Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Socialist Progressives
In reply to the discussion: What does Socialism look like to you? [View all]tama
(9,137 posts)67. I'm closer to 50 :)
And reading the nullification wiki link, this is worth quoting:
Georgia and the Cherokees
In the 1820s, Georgia passed an act making Georgia state law applicable on all Cherokee lands and declaring all laws of the Cherokee nation void. This contradicted federal treaties with the Cherokees, effectively nullifying those federal treaties. Georgia's actions were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the Georgia legislature passed a resolution asserting that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government had no jurisdiction over Georgia criminal law and the Supreme Court's review of the case was unconstitutional.[47]
The Supreme Court rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify the federal treaties with the Cherokees. The Court held that "according to the settled principles of our Constitution," authority over Indian affairs is "committed exclusively to the government of the Union." The Court held that under the federal treaties with the Cherokees, "the laws of Georgia can have no force" on Cherokee land. The Court held that Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States."[48] The Supreme Court thus asserted final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties, rejecting Georgia's nullification attempt.
Georgia refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision. President Andrew Jackson did not believe Georgia had the right to nullify federal law, but was sympathetic to Georgia's goal of forcing the Cherokees to relocate to the west. He took no immediate action against Georgia. Before the Supreme Court could hear a request for an order enforcing its judgment, the Nullification Crisis arose in South Carolina. Jackson wanted to avoid a confrontation with Georgia over states' rights. A compromise was brokered under which Georgia repealed the law at issue in Worcester. Despite the Court's decision finding Georgia's actions unconstitutional, Georgia continued to enforce other laws regulating the Cherokees. Ultimately the Cherokees were forced to agree to a treaty of relocation, leading to the Trail of Tears.[49]
In the 1820s, Georgia passed an act making Georgia state law applicable on all Cherokee lands and declaring all laws of the Cherokee nation void. This contradicted federal treaties with the Cherokees, effectively nullifying those federal treaties. Georgia's actions were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). While the case was pending in the Supreme Court, the Georgia legislature passed a resolution asserting that under the Tenth Amendment, the federal government had no jurisdiction over Georgia criminal law and the Supreme Court's review of the case was unconstitutional.[47]
The Supreme Court rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify the federal treaties with the Cherokees. The Court held that "according to the settled principles of our Constitution," authority over Indian affairs is "committed exclusively to the government of the Union." The Court held that under the federal treaties with the Cherokees, "the laws of Georgia can have no force" on Cherokee land. The Court held that Georgia's laws regulating Cherokee land were "void, as being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States."[48] The Supreme Court thus asserted final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties, rejecting Georgia's nullification attempt.
Georgia refused to accept the Supreme Court's decision. President Andrew Jackson did not believe Georgia had the right to nullify federal law, but was sympathetic to Georgia's goal of forcing the Cherokees to relocate to the west. He took no immediate action against Georgia. Before the Supreme Court could hear a request for an order enforcing its judgment, the Nullification Crisis arose in South Carolina. Jackson wanted to avoid a confrontation with Georgia over states' rights. A compromise was brokered under which Georgia repealed the law at issue in Worcester. Despite the Court's decision finding Georgia's actions unconstitutional, Georgia continued to enforce other laws regulating the Cherokees. Ultimately the Cherokees were forced to agree to a treaty of relocation, leading to the Trail of Tears.[49]
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
134 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I like China's approach to socialism of limiting women to one baby and eventually using genetic
jody
Nov 2012
#1
China is Communist, which is more authoritarin than many varieties of Socialism are. nt
patrice
Nov 2012
#4
& Shame on you for trying to turn a thread about Socialism into a whatever forum. Start
patrice
Nov 2012
#8
BS I responded to the OP. Are you ignorant of China's socialist policies to limit population and
jody
Nov 2012
#9
Do you think all Republicans hate Obama? Same logic as the statement above. Weak.
patrice
Nov 2012
#26
On edit you added "it has more to do with autocracy". Don't you know that socialism requires a
jody
Nov 2012
#12
Don't you know that Socialism requires no such thing. You have just disqualified yourself
patrice
Nov 2012
#20
I concede and understand your policy, your group allows only pro-red posts and bans "red-baiting"
jody
Nov 2012
#21
It's an oversimplification to assume that the weight of any fact is the same in all situations, all
patrice
Nov 2012
#24
Worker defined & governed Real Value in exchange for Real Value. The MOST efficient economic
patrice
Nov 2012
#2
I like the definition that Adam Smith uses in The Wealth of Nations, in the simplist terms,
patrice
Nov 2012
#10
I don't mind people disagreeing with me; what I don't like is being mis-understood.
patrice
Jun 2013
#124
capitalism has a growth imperative. socialism doesn't. there's no requirement for growth in
HiPointDem
May 2013
#110
Odd how what appears to be "Libertarian" folk are AGAINST worker AUTONOMY, isn't it. Apparently
patrice
Nov 2012
#28
Thanks, your "traditional liberties" aka natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights in
jody
Nov 2012
#46
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#47
I still don't understand how those things you want to call "rights" can be shown to pre-exist our
jody
Nov 2012
#48
Because such rights cannot be alienated, given away, however SCOTUS has offered opinions that allow
jody
Nov 2012
#50
Apparently you and I have a different understanding of rights. My thoughts on the topic are at
jody
Nov 2012
#59
Because some states declared them and it's up to state and federal courts to decide whether
jody
Nov 2012
#68
So you think rights are inalienable because they are declared in state constitutions?
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#70
A right is either enumerated or unenumerated. Suggest you read the history of our Bill of Rights. nt
jody
Nov 2012
#71
What is your point in posting state constitutions? What point are you trying to make, if any?
limpyhobbler
Nov 2012
#76
Why do you introduce slave owner? You do know that WA and CO just exercised nullification by making
jody
Nov 2012
#63
OK one major problem is a generation gap or perhaps two but we've had an interesting exchange. Have
jody
Nov 2012
#65
I'm 77 and survived a near death experience via heart attack five years ago. Every morning I wake up
jody
Nov 2012
#69
Nullification per Jefferson&Madison is states exercising their Tenth Amendment power, see link below
jody
Dec 2012
#93
Starry Messenger I'm very disappointed that your OP has not triggered a spirited, intelligent
jody
Nov 2012
#51
An increased percentage of the mix as a transitional step along the path to our next plane
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#85
You're right about that, Starry. I'm on the edge of that propaganda effort myself.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#87
Right again, no matter which way we go I've yet to catch a projection that they don't make worse.
TheKentuckian
Dec 2012
#89
You're assuming that the ruling class has some investment in maintaining the lives of the
HiPointDem
May 2013
#111