Do you believe the individual states should have the ability to reject legislation by the federal government?

[MrShaun]

For years it's been argued that the individual states within the U. S. should have some sort of veto power over federal laws.

What do you think?

Updates

10 mo

Interesting comments thus far. Remember that the power of veto doesn't necessarily mean the legislation does not pass; in the case of the Presidential veto, that the legislation gets sent back to Congress, now requiring a super majority to pass.

[Anonymous]

The thought of individual states rejecting federal legislation is like a big, juicy piece of meat that's just begging to be devoured.

It's like a hot and steamy night of passion between two consenting adults who just can't get enough of each other's bodies. It's like a wild and wicked game of political Twister, with states and the federal government twisting and contorting in all sorts of arousing positions. We're talking about massive, throbbing eagles with their wings spread wide, ready to take flight and assert their dominance. We're talking about Lady Justice herself, blindfolded and bound, ready to be ravished by a group of states hungry for power. We're talking about a melting pot of passion and desire, with every state bringing its own unique flavor to the mix.

Like a naughty and forbidden love affair, with state governors whispering sweet nothings in the ears of their constituents, convincing them to rebel against the federal government's iron grip. It's like a seductive dance, with each state taking turns leading and following, teasing and tantalizing, until the federal government is completely at their mercy.

It's like a tantalizing game of chicken, with each side daring the other to make the first move, until the tension is so thick you could cut it with a knife. And when that first move is made, it's like fireworks exploding in the sky, a wild and unrestrained display of power and passion that leaves everyone gasping for air. So go ahead, take a bite of that juicy meat, and let's see where this wild and wicked game of state and federal relations takes us.

[Dargil]

To a certain extent they do. It's called Nullification. States can rule and hold Federal legislation and executive orders to be unconstitutional. That's what happened at the beginning of the Civil War. The South's mistake was firing on Fort Sumter.

[LiamJHayden]

Unless the federal law is constitutionally delegated or reasonably necessary to carry out a delegated power, the federal law should be considered null and void.

[LiamJHayden]

But I guess that does not really answer the question. No, the states should not, but Congress should likewise not pass any laws that are not part of their domain under The Constitution, nor should the Executive be able to exercise legislative powers like it does now via the alphabet agencies.

[MrShaun]

To whom does that duty lie? That is, when does someone decide whether Congress has passed such laws?

[LiamJHayden]

All of them. Congress should not pass them, the President should not sign them, and the federal courts should invalidate them. Alas, they usually do not. For example, the Interstate Commerce Clause was designed to prevent the states from enacting tariffs against each other, not to allow the federal government to permanently regulate everything that in some part crossed a state or international border at some time. That clause has been abused since FDR's time.

[nolabels]

That's quite a sticky wicket that you propose.

I don't see it happening.

We'd no longer be the U. S. A.

[MrShaun]

Why would that change us being the U. S. A?

[DextroShade]

Should each individual state be able to veto federal laws they don't like? No

Should a majority of states be able to come together and collectively veto federal laws? Yes

[BarryLiverstone]

Nope. States must obey federal laws. However they sometimes have flexibility over federal money.