Liberty on Tap since 1984
Nullification in 2011!
By Alan Caruba
The great issue of our times is the same great issue of the 1830s. The question is whether Congress can pass legislation or the President issue executive orders that are not authorized by or consistent with the Constitution?
The federal government is a republic composed of separate and sovereign republics.
What recourse do the States have individually and in combination when the central government acts in a fashion that is contrary to the limits and enumerated powers of the Constitution?
The answer, other than an appeal to the courts, is nullification. This term is defined as the assertion that States can and should refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
This is no trifling matter.
In the past two years since the advent of the Obama administration, the federal government has seized control of one sixth of the nation’s economy, asserting control over the provision of healthcare.
It seized control of General Motors and Chrysler auto manufacturers, arbitrarily casting aside the rightful expectations of their bondholders and other creditors.
It has imposed absurd and invasive demands on air travelers.
It is considering a United Nations treaty that would render the Second Amendment null and void.
It has sued Arizona for enacting an immigration law that mirrors its own.
It is attempting through the FCC to assert control over the Internet.
In the 1860s the issue of state’s rights led to the Civil War.
One hundred and fifty years ago, on December 22, 1860, the State of South Carolina declared its independence and seceded from the Union. It did not arrive at this decision overnight. In fact, on December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to South Carolina disputing its right to nullify a federal law.
A South Carolina convention had declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 “are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State.”
Subsequent to Jackson’s proclamation, Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any State that resisted the tariff acts. A compromise engineered by Henry Clay resulted in the tariff of 1833, designed to reduce southern objections. South Carolina ended its nullification effort, but by 1861 it would no longer bend to the mandates of the federal government.
Contrary to some historical reinterpretation, the Civil War was all about State’s rights. Though President Lincoln opposed slavery, he did not introduce the issue into the conflict until after the awful slaughter on the battlefields that led to the Emancipation Proclamation. It came three years after the war had begun and was intended to introduce a moral dimension to the conflict. Slaves, however, were only freed in the Confederate southern States.
There are many issues worthy of nullification these days.
At the top of the current list is Obamacare and the fact that some twenty States have filed suit against its enforcement clearly demonstrates (1) an intense rejection of it and (2) the willingness of States to use the judicial system to seek relief.
Beyond that, we have entire federal agencies that have no legitimate basis in the Constitution.
The Department of Education should be abolished. The Constitution makes no mention of education as a federal concern. It was and should be up to the States and local communities to oversee general education. Part of the controversy raging these days concerns teacher’s union contracts that are contributing to the bankruptcy of many States.
The Department of Energy, created by executive order, should be abolished. States should have the right to determine how their natural resources should be either protected or utilized. Requiring states to use so-called alternative (wind and solar) energy is seriously wrong.
Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency, also created by executive order, has so exceeded its original mandate that it has become a lethal threat to the economy and the welfare of all Americans.
Nullification should be utilized to rid us of these and other federal entities that overstep their mission, threatening the Bill of Rights and other constitutional limitations and freedoms.
To learn more about the nullification movement, visit the Nullify Now website and the website of the Tenth Amendment Foundation.
This nation has been heading toward nullification since the 1930s when many of the Constitution’s restrictions of federal power were cast aside. This has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse. To save it, nullification may be required.
Editor’s note: To learn more about this topic, Tom Woods has written “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 2lst Century.”
© Alan Caruba, 2010
The great issue of our times is the same great issue of the 1830s. The question is whether Congress can pass legislation or the President issue executive orders that are not authorized by or consistent with the Constitution?
The federal government is a republic composed of separate and sovereign republics.
What recourse do the States have individually and in combination when the central government acts in a fashion that is contrary to the limits and enumerated powers of the Constitution?
The answer, other than an appeal to the courts, is nullification. This term is defined as the assertion that States can and should refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
This is no trifling matter.
In the past two years since the advent of the Obama administration, the federal government has seized control of one sixth of the nation’s economy, asserting control over the provision of healthcare.
It seized control of General Motors and Chrysler auto manufacturers, arbitrarily casting aside the rightful expectations of their bondholders and other creditors.
It has imposed absurd and invasive demands on air travelers.
It is considering a United Nations treaty that would render the Second Amendment null and void.
It has sued Arizona for enacting an immigration law that mirrors its own.
It is attempting through the FCC to assert control over the Internet.
In the 1860s the issue of state’s rights led to the Civil War.
One hundred and fifty years ago, on December 22, 1860, the State of South Carolina declared its independence and seceded from the Union. It did not arrive at this decision overnight. In fact, on December 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation to South Carolina disputing its right to nullify a federal law.
A South Carolina convention had declared that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 “are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State.”
Subsequent to Jackson’s proclamation, Congress passed the Force Act that authorized the use of military force against any State that resisted the tariff acts. A compromise engineered by Henry Clay resulted in the tariff of 1833, designed to reduce southern objections. South Carolina ended its nullification effort, but by 1861 it would no longer bend to the mandates of the federal government.
Contrary to some historical reinterpretation, the Civil War was all about State’s rights. Though President Lincoln opposed slavery, he did not introduce the issue into the conflict until after the awful slaughter on the battlefields that led to the Emancipation Proclamation. It came three years after the war had begun and was intended to introduce a moral dimension to the conflict. Slaves, however, were only freed in the Confederate southern States.
There are many issues worthy of nullification these days.
At the top of the current list is Obamacare and the fact that some twenty States have filed suit against its enforcement clearly demonstrates (1) an intense rejection of it and (2) the willingness of States to use the judicial system to seek relief.
Beyond that, we have entire federal agencies that have no legitimate basis in the Constitution.
The Department of Education should be abolished. The Constitution makes no mention of education as a federal concern. It was and should be up to the States and local communities to oversee general education. Part of the controversy raging these days concerns teacher’s union contracts that are contributing to the bankruptcy of many States.
The Department of Energy, created by executive order, should be abolished. States should have the right to determine how their natural resources should be either protected or utilized. Requiring states to use so-called alternative (wind and solar) energy is seriously wrong.
Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency, also created by executive order, has so exceeded its original mandate that it has become a lethal threat to the economy and the welfare of all Americans.
Nullification should be utilized to rid us of these and other federal entities that overstep their mission, threatening the Bill of Rights and other constitutional limitations and freedoms.
To learn more about the nullification movement, visit the Nullify Now website and the website of the Tenth Amendment Foundation.
This nation has been heading toward nullification since the 1930s when many of the Constitution’s restrictions of federal power were cast aside. This has brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse. To save it, nullification may be required.
Editor’s note: To learn more about this topic, Tom Woods has written “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 2lst Century.”
© Alan Caruba, 2010
Views: 8
Tags: Dept-Education, Dept-Engergy, EPA, FCC, Nullification, States-Rights, US-Congress, US-Constitution
Comment
-
Comment by Jim Lakely on January 4, 2011 at 10:37pm
-
Sheesh. I type a single sentence and am written out of (mostly all) sensible discussion by Marcotte! I will keep Tylenol PM handy in case I have trouble sleeping. :-P
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on January 4, 2011 at 2:49pm -
I didn't have the time for a long reply or discussion with you, Jim, yesterday, but the beauty of blogs is that we can always come back when we do have the time. :)
I can't fault you for not replying in our other discussion on Nancy's post about Global Warming. You painted yourself into a rhetorical corner from which there was no escape. Discretion was definitely the better part of valor for you in that debate. ;)
And here, I think you finally see that you (and Ron) have chosen to defend an indefensible point of Alan's. What disappoints me most about the caliber of discussion here at the Freedom Pub (and accounts, in part, for my recent absenteeism) is that the Conservatives/Libertarians/Tea Partiers, for the most part, instantly pounce on any point I make and try to discredit or disprove it. The response is absolutely Pavlovian. Obviously, most of my opinions are different from most of those of other readers, but I have found common ground with some of the more sensible commentators. But there are those, like Ron (and increasingly you, Jim), who disagree with me simply for the sake of disagreeing with me. If I said the sky was blue, I'd half-expect three posters to say I was a lying liar just saying that because I am a blue-stater.
-
-
Assume what you wish, Marcotte, even if you're wrong. I don't have time for long replies and discussions with you around here, anyway.
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on January 3, 2011 at 9:36am
-
"What part of that do you not understand, Marcotte?"
As near as I can tell, the proposed, but unwritten, treaty, will concern international trade of weapons, not domestic ownership rights.
What part of my post just before this one did you not understand?
Let's recap:
1) Alan makes the claim that an unnamed UN treaty will render the 2nd Amendment null and void, implying that no American will be able to own any arms under any circumstances.
2) I inquire as to which treaty he is referring to, as this claim strikes me as quite bold. He graciously points me in the direction of the UN Small Arms Trade treaty currently being discussed.
3) I point out that the treaty is currently being discussed and negotiated, and that the Obama Administration has only re-entered these negotiations with the caveat that all nations have veto power over the treaty (which effectively will make it a toothless decree). Since the text of the treaty hasn't even been written, to say nothing of fact that the unanimity requirement will make any serious provision nigh impossible to include, I wonder how this treaty could render the 2nd Amendment null and void.
4) Ron says the "idea" of the treaty will do so.
5) I note that the proposed treaty concerns itself with international trade, and point out that the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover citizens' rights to engage in such.
6) Jim repeats Ron's point about the "idea" of the proposed treaty.
I just don't understand. There may be many things that the UN does that are bad. There may be many things the Obama Administration does that may be bad. There may even be problems with this particular treaty once they actually write it. I have actually heard conservatives make reasonable arguments about such at times. But it is irresponsible, paranoid ranting to claim that this unwritten treaty will render the 2nd Amendment null and void, and anyone who supports that position is either a troll or willfully ignorant.
PS: Jim, since you haven't responded to my follow up on Nancy's blog post about the cold winter, I guess you are agreeing to or acceding the point. You obviously have the time to comment on posts here, so your lack of response can't be due to your busy schedule.
-
-
The idea itself would render the 2nd amendment null and void.
What part of that do you not understand, Marcotte?
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on January 1, 2011 at 11:27am
-
Interesting logic (but completely wrong of course). That would imply that the right to abortion is as legitimate as the right to trade arms internationally.
-
Comment by Ronald A. Lau on January 1, 2011 at 2:16am -
Same way the 'right to privacy' led to abortion 'rights'.
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on December 31, 2010 at 1:50pm
-
Can someone point out to me where in the 2nd Amendment the right to trade weapons across international borders is affirmed?
-
Comment by Ronald A. Lau on December 31, 2010 at 1:30pm
-
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/10/130573.htm
The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons. We look forward to this negotiation as the continuation of the process that began in the UN with the 2008 UN Group of Governmental Experts on the ATT and continued with the 2009 UN Open-Ended Working Group on ATT.
-
Comment by Ronald A. Lau on December 31, 2010 at 1:28pm
© 2013 Created by Freedom Pub.
You need to be a member of Freedom Pub to add comments!
Join Freedom Pub