(Image: Wikimedia Commons)
With the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare, in what at best might be described as an attempt by John Roberts to “save” the “reputation” of the Supreme Court, many are again calling on states to use nullification to stop implementation of Obamacare. Nullification is the legal theory which claims individual states have a right to nullify or invalidate any federal laws which an individual state deems unconstitutional. On the surface, it might sound like a good idea. However, we must dig a little deeper to understand why “nullification now” is not the answer in our current Constitutional crisis.
People often don’t like hearing reality contrary to their opinion (and more than a few seem to enjoy playing “shoot the messenger”), but nullification is quite simply a dead horse. United States jurisprudence has a long track record of not upholding nullification. From 1798 until the start of the Civil War in 1861, several states either threatened or attempted to nullify different federal laws. None of these nullification attempts were upheld by the Supreme Court. On top of this, the Civil War, as a victory for a powerful and centralized federal government, effectively silenced further nullification attempts.
Nullification remained a dead issue until the mid-twentieth century. It once again reared its head in the 1950s as southern states fought against forced integration of public schools by the federal government. This time, nullification went to the Supreme Court as a specific issue and was explicitly struck down in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). In this case, the Court explicitly, once-and-for-all, clearly declared that individual states may not refuse to enforce federal law. As an aside, we also find the Court now claiming that individual states likewise may not enforce federal law which the federal government refuses to enforce itself: Arizona v. United States (2012).
Such rulings stem from the fact the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to use it to apply nearly the entire Bill of Rights to the states. In the process, the Court has largely eradicated individual state sovereignty. Keep in mind, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, it was understood as something imposing limits on the federal government, not on individual state governments. Had those voting on it understood it applying to state governments, it would have never garnered the votes necessary for ratification.
However, even on its own, the nullification theory lacks a valid Constitutional basis; hence the reason the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts at nullification by individual states. No less a figure than James Madison held that nullification was unconstitutional. Do nullification proponents seriously believe that James Madison lacked proper understanding of the Constitution?
Further, even if nullification were a Constitutionally valid position, since we’ve allowed the creation at all levels of the job title “career politician” (people for whom reelection trumps doing the right thing), do we seriously believe there are enough state legislators willing to actually pass nullification? Not only would they fear their state being cut off from the teat of federal government appropriations, but would also fear the backlash from the hordes of people now dependent on Big Government handouts (so-called “entitlements”).
On top of this, again even assuming nullification were Constitutionally valid, those calling for nullification are under the impression the federal government would simply allow the sates to “go quietly.” Such a position is nothing short of delusional. Let’s not forget a little thing called the “Civil War.” Consider what Lincoln was able to do with a significantly smaller and significantly less powerful federal government. Now consider the vastly larger and vastly more powerful federal government we’ve allowed to come into existence today. It is not a bureaucracy that can simply be ignored; nor indeed a bureaucracy that will allow itself to simply be ignored.
Before I get attacked with the dreaded label of “neocon” (a phrase so causally tossed out by Tom Woods/Ron Paul libertarians whenever they believe they’re losing an argument – as if calling their opponent a “neocon” triumphantly and automatically settles every argument in their favor; odd how they so often insist on employing the exact same sort of name-calling tactics as TeamObama against anyone who happens to disagree with their position – but that’s an issue in itself for another time), I’m not saying I like the situation as it is; instead I am simply describing reality as it is. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and anyone else are welcome to disagree all they want, but simply disagreeing with reality does not alter its existence. And since it is reality with which we must deal, and since the nullification road has already been shown to be a dead end, we need to get smart and engage in tactics which actually stand a chance of working.
Given the state of Constitutional Law, it’s too late to attack the issue of overturning Obamacare primarily through legal “tricks” in state legislatures; instead, the primary path to attack this issue is through a wholesale change of the federal-level legislative and executive branches, backed up with strong state legislative and executive branches. The only way to make this change happen is through changing the “hearts and minds” of individual citizens.
We need to once and for all wake people up to their responsibility as citizens to be informed about not only issues and candidates, but about the structure and function of our representative Republic. People must learn to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of our founders in order to understand what ought to be, coupled with reading Constitutional case law in order to understand what is; thereby being able to devise appropriate strategies to move what is back to what ought to be. We need to ensure the roughly 30% of conservative-minded people who are not currently registered to vote, not only get registered, but also exercise their responsibility to participate in the election process. And the tallest order in today’s environment: we need to get people who’ve been indoctrinated in the “entitlement” mentality to understand that a Big Government nanny state “providing” for them from cradle to grave is not freedom, but bondage.
In short, the way we win is by causing a fundamental shift in world view back to traditional American values and principles.
The Blaze News
Semper Alacer 
Nullification Now? Nullification No!
(Image: Wikimedia Commons)
With the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare, in what at best might be described as an attempt by John Roberts to “save” the “reputation” of the Supreme Court, many are again calling on states to use nullification to stop implementation of Obamacare. Nullification is the legal theory which claims individual states have a right to nullify or invalidate any federal laws which an individual state deems unconstitutional. On the surface, it might sound like a good idea. However, we must dig a little deeper to understand why “nullification now” is not the answer in our current Constitutional crisis.
People often don’t like hearing reality contrary to their opinion (and more than a few seem to enjoy playing “shoot the messenger”), but nullification is quite simply a dead horse. United States jurisprudence has a long track record of not upholding nullification. From 1798 until the start of the Civil War in 1861, several states either threatened or attempted to nullify different federal laws. None of these nullification attempts were upheld by the Supreme Court. On top of this, the Civil War, as a victory for a powerful and centralized federal government, effectively silenced further nullification attempts.
Nullification remained a dead issue until the mid-twentieth century. It once again reared its head in the 1950s as southern states fought against forced integration of public schools by the federal government. This time, nullification went to the Supreme Court as a specific issue and was explicitly struck down in Cooper v. Aaron (1958). In this case, the Court explicitly, once-and-for-all, clearly declared that individual states may not refuse to enforce federal law. As an aside, we also find the Court now claiming that individual states likewise may not enforce federal law which the federal government refuses to enforce itself: Arizona v. United States (2012).
Such rulings stem from the fact the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in such a way as to use it to apply nearly the entire Bill of Rights to the states. In the process, the Court has largely eradicated individual state sovereignty. Keep in mind, when the Bill of Rights was drafted, it was understood as something imposing limits on the federal government, not on individual state governments. Had those voting on it understood it applying to state governments, it would have never garnered the votes necessary for ratification.
However, even on its own, the nullification theory lacks a valid Constitutional basis; hence the reason the Supreme Court has consistently rejected attempts at nullification by individual states. No less a figure than James Madison held that nullification was unconstitutional. Do nullification proponents seriously believe that James Madison lacked proper understanding of the Constitution?
Further, even if nullification were a Constitutionally valid position, since we’ve allowed the creation at all levels of the job title “career politician” (people for whom reelection trumps doing the right thing), do we seriously believe there are enough state legislators willing to actually pass nullification? Not only would they fear their state being cut off from the teat of federal government appropriations, but would also fear the backlash from the hordes of people now dependent on Big Government handouts (so-called “entitlements”).
On top of this, again even assuming nullification were Constitutionally valid, those calling for nullification are under the impression the federal government would simply allow the sates to “go quietly.” Such a position is nothing short of delusional. Let’s not forget a little thing called the “Civil War.” Consider what Lincoln was able to do with a significantly smaller and significantly less powerful federal government. Now consider the vastly larger and vastly more powerful federal government we’ve allowed to come into existence today. It is not a bureaucracy that can simply be ignored; nor indeed a bureaucracy that will allow itself to simply be ignored.
Before I get attacked with the dreaded label of “neocon” (a phrase so causally tossed out by Tom Woods/Ron Paul libertarians whenever they believe they’re losing an argument – as if calling their opponent a “neocon” triumphantly and automatically settles every argument in their favor; odd how they so often insist on employing the exact same sort of name-calling tactics as TeamObama against anyone who happens to disagree with their position – but that’s an issue in itself for another time), I’m not saying I like the situation as it is; instead I am simply describing reality as it is. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and anyone else are welcome to disagree all they want, but simply disagreeing with reality does not alter its existence. And since it is reality with which we must deal, and since the nullification road has already been shown to be a dead end, we need to get smart and engage in tactics which actually stand a chance of working.
Given the state of Constitutional Law, it’s too late to attack the issue of overturning Obamacare primarily through legal “tricks” in state legislatures; instead, the primary path to attack this issue is through a wholesale change of the federal-level legislative and executive branches, backed up with strong state legislative and executive branches. The only way to make this change happen is through changing the “hearts and minds” of individual citizens.
We need to once and for all wake people up to their responsibility as citizens to be informed about not only issues and candidates, but about the structure and function of our representative Republic. People must learn to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of our founders in order to understand what ought to be, coupled with reading Constitutional case law in order to understand what is; thereby being able to devise appropriate strategies to move what is back to what ought to be. We need to ensure the roughly 30% of conservative-minded people who are not currently registered to vote, not only get registered, but also exercise their responsibility to participate in the election process. And the tallest order in today’s environment: we need to get people who’ve been indoctrinated in the “entitlement” mentality to understand that a Big Government nanny state “providing” for them from cradle to grave is not freedom, but bondage.
In short, the way we win is by causing a fundamental shift in world view back to traditional American values and principles.