Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
When I expressed my skepticism about nullification a few weeks ago, I did so in the spirit of "okay, we're all conservatives, but maybe some of our brethren have gone too far."
But I missed the larger story: the Left's double standard on nullification. It turns out that, back in the bad-old Bush days, Democrats were all in favor of nullifying the REAL ID Act, a homeland security measure (not that I like REAL ID myself, but it's surely less intrusive than Obamacare). Dozens of states passed legislation denouncing the law and, in some cases, flat-out refusing to comply.
Perhaps the biggest cheerleader of this nullification effort was Montana Governor Richard Schweitzer, a Democrat -- in fact, former chair of the Democratic Governors Association. He was lionized in Wired Magazine for "fomenting rebellion" and given a loving interview on NPR in which he declared that his state had the right to block REAL ID because "there's nothing in the Constitution" that gives Homeland Security the right to enforce it. And even before REAL ID, states practiced "nullification" of the Controlled Substances Act by passing medical marijuana laws.
But these days -- brace yourself -- "rebellion" isn't cool any longer. The Washington Monthly says nullification is "unhinged nonsense" on par with Birther issues, while Chris Matthews wipes the foam off his lips just long enough to declare nullification to be the tool of racists.
I'll buy a drink for anyone who can find me an example of the mainstream media denouncing the states' efforts to resist REAL ID or the Controlled Substances Act.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
I still think nullification is a legitimate tool of the states to cope with an overbearing, exceedingly repressive federal government. How likely is it that Obamacare will be overruled by the Supreme Court? Nullification will effectively decentralize political power and reduce the ability of the federal government to mess with the market. Alarmingly crude associations between nullification and racism/slavery shouldn't phase those who want to limit the federal government.
Sep '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
I am as uncomfortable with the idea of nullification as Lincoln would have been. I despise Obamacare, but there must be constitutional ways to combat it. At the same time, I do not think states should have to pay for unfunded mandates. Nullification is a serious step. The nullification threatened by South Carolina in 1832-33 eventually led to succession and civil war in 1860. Are we ready to go there yet?
Edited on Oct 3, 2010 at 11:10amRe: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
May '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
Standfast, The Russian Revolution of 1917 threatened civil society by introducing the world to socialism - yet it would be fallcious to conclude from that fact that revolutions per se are to be avoided. Effective instruments can be used for good or evil. However, the potential for evil should not prohibit the use of such methods You say its your opinion that the states should not have to pay for unfunded mandates. You have friends in this respect. But who will ensure that states will not pay for such mandates? I doubt the Supreme Court will.
May '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
Adam, because conservative flirtation with secession/nullification will be inextricably linked with racism, slavery, and segregation. Now, since the mainstream media has demonstrated its unwillingness to distinguish nullification with regard to Obamacare and nullification with regard to slavery/segregation, it therefore demonstrates its bias against those who oppose Obamacare. Standfast, who says nullification is unconstitutional? Thomas Woods argues that it is quite constitutional.
Aug '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
I am admittedly a neophyte to this issue. I thought nullification was an assertion (debatable perhaps) of a Constitutional solution. That is, those that invoke the notion of nullification do so based upon Constitutional grounds reserving all powers to the States that are not specified within itself.
Aug '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
Oops, I overlooked this comment before making mine. See, it pays to read carefully.
May '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
David, It indeed is the case that when states nullify or attempt to nullify federal laws, they argue that said federal laws are unconstitutional. So when states nullify, they accuse the federal government of acting unconstitutionally.
Aug '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
If, or when, the time comes--nullification will happen because events made it a foregone conclusion. If those days come to pass, it will not matter one bit what a press does to try to spin it.
Sep '10
Re: Nullification is Extreme, Except When Liberals Do It
To Mr. Freedman, the main stream media is two faced, inconsistent, and hopefully dieing. I've vented my rage against the Chris Matthews of the world so often that there is nothing left but spleen. I think your wallet is safe and that you will not have to set up anyone with drinks.
As for revolution, Lincoln argued for ballots, not bullets. Ultimately in his time it came to bullets, and it may do so again. But lets see what happens Nov. 2 first and with the next congress. I am trying to be an optimistic with that and with the Brethren of the Supreme Court.
Nullification constitutional? All that I've read says different, but admittedly I have never read Thomas Woods.