Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Nullification Going Mainstream, Despite the Mainstream Media

This encouraging news comes as I read Thomas E. Wood's Nullification. If you want to read some fascinating untold history of the Constitution, I strongly recommend this book.

Meanwhile, over at The Economist they are not too happy about nullification and the recent Kansas gun nullification legislation. Their post is the product of minds that are alien to freedom, and federalism. There are too many problems to address but this one stands out the most:

[ERIC HOLDER] Under the Supremacy Clause…Kansas may not prevent federal employees and officials from carrying out their official responsibilities. And a state certainly may not criminalise the exercise of federal responsibilities. Because SB102 conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulations, federal law supercedes this new statute; all provisions of federal laws and their implementing regulations therefore continue to apply.
It is remarkable that a civics lesson like this is necessary.

It's beyond remarkable that this passes anyone's sniff test. Have they not even bothered to read the Supremacy Clause in its entirety? This is but one of the many holes in nationalist constitutional thinking. Their theories are not based on reality. Happily, Americans are beginning to realize this, and the fact that it's way past time to think outside the box if we're going to make any of the big changes for liberty that we advocate.

9 comments:

  1. One poll. From a polling company that 24th out of 28 national polling firms in predicting the 2012 election results. I wouldn't get your hopes up.

    Some people might like the idea of the states giving the fingers to the feds over this or that issue, but not many want states to ignore federal law across the board. Some because of nationalist patriotism, some because their reading of the Supremacy Clause is very much based on reality, and doesn't jibe with yours, and some because they know that state governments have been guilty of far greater abuses of liberty than the feds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...reading of the Supremacy Clause is very much based on reality, and doesn't jibe with yours"

      Mine is based on reality, i.e. the whole clause, not just cherry-picked parts that suit my agenda.

      "state governments have been guilty of far greater abuses of liberty than the feds."

      This seems impossible, but I invite you to make your case. Most likely you've chosen to not see some of the abuses of liberty handed down by the feds, thus distorting your bias in favor of them.

      Delete
  2. It's really not that complicated.

    "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

    That's the whole clause. And it says that the Constitution and federal laws trump state laws. That's reality. Whining about it because you don't like it won't change that reality.

    If it seems impossible to you that state governments have been guilty of greater abuses of liberty than the federal government, it's likely because of your own biases and ignorance. Name an abuse by the federal government that you think can't be matched or beaten by an abuse by a state government.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "And it says that the Constitution and federal laws trump state laws."

    It says more than that. Read it again.

    "Name an abuse by the federal government that you think can't be matched or beaten by an abuse by a state government."

    Everything from supporting slavery for the better part of a century; to the massive theft and economic distortion of the Federal Reserve's sustained currency debasement; to fighting countless, needless, highly expensive, and deadly wars; to Japanese American internment; to name just a few. While the states are often guilty of equally heinous crimes, they are no match for the scale federal government's crimes. You may think I am a fan of the states, but I am not, it is only their smaller scale that makes them less of a danger than the feds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It says that the Constitution and federal laws trump state laws, and that if you don't like it, you can suck it.

    You acknowledge that states have been "guilty of equally heinous crimes" but it seems IMPOSSIBLE to you that they've been guilty of far greater abuses of liberty than the feds?

    You led off with federal support of slavery. Support for whom? Oh, the STATES that legalized slavery. How in the hell is that not an example of a far greater abuse?

    Oh, but it's the scale. Right. Because hey, Japanese internment affected 110,000 people for 4 years, which is much worse than state Jim Crow laws that affected millions and millions of people for nearly a century.

    You're not a fan of the states, but you'd like to give them more power. Yeah, that makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It says that the Constitution and federal laws trump state laws, and that if you don't like it, you can suck it.

      I guess that's what you'll be doing. As the post noted, more and more of us are actually paying attention to the whole clause, instead of ignoring what we don't like.

      You led off with federal support of slavery."

      Yeah, I took your trump card away. The federal government protected the slave trade for twenty years, and enforced fugitive slave laws for the better part of a century. How the heck is that not an equally abusive action (though on a greater scale)? Meanwhile, it was STATES that began abolishing slavery decades earlier than the feds.

      You're not a fan of the states, but you'd like to give them more power.

      Nope. I'd just as soon shrink them to as little as possible as well.

      Bottom line, the state is an enemy of liberty, and the bigger the state the bigger the enemy. You haven't provided evidence to the contrary.

      Delete
    2. The whole clause says that the Constitution and federal laws trump state laws, and that if you don't like it, you can suck it. If you want to get excited about a Rasmussen poll, it's worth keeping in mind that plenty of Republicans got excited about all those Rasmussen polls that said Romney was going to win. Talk about ignoring what you don't like.

      If you think you took my trump card away by pointing out that the feds protected the slave trade, as demanded by the slaver states, you're ignoring a lot. Sure, there were states (oops, I mean STATES) that abolished slavery long before the feds, but it was also STATES that continued it, that started a war over it, and that continued to create laws establishing conditions as close to slavery as they could get.

      Good luck getting rid of the United States and establishing your anarchist utopia, kid. With awesome PR like this, I'm sure it'll happen any day now.

      Delete
    3. Your willful ignorance, constant insults, and empty arguments are actually encouraging. No surprise that libertarianism is on the rise, given this kind of opposition.

      Delete
  5. Pouting isn't going to make you right, or your little anarchist dream more popular, kid. Take a good look at some of the people you're allying yourself with, and you might begin to understand why it's not working out for you. Did you see that WND article by David Lane, Rand Paul's evangelical outreach guy, before it got pulled? Did you see Ron Paul's pathetic attempt to use WIPO to bully the legitimate owners of various ronpaul domain names? If those are examples of the kind of "libertarianism" you think is on the rise, you must have a seriously twisted concept of "liberty".

    ReplyDelete