Comments on: Institute on the Constitution Supports Controversial PA Police Chief's Actions to Nullify Gun Control Legislation https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Wed, 30 May 2018 18:49:22 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: David https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/#comment-84870 Wed, 30 May 2018 18:49:22 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14972#comment-84870 Dr. Throckmorton:
Would you please consider commenting on this op-ed by Nicholas Cummings about his success with reparative therapy?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/
In the early days of this blog, you discussed Cummings repeatedly and very favorably. You seem to endorse his record, even though there is no evidence of that record other than his own touting of it in USA Today. Since 2006-7, your views on reparative therapy have changed. Accordingly, I think you owe it to your blog readers and to future readers who may search the blog archives for information on Cummings, to make clear your current thinking on Cummings and his claim of success in changing homosexuals into heterosexuals.

]]> By: JCF https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/#comment-84868 Wed, 30 May 2018 18:49:22 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14972#comment-84868 “if somebody else comes into our county and tries to enforce it, we’re going to arrest them.”
Well, speaking of “League of the South”: sounds a lot like Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 doesn’t it? [Spoiler alert: the U.S. Marshals, backed by the 82nd Airborne, won that one. Little Rock Sherriff/Arkansas National Guard, not so much!]

]]> By: Sharon https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/#comment-84869 Wed, 30 May 2018 18:49:22 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14972#comment-84869 Warren, thank you for keeping me (us) updated on this… nonsense is too innocuous a word, but not sure what else to call it.
It’s depressing, but I’m glad I know about it.

]]> By: Jimmy Dick https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/#comment-56819 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 13:02:46 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14972#comment-56819 In reply to Tom Van Dyke.

James Madison opposed nullification and never endorsed it. In the Virginia Resolutions Madison wrote about interposition, not nullification. Nullification is and has always been unconstitutional. No federal court has ever stated otherwise. The 10th Amendment does not and has never been interpreted to mean it superseded the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
There’s a lot of 10th Amendment advocates out there that seem to think that it does do that, but they are wrong. Their argument for state’s rights is somewhat laughable because state’s rights is the defense mechanism of the party that is not in power no matter what party it is. Once a party gains control of the federal government they go about using federal power to legalize their platforms or to remove the other party’s legislation. That in itself does not fit the state’s rights doctrine at all.
In effect, state’s rights is nothing more than a red herring.

]]> By: Jimmy Dick https://wthrockmorton.com/2013/07/30/institute-on-the-constitution-supports-controversial-pa-police-chiefs-actions-to-nullify-gun-control-legislation/#comment-82331 Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:02:46 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com/?p=14972#comment-82331 In reply to Tom Van Dyke.

James Madison opposed nullification and never endorsed it. In the Virginia Resolutions Madison wrote about interposition, not nullification. Nullification is and has always been unconstitutional. No federal court has ever stated otherwise. The 10th Amendment does not and has never been interpreted to mean it superseded the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
There’s a lot of 10th Amendment advocates out there that seem to think that it does do that, but they are wrong. Their argument for state’s rights is somewhat laughable because state’s rights is the defense mechanism of the party that is not in power no matter what party it is. Once a party gains control of the federal government they go about using federal power to legalize their platforms or to remove the other party’s legislation. That in itself does not fit the state’s rights doctrine at all.
In effect, state’s rights is nothing more than a red herring.

]]>