Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Thomas E. Woods, LewRockwell.com
Over the past few years, but especially during the past several months, there has been an extraordinary revival of interest in Thomas Jefferson’s idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. According to Jefferson, if the federal government were to monopolize constitutional interpretation, it would of course interpret the Constitution in its own favor and consistently uncover previously unknown reservoirs of additional federal power. Only a fool would consent to such a system, thought Jefferson, and the peoples of the states were not fools.
Needless to say, nullification is nowhere to be found on the three-by-five card on which our betters have written out the range of allowable opinion, so it has been greeted with the usual hysteria from predictable quarters.
The latest, and to my mind most laughable, example comes from Sean Wilentz, a history professor at Princeton, writing in The New Republic. The subtitle of Professor Wilentz’s article “The Essence of Anarchy” is “America’s long, sordid affair with nullification.” What Professor Wilentz omits in his alleged history of that “long, sordid affair” could fill an entire book, and indeed just weeks ago I announced the impending release of my own book on precisely this subject. (Nullification will cover the origins and theory of nullification, its forgotten nineteenth-century history, modern applications of the idea, and much else.) For now I’ll note the New England states that appealed to nullification (or interposition) against President Jefferson’s embargo, against what they considered the unconstitutional calling up of the New England militia during the war of 1812, against the use of military conscription, and against a law providing for the enlistment of minors.
Pretty “sordid,” huh?
In addition to other examples, we might also refer to the legislature of Wisconsin, which as late as 1859 was quoting from Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in opposition to unconstitutional aspects of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Sordid, I tell you. Here’s the text of a handbill that circulated in Milwaukee in the 1850s:
All the People of this State, who are opposed to being made SLAVES or SLAVE-CATCHERS, and to having the Free Soil of Wisconsin made the hunting-ground for Human Kidnappers, and all who are willing to unite in a STATE LEAGUE, to defend our State Sovereignty, our State Courts, and our State and National Constitutions, against the flagrant usurpations of U.S. Judges, Commissioners, and Marshals, and their Attorneys; and to maintain inviolate those great Constitutional Safeguards of Freedom – the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and the RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY – as old and sacred as Constitutional Liberty itself; and all who are willing to sustain the cause of those who are prosecuted, and to be prosecuted in Wisconsin, by the agents and executors of the Kidnapping Act of 1850, for the alleged crime of rescuing a human being from the hands of kidnappers, and restoring him to himself and to Freedom, are invited to meet at YOUNGS’ HALL, IN THIS CITY, THURSDAY, APRIL 13TH, at 11 o’clock A.M., to counsel together, and take such action as the exigencies of the times, and the cause of imperiled Liberty demand.
What’s that? A “state league” to defend “state sovereignty” on behalf of human freedom against the “flagrant usurpations” of the federal government? How sordid!
Do you suppose Professor Wilentz teaches that at Princeton? Does he even know about it?
What Professor Wilentz also omits, and perhaps doesn’t know, is that abolitionists who opposed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 expressly endorsed nullification and even referred to John C. Calhoun by name in support of their ideas. A shame Professor Wilentz wasn’t around to tell them that only a “racist” would refer to the wicked Calhoun, and that mature adults should never be allowed simply to consider his ideas on their merits.
Wilentz spends some of his time giving us a 60-year-old interpretation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, where nullification and interposition were first expressly advanced, as if no scholarship had appeared since then. He tells us that Jefferson was “in a panic” when he drafted the Kentucky Resolutions. In other words, Jefferson wasn’t really in his right mind, so we can excuse him for dreaming up crazy constitutional ideas that irritate Princeton professors.
Whether he realizes it or not, Wilentz is here repeating the thesis of Adrienne Koch and Harry Ammon, from their 1948 William and Mary Quarterly article “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: An Episode in Jefferson’s and Madison’s Defense of Civil Liberties.” Koch and Ammon suggest that nullification was really just an ad hoc response to an emergency situation rather than an enduring constitutional doctrine in its own right.
Unfortunately for Wilentz, the subject has been explored a teensy bit further in the six decades since then. As Kevin Gutzman shows in his book Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776–1840, Jefferson did not invent nullification in a moment of haste. The germ of nullification is directly traceable to the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 (and indeed even into the colonial period). There, supporters of the Constitution insisted that the federal government would possess only the powers “expressly delegated” to it, and that Virginia would be “exonerated” should the federal government ever reach for a power beyond those delegated. Edmund Randolph and George Nicholas assured Virginians of these principles in so many words. Both men served on the five-man committee that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Randolph went on to serve as U.S. attorney general, and Nicholas as attorney general of Kentucky.
Throughout the 1790s, Virginians kept returning to the assurances they had been given in 1788. To give just one example: appalled by Alexander Hamilton’s financial program, and particularly the federal assumption of state debts, Patrick Henry introduced a resolution, passed by the Virginia legislature, that cited Hamilton’s program as an example of precisely what Virginians had been assured could not happen – the exercise by the federal government of a power it had not been delegated. Henry reminded his fellow Virginians that they had been sold the Constitution on the grounds that the federal government would have only those powers expressly delegated to it, and that the state government would be a sentinel watching over federal officials and remaining on guard against federal encroachments. Is that really so far from what Jefferson would later say?
By the time Jefferson drafted the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, therefore, he was merely developing these longstanding principles. He certainly was not spinning out an ad hoc response. Much less was he acting merely “in a panic.”
My favorite part of the whole piece comes when Wilentz offers us this aside: “Madison also wrote of nullification that ‘[n]o man’s creed was more opposed to such an inversion of the Repubn. order of things’ than Thomas Jefferson’s.”
Folks, Wilentz may not know it – and the automatons posting the fawning comments at the New Republic’s site obviously don’t know it – but that remark alone proves he has no idea what he is talking about. First of all, Madison’s statement about Jefferson is clearly false, as any competent historian knows. Jefferson included the very word “nullification” in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798! How can Wilentz, a Princeton historian, not know this?
But here’s the real kicker. Wilentz neglects to mention that the elder Madison, in his zeal to separate nullification from Jefferson’s legacy, tried denying that Jefferson had included the dreaded word in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. Madison had seen the draft himself, so he either knew this statement was false or was suffering from the effects of advanced age. When a copy of the original Kentucky Resolutions in Jefferson’s own handwriting turned up, complete with the word “nullification,” Madison was forced to retreat.
You see what this means? Nearly 180 years later, Sean Wilentz is still trying to defend a claim that Madison himself withdrew. Whether that speaks poorly of Wilentz’s honesty or his competence is something only he himself can know.
As for Madison’s claim at an advanced age that the Virginia Resolutions had never contemplated nullification, and Wilentz’s related claim that nullification supporters wickedly and perversely misinterpreted Madison, my book addresses this point directly. For now we might note that (1) the other state legislatures understood Madison at the time as saying precisely what Madison (and Wilentz) later tried to deny he was saying; (2) Madison did not correct this alleged misunderstanding when he had the chance to in the Report of 1800 or at any other time during those years; and (3) the text of the Virginia Resolutions clearly indicates that each state was “duty bound” to maintain its constitutional liberties within its “respective” territory, and hence Madison did indeed contemplate action by a single state as supporters and opponents alike took him to be saying at the time.
Faced with a bipartisan, cross-ideological push for the decentralization of political power, all Sean Wilentz can think to do is – you’ll never guess! – revive the specter of 1950s resistance to civil rights. Few today would defend the indignities to which American blacks were subject at that time, though it seems safe to assume that the grievances of civil-rights activists would have been greatly alleviated from the start had the constitutional remedy of enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment been actively and consistently applied. But I wonder if, just as Wilentz expects us for that reason to repudiate the principle of decentralized power, we can expect him to denounce his own beloved federal government – after all, didn’t Woodrow Wilson’s decision to enter World War I lead to the deaths of 116,000 Americans for no good reason? Weren’t Japanese individuals rounded into detention camps in the 1940s? (Incidentally, I wonder how “sordid” it would have been had California and Washington state interposed to prevent the internment of these poor souls.)
And really, even Wilentz’s acute hypochondria would presumably stop short of declaring that the fourteen states allowing medical marijuana in defiance of the federal government’s prohibition must be a bunch of “racists” who secretly aim to oppress people. California is even considering legalizing marijuana across the board – a clear act of nullification. What, pray tell, does this have to do with race? May it be possible that people who advocate decentralized power might actually favor – wait for it – decentralized power? Or do we automatically assume that their stated principles conceal a sinister conspiracy to oppress, even though centralized power is what made possible the unprecedented oppressions and atrocities of the twentieth century?
To be sure, Wilentz grudgingly concedes that nullification supporters are “not currently concerned with racial supremacy” (not currently concerned, you understand – you never know what people who don’t subscribe to The New Republic may think of next). But then why smear them by writing an entire article on the subject that never soberly considers the relevant questions on their merits, and instead associates the idea exclusively with racial oppression? Hitler despised states’ rights; does that make him a model of enlightenment and toleration?
Wilentz is not entirely wrong, of course. Dangers exist at all levels of government. Libertarians understand that better than anyone. The question that supporters of the states against the federal government are asking today is this: right now, where are the greater threats to our liberties liable to come from, Utah or D.C.? I cannot come up with an adequate word to describe someone who, having observed the enormities of twenty-first-century Washington no matter which party is in control, is more concerned about the potential for abuse of power in Boise or Santa Fe.
I suppose I don’t need to tell readers what we are all supposed to do now that Professor Wilentz has handed down his ex cathedra pronouncement, but I’ll tell you anyway. We’re supposed to abandon all non-approved opinions forthwith; promise in the future to run everything by Sean Wilentz first, lest we incorrigible haters fall back into our wicked ways; and show proper remorse for having disturbed our left-neocon overlords at The New Republic. Here they are trying to drum up another round of war propaganda (which has nothing to do with hatred, you understand), and we have the gall to distract them with Thomas Jefferson!
Oh, and Sean: nobody buys the “racism” smears anymore. No one in his right mind believes, with Keith Olbermann, that people who drive pickup trucks are likely to have sinister intentions, or that “arrogant” as an adjective to describe Barack Obama is a “racist code word.” That game is over. The non-zombie population, which is growing all the time, just tunes it out. At this point, “racist” now encompasses, at the very least, the Tea Party, the GOP, constitutionalists, libertarians, anarchists, anyone who has ever said a kind word about the South (since what reason other than “racism” could anyone have for doing that?), anyone who opposes Obama, and anyone who opposes health mandates. That pretty much leaves, as a working definition for “racist,” someone who doesn’t subscribe to The New Republic.
All these groups I’ve just mentioned probably amount to more than half the country. If the American population is so full of “hatred” and “racism” that every other person is liable to be a Klansman, I wonder if Professor Wilentz can explain to us why he favors open immigration. Doesn’t he instead have a moral obligation to warn potential immigrants to stay away from such a cauldron of “hatred”?
Supporters of nullification today, says Wilentz, “take refuge in a psychodrama of ‘liberty’ versus ‘tyranny.’” He then says that the constitutional doctrine they promote would allow “racial segregation and inequality up to the point of enslavement.” So people who are concerned about a government that makes up the rules as it goes along are engaged in “psychodrama,” but people who think the repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment is likely enough to be worth mentioning are the very model of reason.
Sean Wilentz is supposed to be a great Princeton professor. He is a reliable court historian of the regime (which by some definitions may indeed make him a great Princeton professor). He thinks he can parry opponents of the central government by means of distortions, omissions, outright falsehoods, hysteria, and name-calling. This is the best the Establishment can do against nullification? Professor Wilentz’s poor students should demand their money back.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [visit his website; send him mail] is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of nine books, including two New York Times bestsellers: Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. His next book, to be released this summer, is Nullification. Â Pre-Order Here.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
I wonder if we can use a natural law argument for nullification. We can say that because states retain natural rights then those delegated powers can be withheld from the state even when the law itself is constitutional. Its a longshot but it seems like the kentucy resolution uses natural law language.
Natural law sucks as a concept. The more precise question is, "Where CAN'T a person resort to natural law to support an argument?"
"Natural" law is a term of art. It is, perhaps, an unfortunate term but I'm willing to use it in order to move the debate forward. (Someone here probably needs to write an article exploring the concept.) It takes too long to say what I'm about to say every time you want to refer to the following concept.
To me, 'natural' law conveys the idea that humans have a basic or fundamental right to be free as long as they are not interfering with another human's right to freedom. The source of this right is either 'The Creator' or undefined. (That's why the Declaration of Independence alludes to the 'Natural Law' and 'Nature's God' and further posits that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.)
This is similar to the issue of where the universe comes from. There is no easy answer. We humans are at the top of the food chain at the moment, so we get to make the rules. Animals, e.g., don't currently have a fundamental right to be free in the eyes of most people (PETA notwithstanding).
If you can accept that humans have a fundamental right to be free, then it follows that humans have any specific right consistent with that concept and it is not possible to list all of the rights. Free speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to travel, get married, have kids, get divorced, start a business, move, etc. The list is endless.
Morally "legitimate" governments only get their powers as a result of voluntary delegation from the citizens thereof. People sacrifice some of their rights in order to create governmental power in order to get the security, order, etc. of government. This is the basic idea behind the US and State Constitutions. It follows that all constitutional governments are, thus, limited only to the powers specifically delegated to them by the people in the written document. So, you have to read the document to know the rules.
If you can't find a governmental power in the written document, it doesn't exist. In theory, therefore, the people retain the right (which could possibly be delegated to the state) to decide if a given federal law is Constitutional. The USSC didn't run with this idea and, not surprising to me, held that the USSC gets to decide this question.
The main point of natural law in the context of this web site is to reinforce the concept that governments get their powers from the people - NOT the other way around. To many Americans, this fact has been completely lost and you'll see people say things that indicate they believe they only have the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. I know many lawyers who think this way and you'll see posts from lawyers to that effect here from time to time.
For starters, we need to disabuse people of this idea that their rights come from government. Talking about "natural law" is part of that educational process. It is, therefore, valuable.
Well, there rights DO come from government. I know it helps the soul to think the value of an individual is above mob rule, but this is just not the case. Never has been; never will be. Might makes right. If it did not, there would be no debate over all this, and this website would have no purpose. This has been the rule since the beginning of time. Might rules. All else is illusory.
You're a very practical guy but my post was about the theory of rights. It is upon theory that our government was founded and that progress has been made.
I believe it is safe to assume that in the distant past the federal government as an entity feared the people and that "might" was actually in question. Where else does centralized power come from if not from decentralized power? There's a reason why central power was supposed to be chained down by The Constitution. The reason is that power, once centralized, is increasingly hard for those who gave up their power to get it back since they are then in a position of weakness to bargain or to fight after this has occurred.
Rights do NOT come from the government until it can prove that it is in a position of unquestionable power or convince the populous of this even if it is false.
If govt gives you rights and you have certain rights that they have established for you then what rights are they holding back from you?
Nowhere.
On the fugitive slave act nullification effort, that is something I discussed before. As I recall, the fugitive slave law was Constitutional - clearly Constitutional. This would be, then, an example of where nullification is misused. I wouldn't be so inclined to tout this as a "fine" example of nullification, except for the fact that it is politically and legally correct under today's rules (after slavery has been abolished).
Jeff
I believe you are correct. The FSA follows directly from Article IV, sec. 2 and, thus, was within the scope of Congressional power before the 13th and 14th amendments.
States that refused to follow the FSA were morally correct but legally incorrect.
Nullification is a very challenging area for those who want to stay within the US Constitution. To me, it boils down to a practical problem for any state(s) that feels so aggrieved by a given federal action that it is willing to play a game of political chicken over the issue.
The Constitution does not expressly provide a way to resolve the issue of whether Congress has acted within the Constitution and that's why Marbury v. Madison went the way it did. Sadly, that left us with the lifetime, paid appointees of the federal government telling us how much power the federal government has. The result has been predictable.
No ready answer presents itself to me...
Jeff - sounds like you haven't read the act. Check it out and let me know if you think it was still constitutional, even with the fact that slavery was still "allowed" by the constitution.
Here's the short of it - the fugitive slave act eliminated due process for those people who were alleged to be runaway slaves. Federal marshalls were required to capture and return them merely on a sworn statement of an alleged owner - and, on top of it, those marshalls were given a cash bonus for doing so.
This created a bounty hunter, not a system of law, where one person was claiming that "property" was his, and another disputing that claim in court.
All a slave owner would have to do is file an affidavit and claim that a black person was his property, and that person had no right to defend such a claim in court. Historians have shown how this was used in some instances to take free black people from the north and compel them into southern slavery - because the Fugitive Slave Act took away due process....
Those people and those states who resisted these efforts were clearly right on the moral end, I doubt anyone would dispute that. On a constitutional end, they were right as well.
Interesting. I did not know as much detail as what you just gave, but only knew of the general nature of the Acts. However, when evaluating the facts you just gave me, you need to put aside moral values for a minute and remember that, in those days, slaves were property - not people. That was clear under the Constitution. Property is not entitled to due process.
Was the system repugnant? Yes. Unconstitutional? I doubt it - from what little I know. If there is anything else you know about the FSA that would make it Unconstitutional, let me know.
One interesting question your facts do raise is what rights, if any, were given to free Blacks? I mean non-slaves who were born and raised free. There must have been some provisions to protect them. I can't imagine the FSA was that shallow. No way.
Of course, Jeff. But, if you can show me how the federal government had the delegated authority to 1) stop due process on claims of property - a boat, money, a body, anything 2) had the authority to mandate that states assist in this process 3) I had a "3", but forgot it!
Bottom line, they didn't have that authority over people or property claims - they weren't authorized violate this kind of state jurisdiction. The proper method, which many of the opponents were arguing for, was that the claimant would have to file a claim, if disputed, it would go to a hearing, and the like.
oh, and the FSA - WAS that shallow.....it's almost hard to believe. But to claim property, all someone had to do was make a claim, and fed agents were required to capture a black person and give them to the claimant.
I read it while you were posting. You are right. It WAS that shallow. Due process was violated, even under original Constitutional standards.
The worst part, from what I remember, is somewhere in the same section where they're saying the person could be taken without process, they'd go to a federal (not a state) court, and any opposition by the person who was claimed to be property, would not even be admitted as evidence.
Is that how you read it as well?
Yep. Here's the part:
"In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first [fourth] section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted, to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of such person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever."
However, it doesn't seem to preclude documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate. But still, back in those days, you have to wonder how good the birth registry records were. Were all babies registered? And what about foreign visitors? So, I suppose some evidence would be allowed, but not testimony. Still, it is ridiculous.
The FSA was passed pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 2 which specifically provides for the return of 'slaves'. Congress had the power to pass the FSA pursuant thereto.
Whether a slave 'owner's' due process rights as memorialized in the 4th amendment were met was not the point since the slave owner is seeking RETURN of his 'property.' The 'owner' would not raise that procedural issue unless there were COMPETING claims and that was provided for in the various FSA by virtue of the "magistrate's judgment."
Right, but the magistrate forms a judgment by hearing and viewing evidence. The law told the magistrate that he must form his decision without hearing the testimony of a person who might actually be born and raised in a free state as a free person.
You cannot assume the person is a fugitive slave and just turn him over because someone makes a claim. That would deny due process. If anything the presumption should be that the person is not a fugitive. Then, the burden is on the alleged owner to make his case. Then, after setting up a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to put on evidence and testimony to rebut the prima facie case. But here, we see the ability to put on material evidence was taken away, effectively putting a huge block on the right of a presumably free person to put on a defense.
Imagine it like this: Any person alleged to be a tax cheat shall be held in custody and imprisoned on conviction. To convict, the magistrate shall hold a hearing, which may be by affidavit testimony (where the accused has no right to confront and cross-examine the complainant), and therein, the accused shall not be allowed to give testimony.
One of my replies was auto-blocked. The other point was that you can't have laws that allow the taking into custody of people who are free, based on erroneous allegations they are property, when the person who would allege he was born and raised free is not allowed to even say so.
You're confusing the slave's rights (he has no due process or other rights) with the rights of the property owner.
Except for COMPETING CLAIMS (as I posted earlier), there is no due process issue here.
Again, the Constitution covers this and it is within the ambit of Congressional power. You're just debating procedural issues - NOT the issue of Congressional power.
Imagine it like this:
Someone sees a boat that he suspects is stolen. He reports it to the authorities and they take custody of it pending a determination of who owns it.
A person comes forward and claims the boat in writing. No one else comes forward. The claimant gets the boat. No problem.
Only if someone else comes forward to claim the boat is there an issue. The boat doesn't get to say, "But wait, I'm free!"
That's the whole problem. Back then, black people were treated like boats and had no rights. Its' crazy but YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE THIS POINT. READ YOUR OWN COMMENT!
As you say, I guess "Might Makes Right!" Right? If not, I guess we need to get back to the THEORY of rights...
that is ONLY assuming the person IS a slave. Unless congress has the delegated power to eliminate due process for this issue, it doesn't exist. The alleged slave himself is providing the counterclaim - so the only way that person's rights would have been taken away was to first provde
I understand that, but you are putting the cart before the horse. You can't have a law that gobbles up the right of free citizens, just because a person alleges they are slaves. Due process shall not be violated; so says the Constitution. Therefore, Congress has no authority to pass a law that deprives people of due process. So, what happens when people (not property) are being held under allegations that they are property (not people)?
These claims are false based on the assumption that black people were ALWAYS treated as a "boat" - in fact, in northern states, where the FSA was to apply, they were not. While not treated well, they were still afforded due process - and that's just what Wisconsin and other states were asserting - their sovereign right to determine if THEY would offer due process to a human being.......alleged "owner's" claim notwithstanding.
Again, to me, the issue is whether Congress had the power to pass the FSA's. They clearly did. The US Constitution specifically provided for this issue. By contrast, Congress does not have the power to pass national health care laws.
The method of establishing whether someone is a slave is what you and Jeff are writing about now. You find the method to be procedurally defective (and offensive).
It may be defective and it is certainly offensive, but that is a far cry from where I thought this debate started: with the assertion that the FSA's were within Congressional power to pass. They were clearly contemplated by the Constitution unlike, e.g., health care.
As to procedural issues of fairness, there was more than one FSA and you'd have to look at each one. In the one I've read, there was a 'hearing' before a magistrate and the 'owner' was required to produce a certificate of ownership and convince the magistrate of its authenticity. I don't know how hard it was to get the certificate and the fairness might turn on that issue in a given case.
But your assertion that Congress was vested with that power rests on reading Article IV, Section 2 in a vacuum. Remember, the 5th Amendment was part of the Constitution back then, as well. That "no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process." Due process has always allowed an accused to confront a witness and cross-examine the witness. Due process has always allowed an accused to testify. If a person is "accused" of being a slave, and by virtue of the "accusation," is considered and TREATED as a slave, judgment has already been passed without due process.
Congress was not granted authority to set the terms of due process. The notion was in existence long before ratification. The purpose of the 5th was to LIMIT Congress' authority as to what it could do. It was not to allow Congress to define its authority.
Schopenhauer wrote:
"All truth passes through 3 stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
We saw the ridicule when Ron Paul raised Constitutional issues during his 2008 campaign.
We're seeing the violent opposition now as establishment types dredge up the slavery issue to confront proponents of state sovereignty.
It will be a great day when we reach the third stage.
Great post! I think after the last 15 months Ron Paul's popularity has taken a sharp rise upward. We need more statesmen that understand and will protect and defend the constitution.
Only problem with Ron Paul is his whacko ideas on national defense.
Like what, Nancy - demanding that congress follow the Constitution and declare war? Or following the founders' advice on foreign policy?
If you disagree with Thomas Jefferson or George Washington on foreign policy as it applies today that's one thing, but to call those ideas whacko is absurd.
Nancy
I would also love to hear what you think are Ron Paul's 'whacko ideas on national defense.'
This is the part I mentioned earlier (above) about 'ridicule.' Calling someone's ideas 'whacko' requires some examples and logical analysis to be credible. But, when people are threatened by the truth, they often follow the 3 steps I mentioned above, starting with the first one.
If you're willing to have a rational debate, please feel free to post an example and compelling analysis of a Ron-Paul-Whacko idea on national defense. That way, we can all learn from each other rather than just tossing off ad hominem attacks.
Right, because there's nothing "whacko" about invading a country for no reason, killing at least 100,000 people, and displacing up to 4 million others. Why, that's "conservative"! Nancy, why do you think the federal government is a bunch of liars, but the Pentagon is squeaky clean?
Nancy,
I agree with rons statements about the "terrorist" of the mid east only want to attack us because we have occupied the mid east for 40-50 years. If we were being occupied we to would be hostile. Also "terrorist" do not want to hunt us down and kill us because we are free. Germany and japan we destroied after ww2. We didnt stay and control there economy nor did we submit there people to poverty. They are some of our strongest allies. The true terrorists of the world are mostly the US federal govt. For many years we have embargoed and or threatened with nuclear war to get our way. We did go after sadam the 1st time because he was invading kuwait. No we went after sadam because he refused the american dollar as the world reserve currency. The idea that we need to bully parts of the world around to protect freedom isnt effective in maintaing freedom. I do agree with ron when we need to reduce the size of some of our bases and stop spending billions on settin up dictators to allow us to rape and plunder and area. I agree all of the mentioned above are alot of the problems that help the distortion of the war on terror. I agree with ron they need to stop
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by libertyideals: The Ivy League Hates Nullification #libertarian http://bit.ly/9bGY6I…
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/07/the-ivy-league-hates-nullification/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
[...] The Ivy League Hates Nullification [...]