Comments on: Nonsense – analyzing the Heritage position on nullification

By: Why would Heritage.org Oppose Nullification?

Why would Heritage.org Oppose Nullification? — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 22:21:07 +0000

[...] as you can see, it’s not hard to refute the arguments made in this sophomoric piece by the Heritage Foundation, but the question remains: why would Heritage oppose nullification in the first place? Why would [...]

By: The Heritage Solution: Beg and Plead – Tenth Amendment Center

The Heritage Solution: Beg and Plead – Tenth Amendment Center — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:23:25 +0000

[...] You can read my response to a Heritage piece on North Dakota’s nullification efforts last spring here. You can also read Dr. Tom Woods’ refutation of the Heritage [...]

By: Heritage Foundation: Just Don’t Call it Nullification! – Tenth Amendment Center

Sat, 21 May 2011 07:09:18 +0000

[...] and Interposition Framework. Â Dr. Spalding’s North Dakota article was addressed in Nonsense â€“ analyzing the Heritage position on nullification, by the Tenth Amendment Center’s Michael Maharrey.Â Tom Woods also responded to the North [...]

By: Agent P

Agent P — Tue, 17 May 2011 18:30:45 +0000

The Heritage (of what 'heritage' it represents anymore, I don't know) Foundation is/has become nothing more than a Neo-Con organization that is bent on preserving the status quo of 2-party oligopoly.

As far as Mr. Spalding is concerned:

His position could be termed: No strength of conviction. I.e., Wishy-Washy. I.e., Metrosexual WUSS.

By: Mr. B.

Mr. B. — Sun, 15 May 2011 19:04:18 +0000

Heritage Foundation, who? Oh you mean that liberal organization…..? OK….. now that makes sense..

By: Heritage Foundation: Don’t Use The N* Word. – Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center

Sun, 15 May 2011 05:34:22 +0000

By: Conrad

Conrad — Sat, 14 May 2011 21:31:21 +0000

Just try reading Matt Spalding's book The Heritage Foundation promotes with teaher's study guide, We Still Hold These Truths. It is a contradiction cover to cover. I was asked to teach the class based on the book, and had to decline because of the contradictions in the book, and didn't want to contribute to the confusion that many of the newly awakened patriots.

So I opted to use The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History instead. I may expand or do a second one based on The Politically Incorrect Guide To The Constitution.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 13 May 2011 21:00:28 +0000

You are correct about nullification being accepted among those who accept the concepts of the Constitution as written, but so many of our elected officials have reached the point where it is not about representing the district or state but gaining further power for their own aggrandizement. That, my friend, is the result of apathy or stupidity on the part of the American voter (and the thousands who don't even take the time to do so). Until the public wakes up and starts electing statesmen instead of politicians, this country is on a rapid slide down that slippery slope of socialism or worse.

By: Austin H.

Austin H. — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:55:36 +0000

According to Lincoln the southern states had not seceded, they were in rebellion. The distinction is important. If they did not secede how can the war prove that secession is impossible without armed conflict? Lincoln "suppressed" a rebellion. The right to secede cannot be trumped by the loss of a conflict…it is a natural right tied self-government and is an extension of the American Declaration of Independence (which cannot be illegal):

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

Read Tom Woods' book Nullification. It answers all the questions. Or you can visit his website http://www.tomwoods.com

Additionally, I suggest you read Raoul Berger's Government by Judiciary if you want some great research on the intent of the 14th Amendment (the main Amendment used today to subdue "states rights"). Hint, it shows that the Amendment has produced results unimaginable (and unwanted) by the drafters and ratifiers.

By: Austin H.

Austin H. — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:44:31 +0000

Ah, sorry…I must have read it again after it was tweaked…