trackback >>The Moral Liberal: Defending the Judeo-Christian ethic, limited government, and the American constitution>>…

The Moral Liberal lookin’ at ya!…

I think the point of the article was to disparage the idea of nullification and promote the idea of a limited con-con as a better alternative. I consider that view to be naive. Nullification is actually the 'safer' route.

Senator Coburn and I had a short one-on-one discussion about this issue just a few days ago following his town hall in this area. Senator Coburn thought my idea to clarify the meaning of the fourteenth amendment for our generations was a "stupid idea." Essentially, he talked a good game during the meeting, but when someone offered a viable constitutionally based corrective to federal usurpation of reserved powers, he wanted no part of it. But as Natelson makes abundantly clear in the article, we don't need the federal Congress to get this ball rolling.

My idea involves correcting the way the federal courts apply the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to establish an absolute federal tyranny over these States. I have it already written.

on top of it, in 1836 Madison said that amendments were just one possible response, not the only one. In fact, he recommended impeachment before even trying an amendment. Why isn't that being recommended here if Madison's advice is what we're following?

Madison also made the claim that year that "nullification" was not even part of Kentucky's resolutions in 1798. But, anyone can read those resolutions and easily find the word with a control-F. Maybe Madison was a little senile or politically motivated those days?

finally, to make the claim that Madison's advice as an old man in 1836 was the advice of "The founders" is misleading, at best.