Tag: nullification

Categories
media and media people Tenth Amendment federalism

California Secedes?

John C. Calhoun, nullification, federalism, states rights,

“California this week declared its independence from the federal government’s feeble efforts to fight Covid-19 — and perhaps from a bit more.” So begins a hyper-partisan, slightly unhinged Bloomberg opinion piece.

“Governor Gavin Newsom said that he would use the bulk purchasing power of California ‘as a nation-state’ to acquire the hospital supplies that the federal government has failed to provide,” writes one Mr. Francis Wilkinson. “If all goes according to plan, Newsom said, California might even ‘export some of those supplies to states in need.’”

Highlighting two concepts, “nation-state” and “export,” Wilkinson makes much of California’s governor contracting with manufacturers to deliver face masks to his state, arguing that the Trump administration had failed to deliver.

“John C. Calhoun, who used the theory of states’ rights to defend the institution of slavery, is not generally a philosophical lodestar for liberal Democrats such as Newsom,” Wilkinson plunges ahead. He suspects Republicans are hell-bent on subverting democracy come November, making “Calhoun’s theory of nullification . . . ripe for a comeback on the left coast.”

Calhoun’s “theory” of nullification, as Wilkinson puts it, was called by James Madison “interposition,” and flows directly from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. It has been used by states for reasons other than defending slavery — most often defending states from unconstitutional taxation.

Indeed, it was used by Northern states to resist federal attempts to reclaim fugitive slaves.*

While it is instructive to watch advocates of huge government flirt with federalist ideas, and the compact theory of the union, one has to wonder how nullification fits with resisting a lack of federal action on face masks. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

* And free people who merely looked like slaves. For the slavery issue, and more on nullification, see Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century (2010).

PDF for printing

John C. Calhoun, nullification, federalism, states rights,

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom ideological culture initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders national politics & policies political challengers property rights Regulating Protest too much government

A Sanctuary from Centralization

decentralize, centralize, federal and state and county, power, nullification, distributed

Defiance . . . nullification. It is a trend.

I take it as a sign of our contentious times that we now witness states in open rebellion against centralized control from the Imperial City of Washington, D.C., while cities and counties are also rattling the chains set by their respective state capitals.

The sweep of marijuana decriminalization and legalization is only the most obvious. The rise of “sanctuary cities” defying federal government immigration laws — often backed up by state legislatures — has been a contentious issue, with progressives supporting this sort of nullification and conservatives opposing it.

But the latest development does not hail from the left.

In Illinois, a number of rural governments have taken a cue from the immigration debate by “declaring themselves sanctuary counties for gun owners,” we learn from the AP’s Don Babwin, writing in the Chicago Tribune. “The resolutions are meant to put the Democratic-controlled Legislature on notice that if it passes a host of gun bills . . . the counties might bar their employees from enforcing the new laws.”

An Effingham County Board Member calls “sanctuary” an attention-getting “buzzword,” reporting that “at least 20 Illinois counties and local officials in Oregon and Washington have asked for copies of Effingham County’s resolution.”

Now, cities and counties do not have an analogous relationship to their state governments as do states to the federal government: the states created the “United States of America,” while cities and counties are also state creations.

Yet this move is important. It shows a growing recognition of the tyrannical nature of centralized power.

And the usefulness of decentralization.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
ideological culture Tenth Amendment federalism too much government U.S. Constitution

Manly Firmness

“Is repealing the Affordable Care Act an issue of manhood?” asks Alan Rappeport in the New York Times. He’s referring to the “macho language” in a resolution introduced recently in Jefferson City, Missouri, by State Rep. Mike Moon.

Moon’s House Resolution 99 decimates the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in a dozen whereas clauses, noting the legislation was

  1. “passed under questionable circumstances”;
  2. found constitutional only on the contradictory determination that it was both a tax and not a tax; and, most notably,
  3. resoundingly opposed by Missouri voters, who have twice trudged to the polls to overwhelming pass measures to block this federal legislation.

HR 99 resolves that, “the members of the Missouri House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth General Assembly, hereby insist that each member of the Missouri Congressional delegation endeavor with ‘manly firmness’ and resolve to totally and completely repeal the Affordable Care Act, settling for no less than a full repeal.”

Among today’s sophisticates, the phrase “manly firmness” elicits giggles, of course. Seasoned Democrats like U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill play the “war on women” card.  She complained that those words come from “a point in time when women were chattels and didn’t have the right to vote. I think we can update our vocabulary.”

Lost on — or purposely ignored by — the senator? The fact that the phrase “manly firmness” comes from the Declaration of Independence, from the fifth listed grievance against King George III.

And firmness is exactly what’s needed: adult, strong, serious standing up as our representatives — rather than representing themselves — and defending our individual freedom and its corollary, constitutionally-limited government.

That’s what was needed back in 1776. It is every bit as desperately needed today.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Second Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism

Nullifying Future Fed Gun Regs

The legislative history of Idaho’s Senate Bill 1332 can be briskly told; its enactment was swift indeed. The Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act was

  • introduced on the tenth of February;
  • unanimously approved by the full Senate nine days later;
  • leapt out of House committee, on March 10, with a Do Pass recommendation;
  • read in full in the House two days later, and
  • passed unanimously; whereupon it
  • went to the governor, who signed it into law March 19.

Because of an emergency clause, SB-1332 went into full effect on that date.Idaho, with bullet holes?

The new law instructs Idaho’s public servants not to co-operate with the federal government on any future gun and ammo registration, prohibition or regulation passed by the U.S. Congress. It also provides a civil penalty of a maximum $1000 fine for each instance of co-operation.

It’s part of the low-key rebellion that many state legislatures and governors are waging  against the federal government. Claiming something like a right to nullify unconstitutional laws — a right enumerated, after all, as the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution — at issue is the usurpation of state prerogatives by the feds.

We’ve seen a number of states resist the federal government’s attempt to “organize” a grand (and catastrophic) public-private alliance known as Obamacare.

The current Idaho effort doesn’t strike me as pure nullification, however. It relies on a proven principle of federalism: the states may not be commandeered to enforce federal law. Specifically, any future federal law attacking our essential Second Amendment rights.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
links

Townhall: The Court v. The People

Over at Townhall, your weekly Common Sense column surveys the current divisions — not so much on the Supreme Court (they change), but in the federal union itself. There are a few keywords worth thinking about: nullification, interposition, delegated powers, unenumerated rights, and (go full-blooded, here) “checks and balances.”

Townhall‘s where to go. But here‘s where to come back.

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies Second Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism

Nullification Today

As the federal government lurches further out of control, wildly grasping to increase control over our lives, an old and controversial method of reining in our central government gains popularity: State nullification of federal law.

A recent Rasmussen survey asked whether “states have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds,” and 38 percent of likely voters surveyed said “Yes.”

Cutting to the quick of the Commerce Clause, a new Kansas law — Senate Bill 102, the Second Amendment Protection Act, signed by Governor Sam Brownback last month — states that firearms manufactured and owned in Kansas that do not cross state lines are not subject to federal law.

Of course, the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. In Wickard v. Filburn, the Court allowed the federal government to regulate darn near anything on the grounds that any conceivable act of consumption affects demand, and thus “commerce.” Goofy ruling? Yes. But by tradition it’s the Supreme Court justices who get the final word.

Yet even that has been denied by many constitutional theorists, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — “Mr. Constitution” himself — both of whom supported nullification, as recently explained by historian Tom Woods. No compact joined into by multiple parties may only be interpreted by one of the parties alone, unless specified to that effect. The Constitution doesn’t even mention judicial review, so the tradition of the Supreme Court’s final word is itself a matter of dispute.

Standing up for the status quo, Attorney General Eric Holder has written to Brownback against the new Kansas law, citing the Supremacy Clause. Problematic? Yes. But not easily dismissed.

Brownback has volleyed back.

At least we can expect the old issues of constitutional law to gain a new and lively hearing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.