My Liberal Slant on Nullification

  • Share on Tumblr

by Jeff Matthews

The United States government has become an empire. No longer is war an intermittent event that comes about once every handful of decades. We are in perpetual war somewhere. This state of affairs, alone, costs us trillions of dollars – trillions that could be used at home to feed, shelter and educate the middle class and poor. How about no more war machine? Wouldn’t it be nice if millions and millions of Americans just said “no” to war and refused to go along with, and fund, an Unconstitutional war machine? Why not endorse nullification against the powers that be?

Then, we have the War on Drugs. Countless hundreds of billions of dollars are spent policing marijuana use. We employ police officers, district attorneys, county attorneys, their assistants, judges, jailers, probation officers, record-keepers and parole officers – all by the hundreds of thousands. Plus, we must build buildings, including prisons, jails, police stations, courts and administrative buildings, to house their activities, and we must provide them with cars, equipment, uniforms, office supplies, computer systems and utilities to enable them to function.

Having accounted for the bureaucratic costs, we still have monumental costs associated with the loss of production when we take a person from employment and prosecute and/or confine him or her. Whether or not the person would otherwise work a lot or a little, this is production taken away from the economy, rendering those who are arrested and/or confined as a pure tax on the economy.

For those confined, not only are they no longer in the work force, but they are being fed, clothed, sheltered and having their health care needs met on the tax payer’s dole. And why is this? “Because marijuana causes crime.”

Seriously, it would seem that most people can readily ascertain that crime is only connected with marijuana use because marijuana, itself, has been decreed as illegal to possess or use. Take away the crime of possession and use, and the incidental crimes, associated with the premium charged to acquire, conceal and traffic it, largely go away.

What would America look like if all the resources put into prosecuting marijuana use were put into infrastructure, schools, colleges, libraries, parks and health care? One can only imagine. A liberal asks these questions and sees what appear to be obvious answers concerning a gross misapplication of our resources. In this vein, a liberal should ask, “What provisions in the Constitution even allow this gross misapplication to occur?” The Constitution speaks for itself – not through judges, pundits and politicians. Wouldn’t it be nice if Americans stood united and put an end to this, once and for all? Why not endorse nullification against the powers that be?

It should be increasingly obvious that nullification is not just for Conservatives. Liberal ideals can be, and have been, accomplished through a concerted refusal to obey rules established in an unjust system. That is all nullification is. When you get down to basics, and begin to see the forest through the trees, nullification is civil disobedience. People do not even need the Constitution or any other “theory of the universe” to engage in effective nullification. If a system, or one of its components, is unjust, disobey it. That is what it means to nullify.

I could go on with many examples in addition to those above, but instead, I will only address one more. This is the massive and increasing wealth gap. Conservatives seem to pride themselves in their tolerance for massive wealth disparity (although many are awakening). To paraphrase a recent quote I saw, poking fun at the illusion under which Conservatives live, “Conservatives almost uniformly see themselves as future millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck.”

The undeniable fact is that this simply cannot be. The top 10% of families in America barely reach millionaire status (many of whom inherit to get there), and it should be obvious that a great many of those who do are liberals. Therefore, in a nation approximating a composition of 50% who identify themselves as Conservatives, the vast majority are not just temporarily unable to reach millionaire status. Instead, the hard data proves that the vast majority will never make it.

The top 1% of families in America own just about as much combined wealth as do the bottom 95% of American families combined. The top 1% owns about 35% of our nation’s approximate $57 trillion in total wealth. The next 4% owns about 27% of our nation’s wealth. This is a serious concentration of wealth. The bottom 95% owns 38% of the net wealth in our nation (compared to the top 1%, which owns 35%). The bottom 80% owns a mere 15%. So, if an 80 is equivalent to a “B,” being a “B” student puts you into the bottom 15% of net wealth. So, by definition, if you are at or below a “B,” you are a miserable failure at just 15%. But, hey! You have cable TV, a nice car and big debt, so life is good!

Is there any chance that laws and regulations have something to do with the regulation of the flow of money in America? Okay, that was a dumb question. Of course, they do. So, if you are a concerned liberal and are disappointed to see what a nation of laws and regulations has created in terms of “haves” and “have-nots” (with a very large, right-leaning spattering of delusional, “future millionaires”), how can you support such a system? Wouldn’t you want to say, “Enough is enough?” Wouldn’t you want to curb the abuses that come from that system? Have you studied the history of party affiliation and its correlation to the nation’s problems? If you have, you’d know for a fact that these problems have persisted, even grown, under both parties. This is not a “right” vs. “left” issue. It is the classic battle between the “haves” and the “have nots.” Each party has perpetuated this system and its bias for a long, long time. It will not change. It is what naturally occurs when politicians of all breeds become beholden to king-makers and their lobbyists.

How do liberals accomplish real change? By supporting a politician who touts a “Hope and Change” slogan? Seriously, this cannot be the answer. The answer to saving the people is to cut the rot out. It is illogical and delusional to support our national regime. Both parties are owned by the top 1-5 percenters. That’s life.

You can use the political process, as it is, to bargain for a nut here and there, and you might actually get one. But the meat and potatoes are not up for grabs, and this is non-negotiable. Why fund it? Why support it? Why not refuse to buy into this corrupted system? How about considering what might be accomplished if “all politics were local?” What might you accomplish on a local level? Nullification is a tool used to steer politics to a local level. By refusing to acknowledge any legitimacy of unjust rules and control mechanisms at the federal level, we seek to bring the process back home – to our neighborhoods, where it rightly belongs.

The test of time, spanning decades of shifts in national control between self-proclaimed “Democrats” and “Republicans,” has proven itself incapable of “change we can believe in.”

There will be no change. The system is rotten to the core. It is simply a turf war between would-be power-grabbers. Lobbying is for lobbies and lobbyists, and everyone else is just a peon to be siphoned. Yet, somehow we are deluded into “cheerleading” for one or the other leeches in a hopelessly corrupt political system. Why not endorse nullification against the powers that be?

The real deal is that nullification is for everyone who has concluded that national politics does not serve the people and is beyond repair by way of the tired and useless “get out the vote” strategy.

Whether you are a Liberal or a Conservative, it is in your best interest to cut the rot out at its core. This does not mean Liberals will agree with Conservatives on all issues political. What it does mean is the possibility to re-vamp politics as we know it and bring government back home to our neighborhoods, where it belongs and where our voices count.

So, why not endorse nullification against the powers that be? Are we really clinging to our big, national government on hopes somebody out of nowhere will come and fix it for a nation of 300 million “have nots?” Seriously…

Jeff Matthews [send him email] is a practicing attorney in Houston. He graduated from the University of Texas, School of Law in 1993 and was licensed that year.

Copyright © 2011 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit to the author and this website is given.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
14 comments
Vin
Vin

There are a lot of words in these comments. Let's boil it all down to a few.

Nullification is a wonderful tool to use against unconstitutional acts of the federal government. On the State level, it can also be a wonderful tool against acts of state legislatures which do not comply with state constitutions. But let's be very clear, nullification is NOT a tool to get whatever you want if what you want is unconstitutional. The correct alternative here would be constitutional amendment.

Tools must be used properly.

J. Johnaon
J. Johnaon

"What would America look like if all the resources put into prosecuting marijuana use were put into infrastructure, schools, colleges, libraries, parks and health care? One can only imagine."

Or not.

How about we imagine not sending the money to Washington in the first place?

Laurencia
Laurencia

Liberals and Conservatives just have a differing view on how to best serve the poor. Liberals want to make the poor comfortable and safe in their poverty and take just a little freedom in exchange for even less security...what a bargain(sarcasm intended). I, on the other hand....believe that the best way to help someone is to get out of their way and let them learn for themselves what they need to do to become a success in their own eyes....

Republicae
Republicae

Unfortunately there are few in Washington that understand that the problem of the poor is not money, the problem is a lack of opportunity of the production of capital value among the poor. Government policies only serve to enhance and expand the effects of poverty, using the redistribution of wealth in a welfare cycle that can never produce any substantial results in solving the poverty problem because they constantly keep their eyes on the symptoms of poverty, not the causes of poverty. Until and unless this government removes itself from the markets, from the manipulation of currency, from the regulation and counter-regulation of capital production then poverty will not only remain, but will increase as more and more socialistic remedies are implemented by Washington.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

That's sort of the point, P-King. There might be a few locales in America that don't want to take part in riding the path which will make this country look like a cross-section of Mexico.

I have noticed that, at least in Houston, all the best neighborhoods seem to develop around the best socialist structures - e.g., the best schools, the best parks, the best-kept roads and esplanades, the strongest of deed restrictions, etc.

Many young, up and coming Conservatives who are for limited government don't realize the conflict in which they live. They seek out deed restricted neighborhoods, good public schools, nice, new roads and parks, and all those things which are, by definition, "big government." They go around looking for a home to live, see the big, stone waterfalls and grand entrances into a new neighborhood, manned by a security gate and the last thing they are thinking is, "This neighborhood has too big a government." They are woo'ed by the grandness exhibited by the community pitching in, and they want to be a part of it, too.

Whenever you inject the word "socialist" into a discussion with Conservatives, the typical picture that comes to mind for them is transferring money to deadbeats by way of taxation. No doubt, enough of that happens. But the real deal is Conservatives like big government when it serves their interests.

Socialist structures can be very desirable. I described our typical, new and modern suburban neighborhoods with all their niceties, compliments of socialism. For a fair contrast, go drive around neighborhoods with no deed restrictions, crappy, old schools, cracked up roads, potholes galore, etc. There are plenty of those, too. Which represents a more rugged and individualistic "capitalism?" The ones without all the large-scale "socialist" spending, of course.

So, as you can gather from my perspective, as a Tenther, I do not feign to believe that dismantling the feds will take us back to those glorious days of low taxes, Daniel Boone, typhoid and cholera. I just think it would allow a more efficient means to govern according to local desires.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I favor fedaralism because it keeps liberal socialist policies contained to a few states. The policies of California are contained in California.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I like federalism because it keeps California policies contained within California. Any conservative should look at the decentralized power as a chance to contain socialist policies to a few states. It mirrors the cold war strategy of detante...LOL

John Smill
John Smill

.... military expansion is the answer. .. if the US could take over other territories and in turn use there natural resources for the good of the nation ... the world, our world, would e a better place.

Benjamin Mankowski
Benjamin Mankowski

This conservative (with some libertarian leanings) likes and agrees with what you have to say. People can be against federal drug laws and not even necessarily favor legalizing all drugs. It should be as local a decision as possible.

Look at the failure of Prohibition, which was at a time when at least the government was honest enough to admit they needed a Constitutional Amendment to pass. Yet, I don't hear of any massive bootlegging in "dry towns" these days. It reflects local values. Don't want it in your neighborhood? Fine, talk to your town council. It's not legal in your town and you don't like it? Next town over allows it.

This is where conservatives, liberals, libertarians, moderates and centrists who take an honest look at the Constitution can agree, look at an issue and agree on the appropriate venue to battle out said issue.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I actually think drugs should be decriminalized. There is no reason to put people in jail for drug use and the war on drugs has lead to some pretty bad abuses in procedurial rights that we have in our constitution.

myagent2000
myagent2000

I support nullifcation, especially on marijuana Fed prosecutions.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Same. Local prosecutions seem to be more tame when compared to the big, almost military like operations the federal government does. Those guys look like they are ready to invade a small country. Also if some states ban drug trafficing while others allow it it would seem probable that drug trafficers would avoid those states and use the ones that do allow it just for convenience sake.

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

Excellent. This is possibly the best example of how nullification has been successful too....rejecting federal drug laws on weed.