The Heritage Solution: Beg and Plead

A few days ago, The Heritage Foundation published its “New Year’s Resolutions for Conservatives.” Near the top of the list: “Resist the Nullification Temptation.”

David Azerrad writes:

… please don’t start talking about nullification as the magical silver bullet that other conservatives somehow overlooked in their efforts to repeal Obamacare (or any other unconstitutional law, for that matter).

Heritage trots out an anti-nullification piece about every six months, so this doesn’t come as any kind of shock or surprise. I’ve dealt with their arguments before. 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 position here.

I understand where the folks at Heritage come from. Nullification doesn’t fit in with their “Hamilton-Lincoln” view of the United States. But I remain perplexed every time self-proclaimed conservatives come out against nullification, particularly when it comes to the Federal health care act.

They scream at the top of their lungs that “Obamacare” fails the Constitutionality test, yet they refuse to accept the one surefire way to block its implementation.

So, exactly what recourse do American citizens have to resist Federal usurpation of power?

Well, good news! I’m left to wonder no more. Heritage reveals the powerful remedy at hand!

“Are you unhappy with the constitutional abomination called Obamacare? Do you think that Congress has no power to compel you to purchase health insurance?” David Azerrad asks. “Good. Now encourage the repeal of the law, or wait and see what mood Justice Anthony Kennedy will be in next June when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Obamacare.”

Really?

That’s it?

We hope Kennedy gets a good cup of coffee the morning the justices consider the case? We rest the fate of our liberty on the off chance that the Supreme Court will hand down a verdict overturning an act of Congress, something it almost never does?

Failing that, perhaps we can channel the French knights of “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” fame and “taunt them a second time.” Or maybe consult a medium, burn some incense and utter some ancient incantations.

Yeah, that’ll do it.

Azerrad reveals the feckless and lame position Heritage creates for itself with its rejection of nullification. In essence, he admits that the Federal government can do whatever it wants, and Americans have no recourse other than beg and plead with their Federal overlords.

“Don’t do that, pretty please. With sugar on top.”

How’s that been working? Not so good? Nope not at all.

And if the Supreme Court rules the act Constitutional and Congress refuses to repeal it (no indication exists that it ever will), what then? Presumably, we just take it. Because, after all, the Federal government reigns supreme over the universe, according to their line of thinking.

Become a member and support the TAC!

Do we really accept that the Founders, who had just fought a bloody war to free themselves from British rule, really intended the Federal government to wield absolute power and to serve as the judge of its own powers?

Nonsense.

Earlier this week, I wrote a response to an Idaho newspaper op-ed making an argument similar to Heritage’s. Don’t nullify. Wait and see what the Court decides — and then live with it. That’s always the course we’re told to take.

I let Thomas Jefferson make my case to the people of Idaho — and every other State in the country for that matter, too. His words bear repeating here.

…the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government… whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force… the Government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Thomas Jefferson called nullification the “rightful remedy.” It’s time Americans quit wasting time begging the Feds and just stand up and say, “No!”

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

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?
15 comments
Admiral America
Admiral America

I'll just have to take the IRS fine for not going along with BarryCare. And by golly he really does care. He's merely practicing tough love by forcing us to buy health insurance. The insurance industry getting filthy rich is merely a coincidence.

Jonelle Veritas
Jonelle Veritas

I've seen the Heritage Foundation sink to new depths over the past couple of years. They pay Sean Hannity to endorse them for goodness sake, we should know where they stand... and it's not with our constitution.

Mick Burke
Mick Burke

Overturn the 17th amendment and I'll think about resisting it.

Peter Fithian
Peter Fithian

Once I heard Heritage originated the individual health care mandate idea, I quit 'em. The disease of compromise runs deep...

Ric Weide
Ric Weide

I don't think that some folks should be influential. Any political group that is not constitutionally based should be disbanded!

Marie Henson
Marie Henson

Don't y'all think that an organization that manages and moves the right along on the 'agenda' exists? Makes them feel represented, keeps them from acting, themselves. They have them for the left, too. It's no accident the country's divided right down the middle.

Craig Hodder
Craig Hodder

I simply don't understand these kinds of pieces. If one is an American, one presumably understands the Declaration of Independence... specifically the part that declares "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."

Nullification by the people is simply the non-violent exercise of that right.

Lisa Hoppman
Lisa Hoppman

I really want to say what the hell is wrong with them. They need to be resisted almost as much as, say, media matters.

Wynne
Wynne

Heritage is especially unctuous, preachy and weak when opening the new year. Nothing novel here. Too often, it seems, their writers succumb to the charms of ruling-class elitism.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

In his book, "The Federal Government, Its True Nature and Character" (1868), Abel Upshur construed the Constitution as a compact [contract] between the States and defined the federal government as the agent of the States.

"The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it--- the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain specific objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution." [1]

That being said, those who deny the power of the States to interpose and nullify federal acts outside of its constitutional grant of power are asserting that the principals to a contract cannot nullify violations of the contract by an agent who is not a party to the contract.

[1] Abel Upshur, The Federal Government: It’s True Nature and Character, (New York, Van Evire, Horton & Co., 1868) p. 189.

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey moderator

Upsure was brilliant. He wrote one of the best defenses of nullification I've read. I also source St. George Tucker - View of the Constitution of the United States quite often. He's fun because nobody can't pin the racist - slaveholder label on him, since he wrote a very nice essay opposing slavery. @Bob Greenslade

WilliamSchooler
WilliamSchooler

@Bob Greenslade

Bob, this is a great example. I often wonder if it is the beauty of the writing versus the understanding it represents. Let me get out my secret decoder ring (the dictionary) and see if I can decipher the code.

I think people that write this way loose there own concept attempting to be the intellectual and look pretty.

In english the Federal Government is an entity of its own with individuals deciding within it which direction to take. Most with no captains experience decide to steer the ship floundering through an ocean of bad ideas, corrupt minds with no vision of themselves at all, but rather visions of wealth and ownership at the expense of others.

This is of course if you define it by activity and results of the activity, no pretty writing needed.

I would ask why is it so many bad ideas are formed? Maybe its the poor focus on what matters and the big thrill of being a supposed intellect amongst other derelicts that pretend also.

WilliamSchooler
WilliamSchooler

Truly amazing I will give you that, so much for education in this country and we all know the only damn authority in all of life is a Judge or a lawyer, REALLY?

Who the hell made up this idea anyway, a bunch of guys hanging out with Chinese immigrants puffing poppies?

Thomas Jefferson made some great quotes because he was a genuine man for great details and some of these others are just loony tunes and missed the boat right from the landing.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] gets a good cup of coffee the morning the justices consider theRead the rest of this article at: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/09/the-heritage-solution-beg-and-plead/ Click "Home" to find this article in English. Clic "Inicio" para encontrar este artículo en [...]

  2. [...] Maharrey Tenth Amendment Center January 9, [...]

  3. [...] MaharreyTenth Amendment Center January 9, [...]