Racist!

Neo-confederate!

Secessionist!

I’m waiting for the invectives to fly at Seattle Times editorial board members.

Why? You might ask.

Well, the Times published an editorial advocating state nullification of an unconstitutional federal act. You know – nullification – that “dusty relic from the past, concocted by southern states to protect slavery.”

The writers didn’t actually use the word “nullification.” But that’s precisely what they suggest when they advise Washington state Gov. Chris Gregoire to, “JUST sign it!”

What exactly do the Seattle Times editorial writers want the governor to sign?

A medical marijuana bill that would create a regulatory system for Washington’s medicinal cannabis program and provide some arrest protections for patients.  House amendments to the bill passed the Washington Senate 27-21 last week, sending the legislation to the governor’s desk for a signature.

If Gregoire signs the bill, Washington would stand in direct violation of federal law. Americans cannot legally grow or possess marijuana, even for medical use – even if state law says otherwise.

The Times demands the governor sign the bill anyway.

Nullification – when states take it upon themselves to invalidate, void or otherwise ignore unconstitutional federal acts. Thomas Jefferson called it the “rightful remedy.” James Madison said states “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose.”

But Gregoire expressed reservations.

“I will review the bill to determine any parts that can assist patients in need without putting state employees at risk,” she said in a statement. “No state employee should have to break federal law in order to do their job.”

You see, the governor did what any “good” state official does. She sought permission from big brother in D.C. Gregoire asked Attorney General Eric Holder if she should sign the bill.

Of course, he said, “No,” emphasizing that marijuana is forbidden and federal agents have the power to arrest growers and dispensary operators. Even public employees who treat them as legitimate businesses “would not be immune from liability.”

That doesn’t faze the nullifiers at the Seattle Times.

“Bad idea,” the editorial writers said of Gregoire querying Holder. “She should have just done it.”

The paper seems to think the feds won’t act against the state or its employees. The editorial writers make a pretty good case.

“The local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said New Mexico has had state-licensed dispensaries since early 2009, and ‘the feds have not gone after any state employee there.’ Nor, said the ACLU, have federal agents cracked down on dispensaries in the other states that license them: Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maine, Colorado and Arizona.”

They also point out that the Obama administration would risk alienating Washington Democrats who support the bill should the feds take any overt action.

“It would force our two Democratic senators either to defy him (Obama) or to make excuses for him,” the Times editorial board wrote.

“JUST do it!”

Sounds a lot like Madison’s blueprint in Federalist 46.

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter

The Seattle Times editorial writers might not know it. In fact, they would likely shake in horror at the notion. But their demand falls right in line with the Principles of ‘98. In other words – nullify!

Far from evolving out of a southern desire to preserve slavery, nullification was first advanced by Jefferson and Madison in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. And the principle was used to battle numerous cases of federal overreach throughout the Republic’s history, including military conscription during the War of 1812, and in a 180 degree reversal of conventional wisdom, by northern abolitionists challenging fugitive slave laws.

So in reality, the nullifiers at the Seattle Times stand in good company – typical zombie journalist opinion not-withstanding.

“Suppose the feds did crack down, and arrested the Seattle city employees who already have issued business licenses to medical-cannabis dispensaries. Would any jury around here convict them? Would any judge sentence them to prison?

“We think not.

“Just sign the bill.”

I agree Seattle Times. Welcome to the party, ye mainstream nullifiers. We need more of you.

Perhaps next, the Seattle Times will tackle nullifying Obamacare.

Rachel Maddow doesn’t like me. I get that.

Without trying, though, I guess I’ve been getting under her skin. She obviously doesn’t like the fact that the Tenth Amendment Center’s efforts to promote nullification have been gaining some serious traction around the country. Just this week, Rach did a full 14 minute segment on the subject. And her presentation, as you might guess, wasn’t a cheer leading session either.

The segment, titled “Confederates in the Attic” was about how efforts today, primarily championed by the Tenth Amendment Center, to decentralize power and reject unconstitutional federal “laws,” are somehow directly-related to slave owners in the pre-civil war south.

No. That’s not a joke.

She says “a conservative group called the Tenth Amendment Center has been pushing a lot of the anti-health reform stuff…in the context of nullification. And they’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too.”

Ok, other than the absurdity of using the term “conservative” to define an anti-drug war, antiwar, anti-patriot act organization started in 2006 in opposition to GW Bush, she’s right on the money here.

The Center has been pushing anti-health reform stuff? Yup. We drafted the model bill, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act. Versions of our legislation – to either fully nullify or refuse compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), have been introduced in 11 states so far, and it’s making headway in a few too.

We’re pushing for other kinds of nullification too? Ab-so-freakin-lutely.

Two for two. Good job, Rachel!

But here’s where she goes off the reservation into heavy “War profiteer masters” spin mode. You see, Rachel’s job, like everyone at MSNBC, CNN, Fox and the rest of the mainstream media, is to keep convincing people that the only way to think is in a battle of democrat vs republican. Conservative vs liberal. One side is your friend, the other is your enemy. While left fears right and right fears left, her and her buddies keep getting more money and more power.

Sun Tzu would’ve been proud at this modern iteration of his strategy to divide and conquer.

Rachel continues – by telling her audience of the crazy stuff that the Tenth Amendment Center is pushing, and that states are actually working on. Here’s a few:

–Food Freedom Act – nullifying the “Food safety and modernization act,”
–Firearms Freedom Act – nullifying some federal gun laws and regulations
–Intrastate Commerce Act – all products made or grown in state and sold in state are not under federal purview.
–EPA Nullification – nullifying some or all EPA regulations

Without getting into the details of how she twisted each and every one of these efforts, it’s easiest to sum it up with this single statement of hers in rounding up the nullification movement:

“Your federal laws don’t apply here, Yankees!”

You don’t like a federal law and work to oppose it in your state? You must love the slave-ownin’ south. Wow, how insightful, Rachel!

So, is Rachel Maddow just a jerk, is she a liar, or is she ignorant? Hard to say, but let me share a little perspective.

I don’t fool myself into thinking that a majority of Rachel’s audience is going to be supportive of everything that we’re working to nullify – especially things like gun laws and the EPA. But, I do know in my own experience through interviews with places like Mother Jones, Raw Story, Huffington Post, and others, that there is some strong support on particular issues.

While Rachel was talking about what she wants you to believe is a racist, evil nullification movement being pushed by the TAC, she had this picture showing – a somewhat-modified version of our live Legislative Tracking page:

Did Rachel do her journalistic duty and report on the top-listed efforts of the Nullification movement, or did she pick and choose just a few in order to frame the discussion in a left vs right cat fight?

I wonder.

She talked about guns, food safety, the EPA and even Constitutional Tender Acts. But, why oh why did she skip over any and everything that would be of interest to her own audience?

The answer is pretty obvious to me.

So what did Rachel skip reporting on? Let’s see.

The number one thing listed on that page – unreadable on TV – is “state marijuana laws.”

You’d think if she were “reporting” on efforts that the TAC was pushing, she’d at least mention the first thing on our list. But, what could Rachel use to scare her mostly-liberal audience there? “These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!”

Or, right below that red MSNBC graphic blob, you could see, click and learn about how 25 states, championed by the ACLU, passed laws to reject Bush’s 2005 Real ID act.

Would Rachel have then said, “The ACLU wants us to believe we can just pick and choose what laws to follow. That’s what Calhoun said in South Carolina – and it led directly to the civil war!”

Or, just below that, you could see how the Tenth Amendment Center is working to promote efforts to nullify TSA body scanners and violations of the 4th Amendment – as referenced by the Raw Story here.

“These conservatives want the terrorists to win, and they’re willing to let radical Islamo-fascists get on planes without being body-scanned. Do they really want another civil war?” Is that Maddow’s view on the TSA?

And, just one more – she also skipped over our Defend the Guard act, which is a first step effort towards ending unconstitutional wars from the bottom up. The bill was just introduced in Maine – with 2 republican and 4 democrat co-sponsors.

I wonder how Rachel would’ve dealt with that one. Maybe something like, “Barack Obama is trying to do his duty as commander in chief and keep this country safe. These confederate states don’t like our boys in uniform and are obviously part of the blame-America-first crowd. If the nullifers win, we just might be invaded by Libya!”

No. She’d never do any of that. I’d respect her more if she did, though.

Why? Because at least she’d be consistent in principle. Which, of course, she’s not. Partisan hack comes to mind, but I think that’s too soft a term.

To support nullification, you don’t have to be from the right or the left. You just have to decide that enough is enough, that you want to determine you own rules in your own area. Don’t expect that to be in the next segment, though. Zombies attack!

Next time, maybe she’ll call me before reporting on the TAC again. Maybe. But, I doubt it.

Engaging in an honest, intellectual argument requires hard work.

So many people simply don’t bother.

Instead, they smear, demonize and attempt to marginalize opponents. If spinmeisters can convince the general public that the messenger advancing the idea they don’t like is so extreme, so radical and so crazy that they don’t deserve consideration, the critic can win the argument by default.

When it comes to progressive ideas, a willing accomplice in the press makes this little game that much easier to play. Many journalists sympathize with a progressive viewpoint, so they willingly perpetuate the labels and templates generated by progressive “thinkers”. And a media herd mentality can quickly spin a party talking point into a forgone conclusion.

Repeat a template enough times and it becomes fact. Journalists quickly stop questioning the underlying assumptions, hanging every story inside a frame that includes subjective, debatable ideas presented as indisputable fact – as if brought down from a mountain etched on stone tablets. Read any mainstream media story on climate change for an illustrative example.

Historian and nullification advocate Tom Woods calls this “zombie journalism.” The term conjures up a hilarious image – hordes of tattered fedora wearing figures in trench coats, clutching pad and pen, march relentlessly forward chanting “racist, neo-confederate, secessionist.” Facts thrown by a desperate public noiselessly absorb into some kind of slimy ooze dripping from their green tinged skin.

In recent weeks, the zombie media has turned its attention to nullification. They can no longer ignore the simple idea that states can and should say, “No!” to unconstitutional overreach. Eleven states have filed bills nullifying the recently passed federal health care act.

By and large, media types like the notion of federal control over health care. And they like the idea of big government doing big things. So it becomes incumbent to shoot down this nullification nonsense.

Problem is, it’s not so easy to tear down the idea. Thomas Jefferson espoused it. James Madison did too. In fact, the concept springs up throughout the history of the United States. If properly explained, it makes logical and philosophical sense.

So – don’t explain it.

Apparently, that’s the strategy progressives plan on pursuing. Instead they demonize nullification advocates as  redneck racists, waving rebel flags, intent on tearing the country apart.

The zombie media has picked up the mantra – neo-confederate.

It’s a pretty good communication strategy, one has to admit. Nobody wants to be called a racist. Even real racists. And nobody wants to see the nation torn apart. Most Americans are at least somewhat patriotic. For all of its faults, we love the United States.

So if opponents can convince the public that nullifiers wear gray uniforms and ultimately hope to destroy the Union, leading the states into a second secession because they hate black people, they can win the debate without ever having to challenge the idea of nullification on its merits.

That’s why you won’t likely see a mainstream media story on nullification without some reference to secession. Take the recent AP story written by John Miller.

In Texas, a nullification proposal threatens state officials who don’t comply with jail time and fines. Last year in Austin, an insurance salesman led a Texas State Capitol rally as protesters hoisted signs urging not just nullification, but secession.

Here’s what’s kind of funny, in an ironic way, but will likely sink into the oozy skin of the zombie journalist without leaving a mark.

Nullification has always been viewed as a way to preserve the union.

When Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, he made it clear that commitment to the union remained firm.

“…to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation:”

In 1833, Virginia judge Able P. Upshur wrote a vigorous defense of nullification. In his mind, it provided a safety valve, a process to challenge unconstitutional federal overreach short of armed rebellion.

“If there be no such principle, is not the federal government as unlimited in its powers as any other government, whatever be its form, whose encroachments on the rights of the citizen can be repelled only by rebellion or other application of physical force?”

State governments serve as a check on federal power, keeping it within its constitutional restraints, and interposing for its citizens to protect their freedoms and liberties.

Keep in mind, states aren’t asserting a right to overturn just any old federal law.

“Now be pleased to bear in mind,” Upshur wrote, “that nullification does not proceed upon any supposed right of the state to repeal a constitutional law, but upon a right of a state to declare an unconstitutional law really is so, and to refuse obedience to it for that reason.”

The nullifying state does not upset the constitutional order. The federal government does that, insisting on enforcing unconstitutional acts and exercising power it does not rightfully possess.

If states do not have a right to judge for themselves the constitutionality of federal acts and interpose for their citizens, it leaves the people no recourse when the feds trample their rights but to insist on secession or other extreme measures.

Nullification provides protection for the states and the people, and a check on federal power within the constitutional structure. It is not meant as a tool for rending the Union or usurping legitimate federal authority – contrary to the media template.

“But Upshur was pro-slavery,” the zombies moan.

And on they march.

AP reporter John Miller provides a textbook example of sloppy, agenda driven “journalism” in a piece headlined GOP invokes 1700s doctrine in health care fight published on Jan. 26.

Miller cobbles together a report clearly reflecting his personal opinion on the subject, and while he would surely argue that the story holds completely to the facts, he links those facts together in a way that leads the reader to his forgone conclusion.

Perhaps Miller doesn’t know any better, but he also omits vital information, leaving the reader with an incomplete understanding of nullification. He can either plead ignorance, making him a lazy reporter, or he left those bits of information out on purpose, making him an agenda driven hack.

Either way, he earns low marks as a professional journalist.

Let’s look at some specifics.

Miller sets up his assumption in the language of his lede graph.

“Republican lawmakers in nearly a dozen states are reaching into the dusty annals of American history to fight President Obama’s health care overhaul.”

Note the wording – dusty annals of American history. In other words, nullification isn’t really something to take seriously.  It’s old. (He re-emphasizes that point when he mentions Jefferson “philosophical guidance” 211 years ago.) Old means irrelevant and arcane. And if it’s old, irrelevant and arcane, you need not pay attention to it.

Miller frames the story with the loaded language in his opening graph and proceeds to hang it nicely inside.

He goes on to declare the notion of nullification unconstitutional. His source? “Most legal scholars…”

Presumably, Miller interviewed or at least read the opinions of most legal scholars in this country.

Or not.

Nowhere does he bother to cite any cogent opposing viewpoint. And it does exist. In fact, the logic is quite simple. He should be able to grasp it, even with all of the time spent talking to “most legal experts”. Quite simply, if Congress passes legislation reaching outside of its constitutionally prescribed delegated powers, it is not law at all, but an unconstitutional act – by definition illegal. The Constitution stands as the supreme law of the land, not the court. And unconstitutional acts cannot hold a place of supremacy over a state law.

Miller spends the next several graphs describing other radical “conservative” activities. They don’t have anything to do with nullification, but they fit the frame, so he throws them in.

I love some of the loaded language. “Anti-government angst running high.” “Tea Party crowd.” “Secession.” Miller clearly intends to paint nullification the color of extremism – right wing extremism to boot. He doesn’t come out and say it, of course. That would be non-objective. He lets the language serve as his brush.

Finally, he gets into the origins of nullification, lazily hanging the entire concept on the writing of Thomas Jefferson. I have to give him credit for basically explaining the Kentucky Resolutions correctly, all in one sentence. Well, except for the incorrect date. But why quibble? Anyway, after his cursory explanation of the principle’s origin, Miller simply sweeps the third president’s idea aside in one sentence.

“And his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions…”

I suppose I could say the same about “most legal scholars”. Or supreme court justices for that matter.

But I digress.

At this point, Miller takes the opportunity to create a little “gotcha” moment. He quotes Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce saying Jefferson was at the constitutional convention.

Miller writes:

“Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.”

Good one John!

But perhaps Miller should have included the fact that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, wrote the Virginia Resolution the same year, mirroring Jefferson’s reasoning. And that Madison laid out the fundamental principle of state resistance to overreaching federal power in Federalist 46.

But then again, who cares? That was just Madison’s opinion.

Miller moves on to assert, “Nullification has been invoked several times over the years — to no avail.”

He mentions the tariff act that South Carolina fought in the 1830s. He points out that it “nearly provoked armed conflict.”

Nearly, but it didn’t.

In fact, the feds backed down, and in a compromise, agreed to roll back the tariff over time. Sounds like at least a partial win for South Carolina. But that doesn’t fit the template.

And Miller fails to mention to modern cases of successful nullification. Numerous states refused to implement the Real ID act of 2005, rendering the act functionally void, and 15 states have defied federal law and implemented medicinal marijuana programs, without tanks rolling through the streets.

Finally, near the end of the story, Miller gets around to citing an intellectual source on nullification. But not before a little character assassination. Thomas Woods earned his undergrad degree in history from Harvard. He holds a masters and Ph.D. from Columbia University. But Miller doesn’t mention these credentials. He does mention that “as a college student in 1994, Woods helped found the League of the South, an Alabama group the Southern Poverty Law Center says has become a ‘neo-Confederate group’ seeking a second Southern secession.”

In other words, Woods is a racist and what he has to say isn’t relevant, but here it is anyway. Never mind that the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn’t exactly count as an unbiased source of information. And never mind that Woods no longer has any association with the League of the South. (Yes, Miller did mention this fact as an afterthought. But really, why mention the association at all? What does it have to do with the story? Oops.  Sorry. Asking too many questions.)

Interestingly, Miller fails to tell us anything about the organizational memberships, paper subjects or college hi-jinks of “most legal scholars”, Idaho Assistant Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane, or David Gray Adler – all sources asserting nullification is an unconstitutional, archaic concept.

But I’m sure Miller thoroughly checked all of their backgrounds to make sure there was no ties to any progressive advocacy groups and no skeletons in their closets. No dirty laundry there for sure.

Miller makes a mockery of journalism with this story. Agree or disagree with the concept or wisdom of nullification, it has its roots in the founding philosophy of the nation and in the original understanding of the Constitution. It was invoked frequently in the first century of the Republic’s existence, by members of every political party, in the north and in the south. It stands on solid philosophical ground and has been successfully utilized in the last decade.

But Miller doesn’t bother to get into any of those complex nuances. Miller doesn’t bother to provide a balanced story explaining nullification. Miller doesn’t even bother to fact-check his work to make sure he gets something as basic as the date of the Kentucky Resolutions correct.

In short, he fails to do the basic job of a fair objective journalist.

The Tenth Amendment got a breath of life when the Tea Party uprising proved to be successful in the November midterm elections, bringing in many candidates who, while mostly Republican, where not on board with the mainstream Republican agenda. Many were supporters of the Tenth Amendment and States’ Rights and going forward in 2011, we’re seeing some results already.

Maine has joined other states, including Wyoming and Montana, in introducing legislation that would reject the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, more commonly known as “Obamacare.” And while the State Legislators press forward standing up for the cause of local governance and the balance of government, the media unites under the usual cause of defending the Federal Government. This time, it’s the war on nullification.

Here in Maine, Democrats have been criticizing the idea (as noted in previous articles by the Maine Tenth Amendment Center), but they have obviously forgotten that it was their party who introduced Maine to the concept of nullification. It was not the Republicans who stood up against an unconstitutional law that would unload a significant financial burden on Maine (although many Republicans did join in), it was a Democratic Legislature that sought to nullify the REAL ID Act of 2005. Why are things different now? Because their team now has the top spot in the Federal Government?

Sahil Kapur of Raw Story and Ezra Klein of the Washington Post wasted no time recently in going after Wyoming for their introduction of Legislation, sponsored by ten State Representatives and three State Senators, that would nullify the controversial healthcare law.

Kapur writes in an article for Raw Story:

Even if the legislation is approved, it won’t survive in the courts as states cannot override or subvert federal law. But the symbolism of the effort reflects just how intense conservative animus against the reforms has become, as House Republicans prepare for a vote to repeal the law.

Similar to the liberal animus against George W. Bush with REAL ID? Regardless, this is not your typical conservative group of politicians in the various State Legislatures. Conservatives have, like liberals, in the past subscribed to the idea that our representative government is at the mercy of unelected judges and an unrestricted executive, while lower levels are merely administrative units with no power beyond execution of the higher will. The idea of nullification is not exclusive to any wing on a political spectrum or to any one polarizing party; Maine shows this through its nullification of REAL ID under Democrats and now the attempt to nullify the healthcare reform law under Republicans. It’s an American idea.

There was a reason there was a division of power in the government. But there was also a reason there was a Federal Government. Liberals often swing back at the point that our Founders feared a strong government, by stating that the weak government concept had failed under the Articles of Confederation. It did, but that’s why we have a cooperative government where the various branches and levels have their assigned areas. We’re not a dictatorship; the lifetime lawyers who face no election do not rule us, nor does the executive and all of his unelected cronies. If this were the case than having a Congress, State Legislatures, or any other part of our representative government, would be pointless. We wouldn’t need it, because the executive could pass down his orders and the lawyers next door would affirm it, without respect to laws or the Constitution that provides for the structure of our government. But this is not the case.

Ezra Klein goes further to state in a Washington Post article:

Given the extremism of the rhetoric at the top, is it any wonder that there is incredible fear trickling down to the grass roots? If those are the stakes, then of course criminalizing any implementation of the bill makes sense. Frankly, if those are the stakes, then violent resistance might be required.

Advocating violence against nullification? Sounds strangely similar to Alexander Hamilton’s response to the resolutions passed in Kentucky and Virginia in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, when he suggested building up the troops and testing the resistance of Virginia. It’s unfortunate to see those attempting to restore the balance of our representative government met with opposition that sometimes suggests violence.

Now Christopher Weaver at NPR has joined the bandwagon of opposition, this time specifically putting its aim on Maine. Here are some points from the article:

Shortly after the midterm election, Trish Riley, the defeated Democratic governor’s top health adviser, told us Maine officials envisioned a health reform rollout that would in some ways be “more robust than Massachusetts.” Now, at least some newly empowered conservative lawmakers are pushing to make the realization of that vision a crime.

It would be in Riley’s worst interest in defending healthcare reform, to bring up former Governor John Baldacci’s track record with it. Dirigo Health, the controversial State program, has not been the standard of government healthcare that it was hyped up to be. Instead, it has been a financial failure and has not come close to insuring as much citizens as it’s advocates had promised.

The article also states:

These aren’t novel moves for state-level health law opponents. Before the law even passed, local legislators in all but a dozen states had introduced or passed legislation to erect health overhaul hurdles, USA Today reported last year. But adding jail time ups the ante.

So it’s alright for the Federal Government to throw citizens in prison for not cooperating with an unconstitutional mandate that is absolutely unamerican, but not for the State Legislators to defend their citizens against unlawful exercising of power?

And then in the article, the writer goes after Maine State Representative Richard Cebra, a Republican from Naples. Representative Cebra is the one who introduced LD 58, “An Act To Prohibit Enforcement of the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” He is not, as the media suggests, playing partisan politics as the Republicans rally against a bill, supposedly only because it was a Democratic piece of legislation. Previously, Rep. Cebra has sought to introduce a State Sovereignty Resolution, but it was quickly voted down by the Democrats who had then controlled the Legislature. Democrats voting down a States’ Rights resolution just a couple years after being the leader in a nullification movement against a Republican president sounds more like politics-as-usual, than the Republicans. But the point is, Rep. Cebra has great intentions, not political ones.

AsMaineGoesLolz.com, a site that portrays itself as being the opposite of popular Maine website As Maine Goes, which it accuses of being conservative, has also gone after LD 58. The staunchly-partisan website takes a couple shots in this article:

Look: Whether or not the ACA is constitutional isn’t even important when considering this law. This law is illegal even IF the ACA is later found to be unconstitutional. Why? Because the court system is the final arbiter. States can’t just decide which Federal laws to follow and which they won’t.

Not according to two key Founding Fathers who were instrumental in the creation of our country. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence had introduced resolutions in Kentucky in both 1798 and 1799. James Madison, the principle author of the Constitution, had introduced a resolution in 1798. All three of these resolutions had affirmed that any law in violation of the Constitution is null and void. For those who claim constitutionality of Congressional acts vary by interpretation, the Constitution is very straightforward with the powers of Congress. Article 1, Section 8 lists the specifically enumerated powers of Congress, while the Tenth Amendment states that Congress can do nothing more than that.

But the title of the article, “These Maine Legislators Don’t Understand How America Works,” is all wrong. For as shown in the previous paragraph, the Maine Legislators, just as Jefferson and Madison did, have it all right. It’s Kapur, Klein, Weaver, and AsMaineGoesLolz, who don’t understand how America was designed to work.

So the critics of Mr. Cebra and the co-sponsors of LD 58 and of other States: on behalf of every educated Tenther, please open up a Constitution and read it.

Chris Dixon [send him email] is the state chapter coordinator for the Maine Tenth Amendment Center. He is also a writer for Maine Web News.

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

The commissars are out in force against me these days.

It started like this. Martha Dean, a candidate for attorney general in Connecticut, repeated her support for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws in a recent televised debate. She opened up my book Nullification and quoted from Jonathan Trumbull, the nineteenth-century Connecticut governor who declared: “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”

Yes, that was a Connecticut governor. Connecticut, as you may recall from your studies of geography, is in the North.

I won’t leave you in suspense regarding the reaction of her opponent, George Jepsen. Nullification, he said, is an outdated concept that led to the Civil War and “has no place in our discussion today…. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbitrator with what is constitutional and not constitutional. It’s not for the states to decide.”

One benefit of being a commissar is that you need never debate truly important matters. These can simply be portrayed as “extreme,” “outdated,” and having “no place in our discussion.” That’s a lot easier than openly pleading ignorance.

Now Alan Pyke, a commissar-enforcer at the left-wing hypochondria site Media Matters, is giving Dean a hard time because she likes my work. Why, doesn’t she know what an “extremist” Woods is? (You are an extremist, by the way, if the enforcer can’t find a place for you on the spectrum that runs from Mitch McConnell to Hillary Clinton.) He then runs through the usual routine, digging up 15-year-old articles and shouting, “Eek! A mouse!” If he looked a little harder, he’d find that in the 1990s I’d even supported the Persian Gulf War and written an academic journal article (inAmerican Studies) somewhat skeptical of capitalism. Might have been easier to look at my writing from, oh, five days ago, but that wouldn’t be any fun!

Pyke’s arguments are the standard ones; it’s almost as if there’s some Mad Libs template for the arguments against nullification. Why, this violates the Supremacy Clause! Um, no, it doesn’t. Jefferson knew there was a Supremacy Clause, presumably. The Supremacy Clause nowhere says that unconstitutional laws are the supreme law of the land. Can you imagine anyone voting to ratify the Constitution if that clause had meant, “This Constitution, along with any old laws the federal government may pass, whether in line with this Constitution or not, shall be the supreme law of the land?”

Then we’re told Article III settles this, though again, Jefferson was likely aware of the existence of Article III. But the Court’s powers are judicial, not political. Article III deals with cases in law and equity, not matters of political contest. It was not until the mid-twentieth century, which is rather a long span of time after the ratification of the Constitution, that the Court began seriously claiming such a power to settle political disputes between the states and the federal government. The first time it had tried to do so wasn’t until 1890. Even Edward Livingston, the principal drafter of Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation, conceded half the argument: “In cases in which a law of the United States may infringe the constitutional right of a State, but which in its operation cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, under the terms of the jurisdiction expressly given to it over particular persons or matters, that court is not created the umpire between a State that may deem itself aggrieved and the General Government.”

Moreover, James Madison, who was also aware of Article III, explained in his Report of 1800 that there of course needed to be an additional remedy for the people when even the judicial branch had failed them. All three branches of the federal government were liable to encroach upon the rights of the people. Said Madison:

The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

Hmm, that sounds a little bit like “crazy” Tom Woods or Martha Dean. But that’s James Madison talking. That’s a real shame, Alan. Let me console you with some trombone.

(But didn’t Madison later claim he didn’t support nullification? That argument is dealt with on pp. 288–290 ofNullification.)

Since I wrote a whole book laying out the evidence against the claims Pyke is making, I’ll leave those matters to rest, though you can find more of my writing on this in my article archive.

Pyke would have us forget about – because he himself doesn’t know about – all the northern states that appealed to the Principles of ’98 (as the principles culminating in nullification came to be known); this is a crazy southern doctrine and nothing else. Pyke doesn’t even know (1) that northern states nullified the fugitive-slave laws, and (2) they even cited the wicked John C. Calhoun in doing so. Were they wrong to do so, Alan?

Like any commissar, Pyke greets an idea not vetted by the Washington Post or the New York Times with smears and denunciations. No attempt to understand why Thomas Jefferson would have promoted nullification, or to reply to (or even mention) any of the arguments he employed in its favor. Hilariously enough, no mention of Jefferson at all. An innocent oversight, no doubt.

But it is this that takes the cake. Pyke writes, “Dean may not be arguing for an economy based on slave labor” – see, Pyke can be magnanimous when he wants to be – “but she is arguing – vigorously – that the legal doctrine used by slave states to defend the practice (thus starting the Civil War) is a valid and useful ‘tool’ in our legal system.”

My friends, meet the winner of today’s Dumbest Guy in the World.

Alan, can you name for me an incident in which the South used nullification to defend slavery? Can you show me specifically how this use of nullification led to people suddenly killing each other?

Can’t find one?

That’s because your third-grade argument makes no sense. What would the South have had to nullify? All those antislavery laws on the books? Care to name one?

Now I suppose there is one way in which nullification led to the southern secession (which is not the same thing as saying it led to the war), but it will surprise Alan Pyke, who knows none of this. South Carolina’s ordinance of secession complains that the North is doing too much nullifying, and that the South is sick of it. In particular, the North was interfering with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Wisconsin Supreme Court got so uppity that it stood up to Alan Pyke’s heroes, the U.S. Supreme Court, and declared the Act unconstitutional (the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause notwithstanding; I explain this in my book as well). So I suppose in that sense nullification may have helped provoke the southern secession, but I doubt that’s what Pyke meant by his remark.

Nullification was used throughout American history on behalf of free speech and free trade, and against unconstitutional searches and seizures, military conscription, and the fugitive slave acts. Pyke doesn’t mention this. No one ever does. We must stick to the narrative: the states are stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list.

Pyke does mention the use of nullification rhetoric during the civil rights movement, the implication being that Jeffersonian decentralism is forever discredited because states have behaved in ways most Americans find grotesque. They are states, after all, so we should not be shocked when their behavior offends us. But this is apples and oranges. This outcome was possible only at a time when blacks had difficulty exercising voting rights, a situation that no longer obtains. Things have changed since Birmingham 1963 in other ways as well. The demographic trends of the past three decades make that clear enough, as blacks have moved in substantial numbers to the South, the only section of the country where a majority of blacks polled say they are treated fairly. It is an injustice to the people of the South, as well as an exercise in emotional hypochondria, to believe the states are on the verge of restoring segregation if only given the chance. I mean, really.

By exactly the same reasoning, incidentally, any crime by any national government anywhere would immediately justify a world government. Anyone living under that world government who then favored decentralization would be solemnly lectured about all the awful things that had happened under such a system in the past.

Moreover, the argument is not that the federal government is bad but the state governments are infallible. The state governments are rotten, too (which is why we may as well put them to somegood use by employing them on behalf of resistance to the federal government). We are asking under what conditions liberty is more likely to flourish: with a multiplicity of competing jurisdictions, or one giant jurisdiction. There is a strong argument to be made that it was precisely the decentralization of power in Europe that made possible the development of liberty there.

This argument – why, an institutional structure was once put to objectionable purposes, so it may never be appealed to again – is never used against the institution of the state itself, particularly the megastates of the nationalistic twentieth century. I rather doubt Pyke would say, “Centralized governments gave us hundreds of millions of deaths, thanks to total war, genocide, and totalitarian revolutions. In the U.S. we can point to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and a horrendously murderous military-industrial-congressional complex, among other enormities. Our federal government is so remote from the people that it has managed to rack up debts (included unfunded liabilities) well in excess of $100 trillion. In light of this record, what intellectual and moral pygmy would urge nationalism as the solution to our problems?”

What do I learn from this incident? What I’ve known already: the “progressive” Left always prefers a neoconservative to an antiwar libertarian. That’s Woods’ Law #2. They can overlook the support for war, the centralization of power (what “progressive” would disagree with that these days?), the encroachments on civil liberties. That’s all fine and dandy. But someone who opposes the initiation of violence against peaceful people? Get him!

So many so-called progressives, it turns out, are really just neocons with sandals. Political centralization, comic-book-style demonization of dissent – these people deserve each other.

I am under attack from these people because I wonder if 300 million people ruled from one city is the most humane way to live. Don’t I know I am not supposed to ask such a heretical question?

I predicted exactly what these people would say about me when my book Nullification came out. I nailed it to a T.

No one is allowed to adopt, much less advocate, an unapproved opinion, especially one directed at the heart of the regime, and anyone doing so can expect the heretic treatment. I will be portrayed as a sinister person who wants to bring back the Southern Confederacy, though why a libertarian would want to restore a regime that protected slavery and engaged in military conscription and monetary inflation is never explained. (But when Woods was in college [sixteen years ago], he…. Yes, that’s what they are actually going to pull.)

Here’s my actual background, since you won’t learn about it from them (an oversight, I’m sure). I’m pretty sure myPolitically Incorrect Guide to American History, which they haven’t read but are sure must be terrible, survives the two neoconservative attacks they cite against it. See my “Replies to Critics” on this page, and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.

One of the two reviews they cite against the Politically Incorrect Guide comes from theClaremont Review of Books, as if this is the standard bearer of right-of-center thought. They think if Claremont doesn’t like me, I’m finished. Well, why would Claremont like me? Claremont awarded Donald Rumsfeld its 2007 Statesmanship Award. My version of history is probably going to be a teensy bit different from theirs. (Natch, they leave out that Claremont did like this book of mine on the economy. “Very convincing,” they said.)

The other person whose criticism is supposed to sting so badly is Cathy Young, who’s about as libertarian as George W. Bush. I dealt with her almost as an afterthought.

The progressives who are after me are the worst kind of all. If California decriminalizes marijuana, they will be the first to call for locking people up in government cages anyway. For how dare they resist their wise overlords in Washington! What’s that, comrade? “Question Authority,” you say? Wherever did you learn that? What are you, some kind of “neo-Confederate”?

These “progressives” favor centralized government, they insist, because it’s so good for minority groups. Oh, it’s super. How great the federal drug war has been for blacks!

Oh, and Pyke can’t believe I had the nerve to point out that Adolf Hitler was the biggest opponent of states’ rights in the twentieth century. He says it’s unfair to infer that progressives who believe in nationalism against local self-government are really pining for life under Nazi Germany. Now he reveals his true colors. No normal person would think that’s what I was saying. But as a professional smear artist, Pyke knows full well that that’s what he would be implying if he ever used a Hitler analogy against someone else. He assumes I’m playing the same game. Since I am a decent person, that is not what I am doing.

What I am trying to do is to get people to think. If decentralized power were a mere smokescreen for oppression, why have all the great tyrants, without fail, opposed it? Can nationalists of left and right – neocons with and without sandals – please answer this question?

Given Pyke’s arguments, there is no more fitting way to close than with my Interview with a Zombie. “Slaaaavery! Neeeeeo-Confederate! Braaaaains!”

Originally published at LewRockwell.com

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of ten books, including the just-released Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, and the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Visit his website and blog, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his YouTube Channel.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

According to Slate editor-in-chief Jacob Weisberg, a specter is haunting America: the specter of anarchism. Not real anarchism – that’s Weisberg’s emotional hypochondria at work – but merely a growing skepticism of authority.

This won’t do at all. Americans were born to be ruled by people and ideas of which Jacob Weisberg approves, and they are supposed to like it, or at least shut up about it. If they absolutely must complain, their complaints and modes of resistance must be kept within bounds approved of by Slate, a division of the Washington Post Company.

In other words, if these uppity peons would just stick to ideas and strategies chosen for them by their enemies, it would be easier for our betters to tolerate them.

Let’s hear from Weisberg himself. “The Tea Party movement has two defining traits: status anxiety and anarchism…. [It’s] a movement predominated by middle-class, middle-aged white men angry about the expansion of government and hostile to societal change.” I like Lew Rockwell’s reply: “Weisberg, need I mention, is a middle-class, middle-aged white man angry about any opposition to the expansion of government, and hostile to societal change not directed from the top. Oh, and no intellectual important in the current order is anxious about losing his status.”

The “Tea Party” designation refers to a diverse lot, and Weisberg is exaggerating its anti-establishment features. Some Tea Partiers speak of “taking our country back” while looking forward to pulling the lever for Mitt Romney in 2012, or think Sarah Palin, a complete nonentity, is a “maverick” despite being in Bill Kristol’s hip pocket. This branch of the Tea Party poses no threat to any established interest, and in fact strengthens the regime by misdirecting justifiable anger into officially approved channels.

But there is a sliver of genuine rebelliousness to be found here and there in the Tea Party, and it is this that Weisberg finds so awful and scary. “What’s new and most distinctive about the Tea Party,” he writes, “is its streak of anarchism – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent style of self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” Perhaps worst of all, Weisberg huffs, the peons don’t trust the experts, a designation they insist on preceding with the adjective “so-called”!

They don’t trust the experts? I can’t imagine why. Could it be that the experts told us the economy was fine in 2006? (James Galbraith admits this: only about a dozen economists predicted the financial crisis, according to him, though – natch – he pretends the Austrian economists do not exist.) Or maybe it’s because economist Paul Krugman said in 2001 that what the economy needed was low interest rates to spur housing – the very thing that gave rise to the housing bubble. Or maybe because Ben Bernanke denied there was a housing bubble, said lending standards were sound, denied that the subprime problem would spill over into the rest of the economy – there’s no real need to go on, since one of those uppity anarchists has collected these and other whoppers into one of those authority-undermining YouTubes that are destroying America.

I can’t resist one more example: Just two months before Fannie and Freddie collapsed and were taken over by the government, then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson told reporters not to worry: after all, he said, their regulator reported that they are adequately capitalized. When called on this two months later, Paulson denied having misled anyone: “I never said the company was well-capitalized. What I said is the regulator said they are adequately capitalized.”

See, Jake, people don’t trust someone like that.

Want to hear an “expert” (a law professor from Duke) discuss nullification with me? Be my guest. Want to see an Ivy League professor discuss the subject, and then see what he mangled or left out?

And the masses are losing confidence in the experts. Imagine that.

You know what also might be turning people off, Jake? The implication that they may adopt only those views that have been vetted in advance by people who despise them, and that they must be deranged losers if they choose not to avail themselves of this kind solicitude from their betters.

I happen to be the author of a new book making the historical and moral case for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws and urging that it be resuscitated as a live option, given the complete failure of all other efforts to limit the federal government. Weisberg will have none of this crazy talk, of course. No one consulted him before advocating this, and since none of his friends at Newsweek or the New York Times have given nullification the seal of approval as an officially permitted position, we are breaking all codes of gentlemanly conduct by speaking about it anyway.

In any case, says Weisberg, we all know nullification was “settled” in 1819, with McCulloch v. Maryland. McCulloch held that when the federal government exercised a constitutional power the states could not interfere with it. That of course begs rather than settles the question, since a nullifying state contends precisely that the federal government is not exercising a constitutional power. But in Weisberg’s world, everyone leaped to accept John Marshall’s ridiculous and unsupportable nationalist rendering of American history, a rendering completely at odds with what people had been told about the nature of the Union at many of the state ratifying conventions, and indeed at odds with the most obvious facts of American history. Back on planet Earth, states continued to resist the national bank for years afterward, “settled law” to the contrary notwithstanding, until its charter went unrenewed in the 1830s. Spencer Roane, the chief judge of Virginia’s Supreme Court, completely dismantled Marshall and his reasoning in a series of unrelenting critiques. James Madison said Virginia would never have ratified the Constitution had anyone thought the federal government’s powers to be as expansive as John Marshall was proposing, given that exactly the opposite view of the new government was expressly promised to the people at the Richmond ratifying convention (where Marshall sat mute instead of correcting this impression). Thomas Jefferson wrote the following year: “The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated republic. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”

Oh, and I suppose someone forgot to tell Wisconsin it was violating “settled law” when it declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional in 1859 and acted accordingly.

For Slate, a “settled” issue is simply one they don’t want discussed. Normal people consider an issue “settled” when the arguments for both sides have been exhaustively heard, and with reason as the arbiter one side emerges triumphant. That has not occurred in this case. Contrary to popular belief, Daniel Webster was judged the loser of the Webster-Hayne debate at the time. Littleton Waller Tazewell crushed Andrew Jackson’s convoluted proclamation on nullification, as I note in my book, but no one hears or knows about this exchange today. Nationalism is the best way to organize human society, students are told, and that’s that. Anyone who thinks otherwise is too perverse to be worth mentioning.

“The tricorn hats and powder horns carried by Revolutionary re-enactors,” Weisberg continues, “point to the most extreme libertarian view: a Constitutional fundamentalism that would limit the federal government to the exercise of enumerated powers.” That’s not even close to “the most extreme libertarian view,” of course, not that Weisberg actually knows anything about libertarianism, but it does happen to be what one state ratifying convention after another was told would be the guiding rule of constitutional interpretation. This is now “wacko,” fashionable opinion at Slate having supplanted the state ratifying conventions as the arbiters of matters constitutional. This would also make Thomas Jefferson “wacko,” but Weisberg prefers (surprise!) not to mention Jefferson.

I had a bit of fun at Weisberg’s expense in my book Meltdown, where I quoted his impatient lecture to libertarians – why, don’t these people realize that their stupid commitment to the free market is what got us into this mess in the first place? Libertarians should just shut up and let the grownups put things right. Not a word about central banking and the teensy-weensy role it might have played in the financial implosion. He need not deign to acknowledge this line of argument. Criticism of central banking didn’t make it onto the three-by-five card on which Weisberg has written out all allowable opinions, so that view doesn’t really exist in any sense that matters.

What makes nullification so much fun is (1) that opponents of the idea almost invariably know none of the relevant history, so they find themselves reduced to stomping their feet and shouting (or trying to win arguments by dumb-guy smears); and (2) the sheer horror of the political and media classes when confronted by people who refuse to be force-fed the two feckless alternatives that Slate and the rest of the establishment want them to choose from.

Weisberg then speculates that people whose political views do not fall along that compendious spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Mitch McConnell may be mentally deranged – these people’s views are “nutball.” But the main problem with the people Weisberg identifies is that they refuse to be told what to think, and they shun media outlets that insult them. They’re not interested in debating what Slate wants them to debate – e.g., whether the top marginal income tax rate should be 39 percent or 39.8 percent. They want to discuss matters a smidge more significant than that. They refuse to read from the script Slate keeps trying to hand them. That is what makes them so troublesome.

Of course, the people Weisberg has in mind do not read Slate in the first place, so they won’t even see his funny article. Even worse, how do you insult people who don’t care what authority says about them? It’s enough to drive a commissar crazy.

Weisberg thinks the problem with the Tea Party is that it’s too unpredictable. That sure isn’t Weisberg’s problem. His first book was called In Defense of Government.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of ten books, including the just-released Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, and the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Visit his website and blog, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his YouTube Channel.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

I just listened in to an extended rant by a former media hero of mine, Rachel Maddow. Rachel, you are too smart to be delivering analysis like what I just heard. I really miss your coverage during the Bush years when you were highly objective and questioned the Federal government’s claims to power. You used to educate about Federal tyranny on a daily basis. I miss that Rachel.

A change in Maddow’s approach was evident last week. Her argument was that since Rand Paul had reservations about the Federal government’s relationship with private business (via the civil rights act) that Paul must think it’s ok for private colleges to ban bi-racial dating or for a community pool to ban black kids. She would later infer that this was true for all Libertarians.

Patterns exist that describe how unjust the Federal government can be if you happen to be a person of color. Racially disproportionate prosecutions are ongoing and have been a significant source of our prison population in the US, which now includes 500 out of every 100,000 Americans. We are the most imprisoned population per capita in the western world and it would not be possible without the massive consolidation of power known as the Federal Drug War.

Most of those non-violent minority prisoners were arrested per Federal mandate after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Why then, would Maddow’s analysis conclude that ‘the only way black kids are going to be able to swim or date white people is if the all-powerful Federal government steps in’. It’s a common view amongst statists really- the impression that Federal decree is the only way to keep all of us human animals from enslaving and/or exploiting each other.

The founders had a different idea. They thought that horrible things such as racial injustice or destruction of natural resources would best be dealt with on a level close to our system’s sovereign (We the People). They knew from experience that a centralized behemoth sending orders from afar was a bad way to govern, so they set out to do things differently here in the new world.

“Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.” –Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:167

This republic was intended to be governed by two entities, a Federal government to handle a short list including post offices, foreign affairs and defense and a State government which would handle everything else not delegated to DC by the US Constitution. The point of this division was to allow the most important problems, things like hate crime and industrial abuse of the environment, to be addressed quickly and in a manner that represents the specific interests of the people in a given state. Just picture for a moment, how things might have gone differently for New Orleans had the Louisiana statehouse been able to direct the entire Katrina relief effort, rather than being forced to stand down and wait for the Federal behemoth to stir.

Like Federal response to Katrina, The continuing BP oil spill demonstrates that it’s not a lack of control by the Federal government that jeopardizes Americans, but rather the commonly held faith in our ‘all-powerful Feds’. Statists put all their money on the EPA to swoop down and protect the Gulf Coast states from just this kind of environmental danger. How’s that bet looking now Louisiana?

Get the Book Today!

If she does, she might just see that people who question Federal power are not motivated by a desire for ugly racial divides, but instead a desire for governance that sits outside of a documented epicenter of tyranny, Washington DC.

Bryce Shonka [send him email] is media and grassroots director for the Tenth Amendment Center and state chapter coordinator for the California Tenth Amendment Center.

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Here’s a few observations:

1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.

2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.

3. Nullification has also been used quite recently – and effectively too. Approximately two-dozen states refused to implement the Bush-era Real ID act. And guess what – the courts aren’t needed, and neither is Congress. The law is a dead letter. Null and void.

4. Oh, and that pesky general Welfare clause. It doesn’t mean what they’re implying – at all. In fact, it was meant as a strict limitation on power. Here’s what James Madison had to say about it – “With respect to the words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

If my choice is the opinion of James Madision vs Jonathan Turley, I think I’m safe going with Madison.

Here’s what I think is most important…What both Olberman’s stand-in and Professor Turley get wrong is this – the 10th Amendment Movement is not about asking politicians to follow the Constitution. It’s not about getting permission from the Supreme Court to exercise our rights. It’s not about going to the federal government at all. Those are all failed strategies.

This movement is about moving back towards Constitutional governance whether they want us to or not.

Whether it’s 20+ states nullifying real ID, or 2 states nullifying some federal gun regulations, or 13 states nullifying federal marijuana laws, or states nullifying a national health care plan, this is about state-level activism. And, if enough states do it, the feds can’t do anything to stop it.

Our good friends at TeaPartyPatriotsLive did a drive-time guest spot on Orlando’s WFLA radio this week.  I had the honor of spending a few minutes with them to discuss the growing state sovereignty movement, nullification efforts, and more.

[audio:http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/tea-party-patriots-wfla-082509.mp3]