Nullification: The Lost Balance of Power

[ShackledNation]

They do hate this nation that is obvious.

I'm telling yas, what these guys really are supporters of the CSA.

Now they'll tell you they want this because the USA FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is corrupt.

But what they really want is to have smaller government units that are more EASILY browbeaten by their corporate masters and more easily corruptable.

They basically hate any representational government having POWER over their masters.

Such ignorance is pathetic. You need to watch this video:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc]‪Nullification: Interview with a Zombie‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

You are a zombie. I am not a neoconfederate, a hater, a racist, or a corporatist. The fact you can do nothing but name call proves your inability to think of an actual argument.

 

[ShackledNation]

What a bunch of whiners the right wing libertarian conservatives have become. Children who want to take their ball and go home. A union is a union and while it is tough to please everyone, destroying unity is for the stupid ideologues. Stuff for the thinking person below.

Prove nullification would destroy the union. Your premise is false. There is no union if the states of that union have no power to check federal government. The union becomes one centralized power with no federal system left.

".... In other words, the only state right the Confederate founders were interested in was the rich man’s “right” to own slaves.

Jefferson was not a confederate, and as I have repeated ad nauseum the north used nullification more than the south. Everyone points to John C. Calhoun as if he came up with nullification, which is bullshit.

It’s peculiar, because “states’ rights” has become a popular refrain in Republican circles lately. Last year Gov. Rick Perry of Texas wondered aloud whether secession was his state’s right in the aftermath of laws out of Congress that he disliked.

In part because of this renewed rhetoric, in the coming remembrances we will likely hear more from folks who cling to the whitewash explanation for secession and the Civil War. But you have only to look at the honest words of the secessionists to see why all those men put on uniforms." Gone With the Myths - NYTimes.com

One of the laws I think should be nullified as a Californian is the federal ban on marijuana. I guess that makes me a racist southerner?

But this constant argument is an interesting twist as the [many of] same wingnuts who argue we had a right to invade Iraq because it was bad, see no evil in the slavery reason for the civil war, instead like all revisionists they now stress state rights and ignore the key reason for the civil war.

Absolutely not. I was completely against the invasion of Iraq, and Libya, and the bombing of Yemen, and all the stupid wars we are fighting in around the world today. Do you even know what libertarianism is? It appears not. See no evil the slavery? Are you kidding? Again, nullification was used to nullify the fugitive slave act. Nobody responded to that post, however, with anything but insults.

"Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it."

"A primary element of this Southern understanding of the Constitution was the right to secede. Nowhere does the original document confer the right to detach from the Union, but Southerners still found the act "entirely legitimate under the terms of the federal Constitution” (Cook 114).

The 10th amendment gives states the right to secede simply because secession is not prohibited by the states in the Constitution. The Constitution enumerates federal powers and prohibits certain state powers. Everything else is left up to the states.

Perhaps one could construe the tenth amendment to grant such a right, but Article six states that all government officials must support "this Constitution,” which runs contrary to secession (U.S. Const. 6.0.3 and Am. 10, from Gienapp 435-6). Alexander Stevens used this principle as a premise in his argument against secession (59). Yet, despite this Constitutional opposition, or at least ambivalence, to secession, South Carolina declared that it had such a right. " (from above url)

Let us look at Article VI.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Yes, the states are bound to the Constitution. But the Constitution does not say the states cannot leave the union. They are bound to allow the federal government to use the powers it has been given. Nowhere are they blocked from leaving such an agreement. The Article VI argument presupposes that secession is banned in the Constitution, and therefore because Article VI requires states to support the Constitution, they cannot secede. But the power to secede is not blocked, so as the 10th amendment claims it is granted to the states. It is a misinterpretation of Article VI to say it blocks secession. It says states must adhere to the Constitution, not that secession is a violation of the Constitution.

Even White v. Texas, which many point to as proof secession is not a right, said secession could be allowed. "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."

All men are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights, governments are formed to protect these rights and gain their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes abusive of these rights, it is the right — no, it is the duty — of the people to alter or abolish that government.

Such language historically has been the norm in America. When government abuses is power and breaks the contract of the Constitution, we the people have a right to say no. Without such a right we are powerless against endless breaches of government power.
Secession Is in Our Future - Clifford F. Thies - Mises Daily

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Nullification is an interesting debate. But one thing to keep in mind: A Federal Government that has to deal with 50 different states nullifiying or not nullifying each and every law doesn't make for a stable government at all. It makes things essentially a weak alliance of 50 different countries.

The USA as a world power simply wouldn't exist with nullification as part of the landscape. So if you revive nullification, you're looking at returning the USA to a pre-1850's level player on the world stage overnight. Isolationism is a natural consequence, not because our temperaments would change, but because nullification would make it impossible for a unified foreign policy to actually influence much of anything in the world. We would become impossible trade partners to deal with and impossible military allies.

I'm not commenting on whether a reduced US presence in the world is a good or bad thing at all. I'm mentioning one of the forgotten consequences of this push for "Smaller Government" that a lot of Conservatives and Libertarians are pushing for. International power and prestige requires a government capable of keeping national interests and groups in check and in line. So far I think we've done a good job balancing our desires for freedom and liberty with our desires for international power.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War. Lincoln's invasion and conquest of the Confederate states is the only thing that put and end to it. Nothing in the Constitution took away the right of states to secede.

Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.

There was no provision preventing it... therefore it was entirely legal.

 

[ShackledNation]

Nullification is an interesting debate. But one thing to keep in mind: A Federal Government that has to deal with 50 different states nullifiying or not nullifying each and every law doesn't make for a stable government at all. It makes things essentially a weak alliance of 50 different countries.

The USA as a world power simply wouldn't exist with nullification as part of the landscape. So if you revive nullification, you're looking at returning the USA to a pre-1850's level player on the world stage overnight. Isolationism is a natural consequence, not because our temperaments would change, but because nullification would make it impossible for a unified foreign policy to actually influence much of anything in the world. We would become impossible trade partners to deal with and impossible military allies.

I'm not commenting on whether a reduced US presence in the world is a good or bad thing at all. I'm mentioning one of the forgotten consequences of this push for "Smaller Government" that a lot of Conservatives and Libertarians are pushing for. International power and prestige requires a government capable of keeping national interests and groups in check and in line. So far I think we've done a good job balancing our desires for freedom and liberty with our desires for international power.

It would not result in isolationism. You could argue noninterventionism, but it wouldn't be easy. The federal government raises the military. We don't have an army composed of state militias like we did in the past. Government would be more stable than it is today. Big government is unstable government. Granting the states power to disobey unconstitutional laws does not make for a weak alliance, it makes for a strong check on power. The purpose a Constitution is to allow the people to be sovereign, not to allow a centralized power to have complete control over them.

You made a lot of claims, but none where supported by any further explanation. It makes no sense to say we would be impossible military allies because Congress has the right to declare war and raise an army. This power is not delegated to the states. States cannot introduce tariffs and trade policy with foreign nations for that again is listed as a federal power. All of what you claim will create instability and a weak union if nullification exists are precisely what powers the federal government was given legitimate control over under the Constitution. The states would have no right to nullify such lawful acts of federal power.

We've done a good job balancing freedoms and liberties with our government's desire for international power? First of all, define international power. I define such power as economic, with trade and power by example. I do not define good power as nation building and entering into wars with everyone. We have sacrificed so many freedoms (have you heard of the patriot act? The TSA?) for the sake of our unstable empire. We are meant to be a constitutional republic, not a centralized empire.

Please explain why you premises are correct.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

6 to 6, Freeman vs Tyrants, as usual.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.

Where does the Constitution revoke the right to secede?

How did Lincoln "enforce" the Constitution? By making war on sovereign states without a declaration from Congress? By abolishing habeas corpus? By shutting down 300 newspapers? By executing Americans without a trial? By burning down American cities? By looting, plundering and destroying the private property of American citizens? By arresting the governor and the entire state legislature of Maryland? By setting up a gulag and throwing law abiding citizens into it without a trial?

Which of those actions was intended to "enforce" the Constitution?

The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that States have the right to secede, as that determination (power) is reserved to them.

 

[FA_Q2]

You realize that this thread is 2 years old right?

 

[Mac1958]

.

As we continue our rapid and unfortunate move away from federalism and toward central planning, the issue of nullification is essentially becoming moot, even foreign.

Fundamental change, as promised.

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You realize that this thread is 2 years old right?

Yes, but the political landscape may as well be two hundred years older in this 2 years. Interesting to see what people think now. Notice I've been bumping nullification threads in the wake of the NSA.

 

[Billo_Really]

Many Americans do not like the idea of nullification. I find this unfortunate. The writers of the Constitution understood the threat of having a government. This is why they separated powers among three branches. The hope was that if one branch tried to gain too much power, the other would bring it in line.

But the founders were not stupid. They feared what would happen if all three branches sided together to expand their authority (fears that have been realized). And so a federal system was desired, in which multiple governments (states) could check the central three branches even further. The primary tool of the states to check federal authority was nullification.

If a state felt a law broke the Constitution it had entered into, it could claim that law null and void. This power was vital in defense of 3 branches uniting together to expand their power. I would argue it is the most important power of the states. Yet it has been lost.

And we wonder why the government has only continually grown in the economic sphere with bailouts and welfarism, grown in the foreign sphere with nearly 1,000 military bases around the world and constant warfare and nation building, and the personal sphere by banning drugs, passing laws such as the Patriot Act, allowing the TSA to grope passengers, and countless other examples.

If only we had the power to nullify it all.

If the writers of the Constitution wanted the States to have more power, they would've kept more of the Articles of Confederation. But they didn't, because they intended to create a strong central government.

 

[FA_Q2]

You realize that this thread is 2 years old right?

Yes, but the political landscape may as well be two hundred years older in this 2 years. Interesting to see what people think now. Notice I've been bumping nullification threads in the wake of the NSA.

Quite possibly

You and I disagree on some things that I have noticed recently but the majors seem somewhat in line. If I am not mistaken I would place you somewhat center left


Thanks for the explanation. Might have been useful to mention that you were bringing up some of the older thread for a reason. I am glad that you did though – even though I already am in the nullification ‘bandwagon’ I found shackled nations arguments very interesting. I disagree somewhat on nullification with him though (and possibly you). I do not think that the states have a right to nullify any law that is clearly the federal government’s responsibility as outlined in the constitution. For instance, the federal government clearly has the right to regulate interstate commerce. As such, I don’t think that a state has a right to interpret that to mean they are allowed to nullify a law that actually deals in trade from one state to another.

However, something like the ACA that does not actually deal with that power should rightfully be within the states right to nullify. Yes, that can get sticky as the SCOTUS stretches the shit out of interpretations of the constitution BUT this would not be an issue if we actually stuck with the original intent of the document itself. Hell, the states were even complicit in their own destruction of that power when they ratified the 17th amendment. THAT effectively ended states’ rights more than anything as that would have been the stopgap that prevented those laws from even getting to the SCOTUS or overrode those laws that SCOTUS did determine were constitutional.

 

[editec]

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War.

You should tell that to John C Calhoun.

Which federal law was successfully nullified by a state? Since it was "widely practiced", I'm sure you have some examples.

Plenty. And contrary to common opinion, it was quite a northern tradition.

There is the well known example of South Carolina's nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

The Ordinance of Nullification declared the Tariff of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. It began the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, the Nullification Proclamation of 1832, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending government ground troops to enforce the tariffs. In the face of the military threat, and following a Congressional revision of the tariff, South Carolina repealed the ordinance.

Massachussettes nullified the embargo acts of 1807. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (to name a few) supported MA.

During the War of 1812, the federal government ordered the use of state militias. Massachusettes again declare the law null, and the supreme court of the state agreed. Connecticut followed suit.

In 1813, there was another trade embargo. Once again, MA cried foul, and the supreme court of the state agreed with the legislature.

Northern states again slavery also tried to use nullification to protect the rights of escaped slaves. The fugitive slave act of 1850 was abhorred by the north.

The efforts were not legally upheld, and that is the point. If the Supreme Court can overrule anything a state says, and the Supreme Court sides with the other two branches in taking over powers of the states and infringing upon their sovereignty, then the federal system is useless. States rights are vital to keeping a government in check. If all three branches agree that rights should be taken away, there is nothing to stop them except for the states. That is the entire purpose of a federal system.

In every case mentioned the states backed down and nullification failed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)

There is only one LEGAL way to change this dynamic.

CONSTITUTIONAL COVENTION that changes the balance of power between the STATES and the FED.

It's going to take 2/3s of state legislatures to call for the Convention and then 3/4s of the state legislatures to pass any changes made to the constitution by that convention.