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.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Joe Wolverton, II will be joining us as a featured speaker at Nullify Now! Chattanooga.  Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/chattanooga/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

Not a single news broadcast passes without mention of the so-called “Tea Party” and its rise to political prominence or the imminent toppling of the Establishment that will be caused by that increasing power. Candidates from Delaware to Kentucky to Colorado to Alaska are banking on the spending power of the Tea Party’s newly minted political capital and all of that makes for good copy. What is not mentioned as often, in fact, what is nearly never mentioned, in conjunction with the Tea Party is the Constitution. What scant attention the media or pundits pay to the Constitution typically comes in the form of derision of those who revere that document and are determined to see it re-enshrined as the supreme law of our republic.

The party that opposes a return to constitutional restraint (members of which are found in both major political parties) takes every opportunity to divert focus from the black letter of that document, as well as from the informed words of those whose ideas gave it life — our Founding Fathers. These anti-Constitutionalists, calling themselves by whatever designation they please, regard that text, as one commentator put it, merely “the larval stage of a living document” which has “evolved into [a] four trillion dollar monarch butterfly.” The metaphor is apt, as those who espouse this view prefer to imagine that the plain and simple language of the Constitution is enshrouded by life-giving layers of penumbras, emanations, and elastic clauses.

Most anti-constitutionalists, however, are not content to wrest the Constitution into a “living document” whose stretched and pocked parchment would be unrecognizable to those whose names are signed on it. These enemies of freedom and limited, enumerated government gleefully take aim at the individual foibles and follies of high-profile representatives of constitutionalists. One such pointed comment was made recently by Richard Cohen of the Washington Post: “This fatuous infatuation with the Constitution, particularly the Tenth Amendment, is clearly the work of witches, wiccans and wackos.”

His impressive use of alliteration aside, Mr. Cohen makes not one coherent critique of the Tea Party/Constitutionalist movement in that comment. He begins by insulting one’s admiration of the work of our Founders (and the timeless principles upon which they drew) and goes on to point a signaling finger at those admirers, and screeches, “Something wicked this way comes.” What evil lurks in the heart of these proponents of constitutional restraint? The Cohen knows: “It [the above-mentioned "infatuation"] has nothing to do with America’s real problems and, if taken too seriously, would cause an economic and political calamity.” Using the transitive property of punditry we discover that America’s “real problems” are the result of insisting “too seriously” on a retreat of government to a place within the boundaries drawn by the Constitution.

This article originally appeared in The New American magazine - and is republished here with permission of the author

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.

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.

July 23 -  Glenn Beck reports on Sarah Palin’s signing of Alaska House Joint Resolution 27, claiming sovereignty for the state under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The resolution serves notice to the federal government that it should cease and desist any activities beyond the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers.

Six other states have had both houses of their legislature pass such a resolution – Palin is the 2nd governor (with Bredesen of TN) to have signed one.

Representative Manny Steele, of South Dakota, sponsored his state’s HCR1013, which was the first states’ rights resolution to pass both the Senate and House in a state this year.  Since then, legislatures in eight other states have acted on bi-partisan support and have passed their respective resolutions to affirm states’ rights.  These are:   Alaska (HJR27), Georgia (SR632), Idaho (HJM4), Indiana (SR42), Missouri (HCR13), North Dakota (HCR3063), Oklahoma (HJR1003) and South Carolina (H3509).

Texas’ HCR50 passed committee April 23, 2009.  Sponsoring Representative Brandon Creighton expects the House to pass the resolution very shortly.  In addition, Arizona’s HCR2024 passed committee on April 14, and per Sponsoring Representative Judy Burges, it is expected to pass the House.

In their Announcement, all fourteen Senators and Representatives observe that:

Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C.  Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes.  We believe that the best government is one which governs closer to the people….  The current price of erosion of states’ rights exceeds $11 trillion.  Without the countless attempts in Washington to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs, much of this debt could have been avoided.

Joining Representative Steele in the Joint Announcement are:

Alaska (HJR27)                       (Mike Kelly, Dist. 7, Sponsor)
Passed House and Senate     (Gary Stevens, Senate President)

Georgia (SR632)                     (Chip Pearson, Dist. 51, Sponsor)
Passed Senate

Idaho (HJM004)                      (Lenore Barrett, Dist. 35, Sponsor)
Passed House and                   (Dick Harwood, Dist 2, Sponsor)
Senate                                          (Lawerence Denney, House Speaker)

Missouri (HCR13)                   (Jim Guest, Dist. 5, Sponsor)
Passed House

North Dakota (HCR3063)      (Craig Headland, Dist. 29, Sponsor)
Passed House and                     (David Monson, House Speaker)
Senate

Oklahoma (HJR1003)             (Randy Brogdon, Dist. 34, Sponsor)
Passed House and
Senate

South Carolina (H3509)          (Michael A. Pitts, Dist. 14, Sponsor)
Passed House; Currently in
Senate Committee

South Dakota (HCR1013)      (Manny Steele, Dist. 12, Sponsor)
Passed House and Senate        (Dennis Daugaard, Lt. Governor)
(Tim Rave, House Speaker)

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is at it again. Recently, an editorial by Jay Bookman, Georgia Senate endorses radical idea, was published in response to the state senate passing SR 632. Bookman’s commentary is full of slander, not only of the resolution, but of our senate itself. In short, he equates this resolution to nearly firing on Fort Sumter!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bookman questions the resolution’s intent of the Federal government defining laws. According to the resolution, the Federal government can only punish treason, piracy, and slavery, but Bookman questions the validity of this claim. He really should read our Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ability to define and punish piracy and counterfeiting money. Article III Section 3 gives Congress the power to declare the punishment for treason. And, the ratification of the 13^th Amendment banned slavery. So, the resolution is correct by stating that these are the only crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

What the resolution is saying by this is the state governments are responsible for all other crimes. So, contrary to his belief, Madoff should be under the jurisdiction of New York, Michael Vick should be under the jurisdiction of Virginia, and the same applies to the inmates in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

The editor then turns to the nullification clause and its role in the Civil War and Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s-60’s. While it may have had a role in the Civil War, the debate of Civil Rights in the 50’s and 60’s didn’t include nullification, but instead the theory of Interposition, which claimed that a state has the right to interpose its sovereignty against the encroachment upon the reserved powers of the state.

Nullification, on the other hand, is the legal theory that states have the right to invalidate any federal law it deems unconstitutional – this is done to keep Congress in line with its enumerated power.

Bookman then goes on to question the part of the resolution which states that if the Federal government oversteps its bounds, the Constitution is null and void. Since we are governed by law, who is to make sure that the ones we elect obey the Constitution?

The Constitution does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, that power was assumed with the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803. Thomas Jefferson was greatly disturbed by this decision because it placed so much power in the hands of the Courts.

It does seem a bit foolish to believe the Federal government can be trusted to keep itself in check. Remember, it is made up of humans and humans are so easily corruptible, especially those in the pursuit of power.

The question becomes this: Who is to protect the people from the Federal government?. If this duty is placed in the hands of the people, riots and violence may occur, resulting in a further infringement of liberties. If placed in the hands of the people’s agents in the state governments, it can provide a means of peaceful debate over these infringements.

Moving forward, Mr. Bookman then makes the absurd claim that, in his opinion, the only reason this resolution passed was because no one had time to read it. Actually, the resolution is only 4 1/2 pages and took me about 10 minutes to read. (click here to read it yourself)

To say that no one had time to read it is very humorous as I suppose we are to drop to our knees and thank God Almighty for the wisdom of our Federal government for passing a “stimulus” bill that no one was allowed to read. He shows great logic in that assessment, doesn’t he?

But this resolution wasn’t “snuck” in, it was read twice, referred to committee, read again, and then adopted by the senate with a vote of 43-1. In my opinion, that’s the fact that shocks him the most.

It appears to shock him so much that he slanders the Senators that sponsored the resolution by saying they used “deception.” He then equates this to being part of a radical right wing conspiracy, because no one in their right mind could possibly condone such a stand against actions of the Federal government. You would have to be crazy to question this government, right?

I honestly wasn’t aware that believing in our founding principles was so radical. I find great logic in listening to the wise words of Great Americans that risked everything to establish our republic. Why should they be vilified and slandered in such a way?

I believe its is the better patriot who questions and demands the best out of his government than the one is blindly loyal and assumes the government is looking out for his best interest.

The editor then goes to declare this resolution legally meaningless. This is something else that I wasn’t aware of, resolutions in the Georgia Senate can now be nullified by a newspaper editor…talk about the Power of the Press!

Bookman finishes his rant by claiming that we “have to question the judgment of those who would have any truck whatsoever with such nonsense…”

But, in reality, his editorial proves one thing that the rest of Georgia has known for decades – that the AJC, as well as much of Atlanta itself, has lost touch with the rest of Georgia. Seems to me that its quest to be the New York of the South is nearly complete.

Justin D. Lowry [send him email] is editor of Georgia Conservative Weekly.

Make sure you tune in to see a rarity – an expert on the 10th Amendment getting a chance to speak in the mainstream press.

From the WSCU website, here’s a little more about Dr. Gutzman:

Professor Kevin R. C. Gutzman is an expert in the Middle Period of American history, 1760-1877, with additional areas of expertise in American constitutional and Southern history. Dr. Gutzman was Distinguished Visiting Professor of History at New College in Sarasota, Florida (March 2008).    He was a featured expert in the documentary film “John Marshall: Citizen, Statesman, Jurist” (FFH, 2005).  His latest book is Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (co-authored with Thomas E. Woods, Jr.).  He is the author of the best-selling volume The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (Regnery Press, 2007) and Virginia’s American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic, 1776-1840 (Lexington Books, 2007), as well as the essay, “Lincoln as Jeffersonian: The Colonization Chimera” (which appears in Lincoln Emancipated: The President and the Politics of Race, ed. Brian Dirck (Northern Illinois University Press, 2007)).

Dr. Gutzman has published peer-reviewed articles in The Journal of Southern History, The Journal of the Early Republic, The Review of Politics, The Journal of the Historical Society, The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, and other journals; over fifty encyclopedia articles; scholarly reviews of over eighty books, films, and exhibitions in all the leading history journals; and numerous other essays in publications both scholarly and popular