A few weeks ago I left a note for nullification deniers regarding some of their more frequent errors. A quick perusal of Wikipedia clears most of these up, so there’s no excuse for always being so ignorant of the subject matter. Still, some opponents of nullification seem to know plenty of its history, and yet [...]
A law professor from New York University starts to get it. Kinda.
From a practical perspective, nullification provides results that other options cannot
So, what do we do? What are the options to fight this reversal of the founder’s vision?
Channeling “Old Hickory” again nullification is amateur, at best.
Sometimes, support for state action to block unconstitutional acts springs up in the most unlikely of places. Take this gem from a former Washington D.C. prosecutor who admits he “just about always sided with the United States in circumstances in which the states have tried to preempt the federal government.” Jeffery Shapiro agrees that states should not enforce any federal acts violating the Second Amendment.
Pennsylvania State Senator Anthony Williams attempted to douse the flame of liberty with the foul water of unlimited central government.
So for those looking to dismiss nullification on historical grounds, have at it. Just make sure you check the Internet before submitting something that is easily contradicted with a cursory reading of “the free encyclopedia.”
Without some way to hold federal power in check, we end up not with a limited government, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
Ladies and gentleman, nullification just became the majority opinion.
Anyone who wants you to believe that resisting the federal government today is somehow associated with disgusting racists of the past is either totally ignorant or just big, fat liar. Or both.