Bat-Crazy Jefferson, Nullification, and the Supreme Court

[Dante]

Jefferson was keen on the murderous bastards and excesses of the French Revolution. He justified the killing of as many innocents as it took in order to establish his warped vision of an agrarian utopia. A utopia based on a flawed and romantic view of history.

Jefferson later distanced himself from and condemned the French Revolution.

Jefferson later distanced himself? When?

 

[Dante]

Jefferson was keen on the murderous bastards and excesses of the French Revolution. He justified the killing of as many innocents as it took in order to establish his warped vision of an agrarian utopia. A utopia based on a flawed and romantic view of history.

Jefferson later distanced himself from and condemned the French Revolution.

I have read that Jefferson never let up on the idea of 'popular sovereignty' at all costs, as supreme, which would have him backing the French revolution.

 

[jillian]

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

That's not clear at all. It's clear that some politicians and judges worked together to try to destroy the right of secession, but it's certainly not clear that secession was never a legitimate right of the states.

kevin, you know i'm fond of you. i preface with that because i don't want you to think i'm picking at you or making any personal attack.. i think you're generally civil in the true 'southern gentleman' fashion. (a compliment...not a dig, btw). however, again, these issues have long been disposed of. and een if hte constitution or court had not disposed of them, the war did. you can choose to recognize that or you can rage at it. but it doesn't change reality.

and yes.. it is clear.

 

[Dante]

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

Jefferson appealed to Federalist judges when it suited his purposes -- when the democrats had went against him.

Jefferson's embargo (his lunatic idea to keep the USA out of the war between Britain and France) which was a complete and utter failure. Henry Adams wrote that Jefferson called out the army and navy to enforce his embargo and this exposed his hypocrisy in claiming to be a principled strict constructionist.

Adams actually writes that Jefferson's embargo and force of military might against Americans abridged more civil liberties than Great Britain did during the Revolutionary War.

And the Federalist states NULLIFIED his embargo.

and Jefferson used a Federalist Judge in Massachusetts. So some states believed they could nullify an embargo? The argument was over who had the right to inspect port. Did the port inspectors have this right or did the President?

Jefferson's own ally on the Supreme Court, Justice Johnson (not a federalist judge), ruled that the port inspectors were in charge, and Jefferson urged his federal inspectors to ignore the federal ruling. So the states did not nullify anything.

A non-federalist judge ruled against Jefferson's mistaken belief in a right to enforce the embargo.

 

[Dante]

I guess Kevin is mixing threats of nullification with the Confederate insurrection as the basis to say the untested principle up until the Confederate insurrection, was a principled enshrined in American law. It was not. It was argued over. When it was tested and even before people were all over the place -- undecided some, but not a great Southerner:

During the "nullification crisis" of 1828-1833, South Carolina threatened to nullify a federal law regarding tariffs.

Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation against the doctrine of nullification, stating: "I consider...the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

He also denied the right to secede: "The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."​

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"federal laws which are in pursuance of the Constitution"

I think all the laws the Constitution pursues (lol) would be federal laws. But I digress.

---

You are making up things. I am almost at a loss on how to reasonably and rationally respond.

btw you may find this helpful: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article V: Annotations pg. 2 of 3

The Supreme Court rules what federal laws are constitutional.

Not all federal laws are in pursuance of the Constitution is the point. Such as the Alien & Sedition Acts when Jefferson and Madison proposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Which is a power the Supreme Court gave itself. However, nullification is still not denied to the states, so is therefore a legitimate power.

Were the Alien and Sedition Act ruled unconstitutional? Were they the law of teh land? Did they get shut down or were they allowed to expire?

The power the Supreme Court has was decided long ago. You may choose to not recognize said power, but you would destroy America for a flawed principle. And please do not take a statement of fact for a personal attack. You have repeatedly sided with the wrong side of almost everything, every legal precedent, every political compromise, since the Revolution. Your vision is one of an America that none of us would recognize.

You are civil and polite in argument but your reasoning has you following principles to their logical conclusions no matter the harm or damage. You are guilty of putting the cart before the horse in most things concerning America and the US Constitution.

Yes, they were unconstitutional, they targeted the Adams' administration political opponents by violating their constitutional, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and natural rights. They expired as Adams left office.

Should the Supreme Court have the power to decide its own power? I don't think so, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that the framers intended the Supreme Court to have that power.

I'm not sure if I was insulted or praised.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It actually goes back to the stuff people like Kevin dwell on -- the early court cases that established our history as a nation. The Southern Confederacy was an insurrection based on a flawed idea from the lunatic side of Jefferson that says states can willy nilly opt out.

Jefferson is held up as some kind of Golden Idol on this even as he is cited for why one must believe federalist principles that establish the Constitution. The hypocrisy inherent in Jeffersonian outbursts is astounding when taken in as a whole.

Jefferson says that future generations owe no allegiance to an old document, yet his followers cite that document as why we must do this or that. What is it? does the Constitution reign or not?

Jefferson didn't believe that younger generations should be bound by the laws of older generations, but that is not how our Constitution was setup.

Jefferson believed many things and was on the losing side of most every argument with the Federalists and Marshall. Like the Confederacy, Jefferson lost...and you defend all.

I defend principles. That those principles have been shunned by people willing to kill to "prove" their point doesn't make them wrong.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson was keen on the murderous bastards and excesses of the French Revolution. He justified the killing of as many innocents as it took in order to establish his warped vision of an agrarian utopia. A utopia based on a flawed and romantic view of history.

Jefferson later distanced himself from and condemned the French Revolution.

Jefferson later distanced himself? When?

Well I don't have an exact date off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find out with a quick Google search.

 

[Dante]

Jefferson didn't believe that younger generations should be bound by the laws of older generations, but that is not how our Constitution was setup.

Jefferson believed many things and was on the losing side of most every argument with the Federalists and Marshall. Like the Confederacy, Jefferson lost...and you defend all.

I defend principles. That those principles have been shunned by people willing to kill to "prove" their point doesn't make them wrong.

as per usual you miss the point. principles do not exist in a vacuum in real life. what good is a principle that kills that which it seeks to protect?

 

[Dante]

Not all federal laws are in pursuance of the Constitution is the point. Such as the Alien & Sedition Acts when Jefferson and Madison proposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.

Which is a power the Supreme Court gave itself. However, nullification is still not denied to the states, so is therefore a legitimate power.

Were the Alien and Sedition Act ruled unconstitutional? Were they the law of teh land? Did they get shut down or were they allowed to expire?

The power the Supreme Court has was decided long ago. You may choose to not recognize said power, but you would destroy America for a flawed principle. And please do not take a statement of fact for a personal attack. You have repeatedly sided with the wrong side of almost everything, every legal precedent, every political compromise, since the Revolution. Your vision is one of an America that none of us would recognize.

You are civil and polite in argument but your reasoning has you following principles to their logical conclusions no matter the harm or damage. You are guilty of putting the cart before the horse in most things concerning America and the US Constitution.

Yes, they were unconstitutional, they targeted the Adams' administration political opponents by violating their constitutional, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and natural rights. They expired as Adams left office.

Should the Supreme Court have the power to decide its own power? I don't think so, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that the framers intended the Supreme Court to have that power.

I'm not sure if I was insulted or praised.

So the Acts were not ruled unconstitutional? The constitutionality of the Acts are a matter of opinion -- outside of a legal decision?

 

[Dante]

Jefferson later distanced himself from and condemned the French Revolution.

Jefferson later distanced himself? When?

Well I don't have an exact date off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find out with a quick Google search.

my argument is that Jefferson may have regretted some of his more hyper rantings about accepting the excesses of the French Revolution, but as far as I know, like you he never rejected a principle for the sake of humanity and morality.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

it seems to me the issue of federalism is long resolved, if not by court decision or constitution, then by the result of the civil war. it's clear that it was never intended that anyone opt out.

i think part of the problem is some people being unable to distinguish between political statements and actual law. jefferson's comments are not law and we can pick or choose from them as we like in terms of philosophy. That is separate and distinct, however, from what is legally permissible.

There's a childishness to the rants that astounds me sometimes.

That's not clear at all. It's clear that some politicians and judges worked together to try to destroy the right of secession, but it's certainly not clear that secession was never a legitimate right of the states.

kevin, you know i'm fond of you. i preface with that because i don't want you to think i'm picking at you or making any personal attack.. i think you're generally civil in the true 'southern gentleman' fashion. (a compliment...not a dig, btw). however, again, these issues have long been disposed of. and een if hte constitution or court had not disposed of them, the war did. you can choose to recognize that or you can rage at it. but it doesn't change reality.

and yes.. it is clear.

Well I appreciate the kind words, though it would be hard to be a "southern" gentleman being from Ohio. But I appreciate it nonetheless.

I don't believe that a war can "prove" that a principle is wrong. A war can only prove which side is more adept at killing the other. The most evil governments can "prove" that they're right through military prowess, it doesn't make them right. The Constitution, of course, doesn't say that secession is legal, and as such the Supreme Court had no basis for its ruling. Now I know you don't agree with that assessment, but I do think we can agree that it certainly wasn't clear.

“The indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bands of political associations will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests or kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.” – John Quincy Adams

“The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Mississippi States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” – Thomas Jefferson

Clearly it wasn't clear to founders, so how could it be clear to the rest of us?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson appealed to Federalist judges when it suited his purposes -- when the democrats had went against him.

Jefferson's embargo (his lunatic idea to keep the USA out of the war between Britain and France) which was a complete and utter failure. Henry Adams wrote that Jefferson called out the army and navy to enforce his embargo and this exposed his hypocrisy in claiming to be a principled strict constructionist.

Adams actually writes that Jefferson's embargo and force of military might against Americans abridged more civil liberties than Great Britain did during the Revolutionary War.

And the Federalist states NULLIFIED his embargo.

and Jefferson used a Federalist Judge in Massachusetts. So some states believed they could nullify an embargo? The argument was over who had the right to inspect port. Did the port inspectors have this right or did the President?

Jefferson's own ally on the Supreme Court, Justice Johnson (not a federalist judge), ruled that the port inspectors were in charge, and Jefferson urged his federal inspectors to ignore the federal ruling. So the states did not nullify anything.

A non-federalist judge ruled against Jefferson's mistaken belief in a right to enforce the embargo.

"Indeed, it would be useful for the general good, if the State Legislatures were often to cast a watchful eye towards the general government, with a view, candidly to consider, and judiciously discern, whether the powers delegated to the United States are not exceeded, or are so exercised as not to interfere with or counteract those which are reserved by the people for their own management...

Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task - it is their right - it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." - Johnathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut, addressing the legislature of Connecticut

"Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the Embargo." - Resolutions passed by the Connecticut legislature regarding Jefferson's embargo

All the New England states nullified the embargo, along with Delaware.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I guess Kevin is mixing threats of nullification with the Confederate insurrection as the basis to say the untested principle up until the Confederate insurrection, was a principled enshrined in American law. It was not. It was argued over. When it was tested and even before people were all over the place -- undecided some, but not a great Southerner:

During the "nullification crisis" of 1828-1833, South Carolina threatened to nullify a federal law regarding tariffs.

Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation against the doctrine of nullification, stating: "I consider...the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

He also denied the right to secede: "The Constitution...forms a government not a league...To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union is to say that the United States is not a nation."​

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions

Yes, Jackson opposed nullification and secession, and advocated violence to "prove" that he was right. If not for a last minute compromise Jackson likely would have invaded South Carolina.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson believed many things and was on the losing side of most every argument with the Federalists and Marshall. Like the Confederacy, Jefferson lost...and you defend all.

I defend principles. That those principles have been shunned by people willing to kill to "prove" their point doesn't make them wrong.

as per usual you miss the point. principles do not exist in a vacuum in real life. what good is a principle that kills that which it seeks to protect?

Principles don't kill people. People kill people to try to prove that their principles are "right."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Were the Alien and Sedition Act ruled unconstitutional? Were they the law of teh land? Did they get shut down or were they allowed to expire?

The power the Supreme Court has was decided long ago. You may choose to not recognize said power, but you would destroy America for a flawed principle. And please do not take a statement of fact for a personal attack. You have repeatedly sided with the wrong side of almost everything, every legal precedent, every political compromise, since the Revolution. Your vision is one of an America that none of us would recognize.

You are civil and polite in argument but your reasoning has you following principles to their logical conclusions no matter the harm or damage. You are guilty of putting the cart before the horse in most things concerning America and the US Constitution.

Yes, they were unconstitutional, they targeted the Adams' administration political opponents by violating their constitutional, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and natural rights. They expired as Adams left office.

Should the Supreme Court have the power to decide its own power? I don't think so, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that the framers intended the Supreme Court to have that power.

I'm not sure if I was insulted or praised.

So the Acts were not ruled unconstitutional? The constitutionality of the Acts are a matter of opinion -- outside of a legal decision?

No, they were not ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They were, however, ruled unconstitutional by the states of Virginia and Kentucky.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Jefferson later distanced himself? When?

Well I don't have an exact date off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find out with a quick Google search.

my argument is that Jefferson may have regretted some of his more hyper rantings about accepting the excesses of the French Revolution, but as far as I know, like you he never rejected a principle for the sake of humanity and morality.

He didn't reject the principle of revolution, he rejected the crimes committed during the French Revolution.

 

[Dante]

Well I don't have an exact date off the top of my head, but I'm sure you can find out with a quick Google search.

my argument is that Jefferson may have regretted some of his more hyper rantings about accepting the excesses of the French Revolution, but as far as I know, like you he never rejected a principle for the sake of humanity and morality.

He didn't reject the principle of revolution, he rejected the crimes committed during the French Revolution.

that was very white of him. (sorry, couldn't resist. lol)

he didn't reject the principle being followed through to it's logical conclusion, which is that popular sovereignty reigns supreme. which I say means he would've supported it all over again, blood guts, and heads all.

 

[Dante]

I defend principles. That those principles have been shunned by people willing to kill to "prove" their point doesn't make them wrong.

as per usual you miss the point. principles do not exist in a vacuum in real life. what good is a principle that kills that which it seeks to protect?

Principles don't kill people. People kill people to try to prove that their principles are "right."

the Confederate Insurrection.

thank you

 

[Dante]

Yes, they were unconstitutional, they targeted the Adams' administration political opponents by violating their constitutional, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and natural rights. They expired as Adams left office.

Should the Supreme Court have the power to decide its own power? I don't think so, and I've seen no evidence to suggest that the framers intended the Supreme Court to have that power.

I'm not sure if I was insulted or praised.

So the Acts were not ruled unconstitutional? The constitutionality of the Acts are a matter of opinion -- outside of a legal decision?

No, they were not ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They were, however, ruled unconstitutional by the states of Virginia and Kentucky.

and?

No federal rule.