Comments on: Jefferson, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution

By: (1) General Introduction « The New Federalist

(1) General Introduction « The New Federalist — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:05:43 +0000

[...] Jefferson, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution (tenthamendmentcenter.com) [...]

By: TextualistDude

TextualistDude — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:58:29 +0000

Thanks for the lengthy comments which, I see, were not 'shut down.'

Dwelling on the letters of TJ, et al is not productive to me. It's just a question of whether the Constitution provides the answer and, if so, following it or amending it if you don't like it.

The Constitution didn't provide the answer for how we determine constitutionality and, as I've written here before, that was probably a mistake. Marshall came up with one solution (Supreme Court tells us) that, to me, is patently unfair and has resulted in much of the mess we see today.

So, many of us are proposing a different solution. Since the Constitution doesn't tell us the answer specifically, it's up to us to figure out a workable answer and arguing about whether TJ actually thought this or that was a good idea doesn't get to the core question we face.

Despite the number and length of your comments, you still haven't made an argument for or against nullification…

By: Richard Burnett

Richard Burnett — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:30:00 +0000

And those letters, my dear Dude, would be the beginning..the argument against your opinion of nullification and secession would be based upon those other writings and actions by Jefferson, Madison and others that the present "experts"–being the PIG book "authorities" do not want you to read…
But to make the argument here is not to enlightene anyone, indeed, my attempt to merely point to the other things that Jefferson said against your version of compacts, nullification and the rest would be brushed aside by the above mentioned experts who would assert that these counter arguments are the work of the devil–I have seen the name calling and insults that pass for arguments between say, LewRockwell and the Claremont Institute or between Jaffa and Dilorenzo over Lincoln.
It is a simple matter of the reputation that a person or a website has and what they need to do to shut down any opposition that might tend to make problems for that person or website's reputation–certainly to not allow any opposing views–indeed, the usual practice on many radio-talk shows is exactly to shut down the caller who is against what the host is for. Why should this Center be any different?

By: Paul Olsen

Paul Olsen — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:56:56 +0000

I disagree with the interpretation that States are Sovereign , but great article

By: TextualistDude

TextualistDude — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:02:26 +0000

If you were to write an article about nullification, what would be the gist of it?

By: Richard Burnett

Richard Burnett — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:32:59 +0000

Yes, I'd have to write an article–not possible in this small space for comments.
As to that "insult", well it's like this: several writers who support your views have insulted at least Madison. One, McClanahan, asserted in his PIG work on the Framers thatr Madison, at the time of the SC nullification controversy, had become almost irrelevant. Another, Woods, asserted that Madison filip-flopped on many issues. And neither wished to confront Madison's arguments against nullification as found in his letters written during that controversy, nor indeed, his earlier writings that argued the national side of this "partly federal and partly confederal" system we have here(drom the Tenth Federalist.
I can only point to the things already written by Madison, Jefferson and others, things, as I stated, many of your experts downplay or ignore or insult.
( I would write more, but I got that message "Sorry, your comments are a bit too long")

By: TextualistDude

TextualistDude — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:06:34 +0000

If I were making your argument, I would have started with the claim by TJ in the DoI that 'all men are created equal…' even though TJ owned slaves at the time and never freed them.

In other words, TJ was able to articulate GREAT ideas but, as with many people, found it difficult to live by those same ideals. This is pretty common with 'great people' throughout history.

So, do we throw the baby out with the bath water? Almost no one is perfect but some are capable of inspiring others to greatness because the truth of what they articulate cannot be denied. TJ was like that, IMHO.

No one today knows for sure how TJ would respond to the current nullification movement. It doesn't really matter since one man's opinion isn't conclusive.

The articles, papers, videos, etc. displayed on this web site are from the perspective that the spirit of the 10th amendment has been almost completely lost and this presents a great danger to the united States.

Either you see that and agree with it, or you don't. If you don't believe that's the case, how about writing something to explain how, in your view, modern government closely tracks the original intent of the US Constitution? Or, if you don't think the original intent is not relevant for some reason, why not explain that view? Or, if nullification is not the preferred route, what is? You get the point…

Rather than advancing the discussion with your unique perspective, you are apparently content to simply insult the people who share my view that the original intent is controlling and has been lost and one of the more viable options to restore it is nullification. At least to me, your comment isn't helpful. You haven't advanced the discussion at all.

I suspect you have more to offer than this comment reveals…

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:42:23 +0000

what DOES that mean? There is some kind of claim that Jefferson was perfect and never violated the constitution on this website? What an idiotic statement.

All this proves is that power is extremely corrupting that even Jefferson himself, when he held power – used it in ways that he likely should not have.

As far as Louisiana – that is a whole different discussion – but you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what happened there.

By: Richard Burnett

Richard Burnett — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 02:02:28 +0000

James Madison was right in that you nullifiers put Jefferson in your camp, ignoring all of those things he said and did that are, well, very Hamiltonian to say the least. (See Madison's letter to Trist during the SC nullification crisis) It may have not been noticed that Jefferson, with a Congress full of Framers and Founders, broke the Tenth Amendment(by Jefferson's own admission (see his letters to Breckenridge in 1803) finding a "law higher than the Constitution" that of "Necessity" with the Louisiana Purchase–which not only doubled the size of the nation, but also the power of the central government, with the monies paid out to Bonaparte, who used the funds to make war on Europe.
And there are those Embargoes, the use of executive priviledge, his admiration of Hamilton's description of Presidential powers (see his letters written from Paris at that time)–hardly anti-federalist or libertarian or an absolute defender of states' rights or any nullifier he. But you people see and hear only what you want to.

By: SCrd

SCrd — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:50:45 +0000

You, my friend, awesome! I found just the details I was looking for. What a great article!