federal government? They'll say EVERY law they pass is pursuant! Otherwise they wouldn't have passed it in the first place; as Jefferson said, this would make the federal government supreme judge of its own powers.
The "American People," by who they choose to VOTE for? As Franklin said, that's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

The only alternative, is the People of the individual STATE; if they decide that a federal law violates the Constitution, then they have NO CHOICE but to refuse its enforcement in their state.

Likewise, you're missing the whole point; the federal government has NO POWER of its own, but only that power which the people of each state GIVE it-- you know, "government by consent of the governed?"

In short, each state ratified the Constitution as a sovereign nation-- the Constittion did NOT create the states. And so the people of every state are STILL the sovereign rulers of their state; they are not subordinate states to a single nation, as with some other federal republics.

Now, some people think that various words in the Constitution IMPLY that the states subordinated themselves to a single nation (like "Supreme Law of the Land" or "We the People of the United States," or other popular misconceptions); however with sovereign nations, ONLY express language can confer a termination of sovereignty-- and there ISN'T any express statement that the states relinquished their respective sovereignty and formed a single nation.
So you can argue, but you can't win.

Majority hell, the CONSTITUTION doesn't want it.
Congress ONLY has the power to lay taxes to raise revenue-- NOT to usurp unconstitutional powers!

And now, Obama has openly ADMITTED that this new tax is a FINE, imposed against people who dosn't purchase health-care!

Obama has basically wiped his butt with the Constitution, and rubbed it in everyone's face!

Barack Obama and Al Capone-- two shining examples of Chicago's finest law-abiding statesmen.

Calling Lincoln's war "unfortunate" is like calling the Holocaust an "accident."
Both were 100% intentional abominations of law and justice.
Lincoln claimed that the Declaration of Indepedence gave the Union national authority over the states; today, even his biggest defenders don't claim that, but say it was the Constitution. However the states created the Constitution, not the other way around-- and so clearly it's a "he said, she said" situation where the Unionists can't even agree on HOW the fed got its supreme power over the states, but only that it's in SOME law; and failing this, they flip out the old "it was settled by the war" argument.
Again, that's like Hitler's line that the Holocaust was "the final solution to the Jewish Problem."

>>"I have to point out that the "nullification" issue was not "settled" by the Civil War."

And the Jewish Problem wasn't solved by the Holocaust. But in both cases, they sure did try... using the same means, no less.