PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues New American: Rise of the "Tenthers"


Taco John
02-18-2010, 01:26 AM
State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement

Written by Patrick Krey
Thursday, 18 February 2010 01:00

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2957-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement


“Are we going to be free men or are we going to be slaves to the federal government of the United States?” retired state trooper and current State Delegate Charles W. Carrico, Sr. asked of the 1,000-strong rally gathered on the steps of the Virginia state capitol in January. While the like-minded crowd reacted with enthusiasm, such a rhetorical question might strike the average American as overdramatic. Are U.S. citizens really becoming “slaves to the federal government”?

There can be no mistake that the present-day federal government bears little resemblance to the extremely limited national government designed by our Founders, where the majority of domestic governing was to be left to the state and local levels. Fast forward 200-plus years and now Americans face a seemingly unstoppable centralized leviathan based out of Washington. Consider the following mind-blowing facts about the current U.S. government:

• With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the federal government, excluding the Postal Service, is the nation’s largest employer.

• The U.S. national debt is fast approaching $12.4 trillion, and Congress raised the debt limit by $1.9 trillion on February 4, opening the door for our debt to go above $14 trillion.

• Abroad, more than 190,000 U.S. troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in approximately 900 military facilities in 46 countries and territories, not to mention the 130,000 in Iraq and soon-to-be over 100,000 in Afghanistan.

The enormous size of the federal government is not very popular either. A Gallup poll conducted last September found that more than half of Americans believe that “the federal government has too much power.” Unpopularity aside, keep in mind that history has well established that government cannot grow without a corresponding decline in the economy, peace, and the rule of law. One need look no further than past empires to see what fate awaits a citizenry that concentrates all its power in one central government. How is it then that the U.S. government has morphed from a limited Republic designed by the Constitution to a virtually all-powerful behemoth? How did the Constitution, which was designed to carefully define and limit the powers of the national government, become an open-ended grant of power to that very same government? Perhaps an answer can be found in the U.S. Supreme Court, the entity “conventional wisdom” believes is entrusted with the sole power to interpret the Constitution.

A federal government website, “Ben’s Guide to U.S. Government,” contains a cartoon version of Ben Franklin explaining how our current system of government works. The site includes the following proclamation: “One of the Supreme Court’s most important responsibilities is to decide cases that raise questions of constitutional interpretation. The Court decides if a law or government action violates the Constitution.… Since the Supreme Court stands as the ultimate authority in constitutional interpretation, its decisions can be changed only by another Supreme Court decision or by a constitutional amendment.” (Emphasis added.)

What’s wrong with this you might ask? New York Times best-selling author and historian Thomas Woods provided the answer clearly and concisely at the Campaign for Liberty’s January 15 regional meeting when he discussed the views of Thomas Jefferson: “Jefferson’s concern was that if we say the federal government has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, what do you think is going to happen? This is not brain surgery. If they have a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, they’re going to interpret it in their own favor. Surprise! Then we all scratch our heads and wonder, ‘Why has the government gotten so completely out of control?’” Woods hammered home how completely preposterous it is for the Supreme Court to have the sole and final say on the extent of federal power with the following analogy: “If you enter into a contract with somebody, never, ever would you say that the other party in the contract can exclusively interpret what it means…. Obviously, if only one party in a contract can interpret it, it’s going to interpret it in its own favor!”

The Rise of the “Tenthers”
Proponents of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution have been starting to rise up en masse to remind the national government of its proper constitutional role under the principles of federalism. This loose network of activists, widely referred to as the state sovereignty movement or Tenth Amendment movement, were given the derisive nickname “tenthers” by detractors, but in a witty reversal, they gladly adopted the label. The Tenth Amendment Center, the major hub online for state sovereignty activism, has even renamed its blog, “the tenther grapevine.”

Typically, the response by some of the biggest names in the news media has been to actively disparage anyone who strictly adheres to the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution. David Shuster of MSNBC proclaimed that most “people in their right-thinking mind know that the Tenth Amendment is a bunch of baloney.”

Fellow MSNBC news anchor Lawrence O’Donnell, filling in for Keith Olberman, also raged against what he ridiculed as “tenthers” — individuals who believe in the Jeffersonian principles of a government limited to the powers specifically enumerated within the four corners of our founding document: “The tenther movement ... erroneously claims that the federal government cannot force changes in health care law on the states.”

In O’Donnell’s view, anyone who would make such a claim is clearly ignorant and trying to dredge up areas that are now settled law. But what can be more settled than the fact that words have meaning, and the Constitution means what it says? Consider the clear language of the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Yet Supreme Court justices and others ignore and circumvent language such as this, based on the absurd theory that the Constitution must be constantly redefined to fit our “enlightened times,” with the power of constitutional interpretation vested solely with the federal government.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 01:26 AM
O’Donnell and similar critics should read some of the speeches of our seventh Vice President, John C. Calhoun, who warned that such a viewpoint would destroy the Republic and pave the way for tyranny. Calhoun addressed this directly in his Fort Hill address:

Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten that, where the majority rules without restriction, the minority is the subject; and that, if we should absurdly attribute to the former the exclusive right of construing the Constitution, there would be, in fact, between the sovereign and subject, under such a government, no Constitution, or, at least, nothing deserving the name, or serving the legitimate object of so sacred an instrument.

Calhoun was but one of many of the most prominent advocates of state sovereignty throughout American history who were true believers in limited government.

Early last year, tenthers were instrumental in getting a number of state legislatures to introduce 10th Amendment resolutions that, while legally non-binding, not only invoked the 10th Amendment but stated: “This resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

Oklahoma State Representative Charles Key was on the ground floor of the modern state sovereignty movement when it first started way back in the early ’90s, and was successful last year in getting a new 10th Amendment resolution passed in the house legislature in Oklahoma. In an interview with The New American, Key explained the educational importance of the 10th Amendment resolutions. “I feel very strongly about this system of government that we have as it was originally created. I feel very strongly about how we have moved far away from that and that we need to return to it. I saw the resolution as both a statement and a tool for informing and educating people but primarily as a first step to correct the problem.” Key explains that this first step is similar to a landlord delivering a notice of eviction to a tenant who has violated the terms of his lease. “If you’ve got a tenant that’s not paying rent, you don’t just show up one day with an empty truck. First, you serve notice. That’s how we see these resolutions, as a notice to the federal government. And there definitely will be follow up.” So that brings us to the next step: nullification.

No one ever accused the feds of being good listeners, so when some states passed these state sovereignty resolutions, the feds continued merrily on their unconstitutional path. States, however, are no longer just rolling over. Something exciting and unexpected is happening. States across the nation are either passing statutes or proposing amendments that directly conflict with federal statutes.

State nullification is actually an elaborate term for a simple concept that is taught to young children. When a child has a problem with another child who is verbally teasing him or her, they are often told “ignore them and they’ll go away.” State nullification basically follows this same directive. If the feds pass a law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state will simply ignore the law and refuse to comply with it. This might sound revolutionary to some, but it shouldn’t. It’s already happened.

Nullification Illustrations
• The REAL ID Act: REAL ID was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush in 2005, and the resistance to it illustrates a likely scenario for state nullification. More than two dozen states have passed laws or resolutions denouncing the act or refusing to comply with it. Have the feds responded by sending in federal agents with their guns blazing? Absolutely not! Instead, the feds were all too quick to chicken out and postpone enactment of the law. Michael Boldin, founder of the influential Tenth Amendment Center, writes, “Another indicator of victory for state-level nullification — the 2005 Real ID act was originally to be implemented in early 2008, and today, it’s still in limbo. Going on 2 years later, with more than two dozen states passing laws and resolutions denouncing or flat-out refusing to comply — and D.C. has no choice but to continue backing off…. Why? With such massive resistance among the states, the Feds just have no way to enforce it.”

REAL ID seems to have just been the start. As the nullification cat is out of the bag, states all across the nation are attempting to nullify federal laws covering such disparate topics as healthcare and firearms.

• Healthcare: Wisconsin’s Grandsons of Liberty and other groups began lobbying state legislators to pursue healthcare nullification by proposing an amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution allowing the state to opt out of government healthcare. This effort isn’t unique to Wisconsin, as activists in 28 other states are also involved in similar actions.

The National Conference of State Legislatures reports that members of at least 18 legislatures are submitting bills that would oppose or limit all or parts of federal healthcare reform efforts. Delegate Robert G. Marshall, the sponsor of Virginia legislation that would nullify Democratic healthcare legislation, said, “If this starts to roll across the United States, it’s going to send a big signal to Congress: You are messing with things you have no power to do.”

In Missouri, on January 13, 30 lawmakers and Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder joined a rally at the state capitol to endorse an amendment to the state Constitution that would nullify any national healthcare plan that makes it mandatory for Americans to purchase health insurance. The Missouri amendment states:

No law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly or through penalties or fines, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.

The idea to amend state constitutions to nullify federal healthcare legislation first started at the Goldwater Institute in the state of Arizona, where it will be on the ballot later this year. Clint Bolick, a lawyer at the Goldwater Institute who helped devise the idea, said, “The measures are an opportunity for people to make their views known in a tangible way, to generate some rumble at the grass roots.… Our system of federalism was designed to ensure that the federal government acts only within the boundaries of its defined powers and that states may give broader protection to individual liberty than does the federal Constitution. The system can endure only if its principles are applied consistently.”

This is just the beginning according to Wisconsin activist Tim Dake in an interview with The New American. He and the Grandsons of Liberty have their sights set on other targets for nullification. “Our group has actually hammered out a 12-item agenda we would like to see done legislatively in Wisconsin over the next two years. We’re interested in a healthcare freedom amendment to nullify nationalized healthcare but we also want to nullify cap and trade, card check, as well as passing laws like the federal firearms freedom act.”

• Firearms Freedom Act: While nullification legislation spreads like a wildfire, perhaps no other issue has generated as much controversy and excitement as the Firearms Freedom Act (FFA), which has been passed in Montana and Tennessee, has been proposed in Wyoming, and is being considered in 10 other states. The FFA openly challenges the federal contention that it has the authority to regulate firearms under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, by declaring that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

The Montana FFA states that a “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) informed all licensed arms dealers via an open letter that such legislation is unconstitutional under the supremacy clause. Government lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in federal court against the FFA.

Timothy Baldwin, attorney and son of the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate Pastor Chuck Baldwin, is co-counsel in the federal litigation to validate the Montana FFA. In an interview with The New American, Timothy Baldwin explained what he thought of the -BATFE’s response that the supremacy clause preempts any state legislation in this area. “That is simply an incorrect political position based upon the very nature and character of the Union in 1787. When the Ratifiers ratified the compact, it was understood to be what they called both concurrent powers and lines of sovereignty. The states were left with powers they did not concede. This was expressed through The Federalist Papers. When the federal government usurps those powers, it is the right of those people of those states to defend and repel those encroachments.”

Possible Pitfalls
This is not to say that all is rosy and state nullification is on its way to restoring our constitutional republic. A number of nullification laws have been vetoed by Governors or stalled in state legislatures. If nullification is going to succeed, many in the movement have to be wise about their next steps. The state nullification movement definitely does have major obstacles obstructing its goal of returning the federal government to its constitutional limits.

Taco John
02-18-2010, 01:27 AM
Some activists are heading down the fruitless path of endless legal challenges in federal courts to validate their state nullification legislation. The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit in federal court to uphold the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. While good-hearted, these groups are unnecessarily expending their time and energy. Just as Thomas Woods explained at the Campaign for Liberty conference, entrusting one party (the federal government) with the sole power to interpret a contract (U.S. Constitution) is the problem. Most observers familiar with the centralizing nature of the federal courts would be shocked if the courts suddenly did a complete 180 and ruled that an act like the Freedom Firearms Act was constitutional. This was exactly why citizens took their battles to the state legislatures. If Montanans were serious about their sovereignty, they would simply start following the terms of the Freedom Firearms Act and ignore any federal directives.

This brings us to the next and biggest problem: How will the feds retaliate if states do start ignoring federal laws? The most likely scenario if states refuse to comply with federal mandates is the often used tactic of “power of the purse.” An example of the feds using funding as an incentive for a state to play ball is the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required the states to uniformly raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10 percent of their federal highway funds. The states all complied, and the rest is history. If states start resisting federal direction, the feds will utilize this tactic of threatening to bankrupt the states to silence the opposition. Can the feds blackmail the states into compliance?

Many of the 10th Amendment resolutions contain a reference to the U.S. Supreme Court’s case New York v. United States, as precedent that the federal government cannot “commandeer States into the service of federal regulatory purpose” via funding. While Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did make this statement in her opinion, it was in regard to a specific clause of federal regulation that actually would have forced the states to “take title” to radioactive waste. The Court actually did rule that two other funding-related clauses were constitutional under the taxing and spending clause of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, in Fullilove v. Klutznick, the Court has ruled that “Congress has frequently employed the Spending Power to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.” Tenthers have another think coming if they think federal precedent is on their side.

Timothy Baldwin is concerned, but told The New American that such action will be more detrimental to the feds in the long run. “Certainly the strings that are attached to federal funding are conditioned on the states going along. They may attempt to use that, but what I believe is that they will reveal their hand. They’re revealing that they are using federal funding as a method of enslaving the states. They will no longer have good faith in governing through the Constitution but rather are simply looking out for the power of the federal government. I think it will unravel for the federal government the more and more they press the issue.”

But will state residents support this if they’ll lose out on what many perceive as free cash? How would state residents react if a state that passes a healthcare nullification amendment loses out on all federal funding for popular programs?

Besides hoping to make D.C. appear like an extortionist by withholding federal funding, there is also another tactic states may use. A proposed state law entitled State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Act, which has already been introduced in three states, would enable the states to interpose themselves between the federal tax collectors and state citizens. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, such “laws would require that all federal taxes come first to the state’s Department of Revenue. A panel of legislators would assay the Constitutional appropriateness of the Federal Budget, and then forward to the federal government a percentage of the federal tax dollars that are delineated as legal and Constitutionally justified. The remainder of those dollars would be assigned to budgetary items that are currently funded through federal allocations and grants or returned to the people of the state.” A bold move like this might stop the flow of money to the feds before they could even use it to force the states into submission. Again, tenthers will need to be wise about how they handle the political gamesmanship with the feds because they risk alienating the average voter if their tactics are too aggressive or confrontational. Perhaps even the threat of such legislation might be enough to make the feds back off on their threats of cutting off funds.

Finally, another potential pitfall lies in the possibility of someone taking the state nullification movement too far in the wrong direction. The goal of nullification should simply be inaction when the feds want action; however, some newer nullification legislation has become more forceful. A Firearms Freedom Act has been introduced in New Hampshire that contains the following clause:

Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.

The bill’s prime sponsor, state Representative Daniel Itse, said, “This is about protecting the rights of our citizens when the federal government has no jurisdiction.” This is the first FFA in the nation where federal officials could be criminally prosecuted for trying to enforce federal firearms laws. While that might sound good to some, the states need to be cautious about appearing as the aggressor. One false move could tarnish the state sovereignty movement and forever damage the cause in the court of public opinion. The key to successfully using nullification is to expose the federal government as the aggressive, unconstitutional usurper, and states would be wise to not directly confront them.

The Future of Nullification
While many mainstream media news articles on nullification paint it as a GOP tactic of merely paying lip-service to their anti-Obama base, nullification legislation appears to be cutting across the political spectrum. Some legislation is not limited to causes typically associated with the conservative movement. For instance, there is state nullification in the areas of marijuana decriminalization, as well as efforts to bring National Guard units home from unconstitutional wars overseas.

The “Bring the Guard Home” legislation, currently introduced in seven states and active in 20, was initially proposed by a liberal activist, but it is now being embraced by the grass roots from all walks of life. The proposed legislation would simply require a state’s Governor, and/or the legislature, to evaluate the legality of orders for Guard deployments and first have an opportunity to either allow or deny the deployment. One can only imagine how popular such legislation will be considering that opposition to the war in Afghanistan has risen almost as high as 60 percent.

Many within the freedom movement are excited by the prospect of liberal grass-roots activists in blue states nullifying unconstitutional conservative federal actions, with conservative grass-roots activists in red states nullifying unconstitutional liberal federal actions.

If the tenthers continue to play it smart, there is a good chance the sovereignty movement will continue to thrive and grow. If it does, it will continue to spark debate over not only the proper separation of power between state and federal governments but who decides when the federal government oversteps its proper authority and how to rein in the federal government when it does overstep. All of America will be watching to see how the federal and state governments actually react to these measures. As more states become involved in the surging nullification movement, the feds will find themselves faced with a veritable uprising of noncompliant states. The strong potential for the nullification movement to move far beyond partisan politics means that even if control of the capital shifts back and forth among the two main political parties, D.C. might begrudgingly find itself limited to doing only what’s allowed in the Constitution.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2957-state-vs-federal-the-nullification-movement

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 07:21 AM
Cool, Isolationism for the states! Go Ron Paul!

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 08:46 AM
Cool, Isolationism for the states! Go Ron Paul!

You really need to get a dictionary to get political terminology down.
Isolationism refers to foreign policy. It does not refer to our system of federalism.

wild1
02-18-2010, 09:41 AM
"tenthers".

Do we need a slur created immediately for everyone, in order to label and straw-man them?

banyon
02-18-2010, 09:43 AM
Calhoun lost this debate 140 years ago. It was called "the Civil War".

BigRedChief
02-18-2010, 09:55 AM
You really need to get a dictionary to get political terminology down.
Isolationism refers to foreign policy. It does not refer to our system of federalism.I'm just poking TJ with a verbal stick.
Lighten up Francis
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2564590109_5cffd05093.jpg?v=0

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 11:21 AM
60% of the state of Utah is "owned" by the federal government. One example of a Centralized Politburo violating our constitution.

banyon
02-18-2010, 11:27 AM
60% of the state of Utah is "owned" by the federal government. One example of a Centralized Politburo violating our constitution.

How does that violate the Constitution?

Do you not know how that land came into the possession of the government in the first place?

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 11:36 AM
I don't know How that violates the Constitution and I don't know how that land came into the possession of the government in the first place. I am an asshole

My guess would be by decree by Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, but anyway...


Conservative Utah lawmakers want to spark a U.S. Supreme Court case that could ultimately allow states to develop resource-rich parcels of land that are now off limits where the federal government is the landlord.

The lawmakers said Thursday they will attempt to trigger an avalanche of legislation in the West through the use of eminent domain, which governments use to take private property for public use.

More than 60 percent of Utah is owned by the federal government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.

Utah spends less per student than any other state and has the nation's largest class sizes.

Legislation was introduced in the Utah House on Thursday allowing the use of eminent domain on federal land. The effort has the full support of Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who would have to defend the law.

The proposals include setting aside $3 million for a legal defense — money that otherwise would have gone to support the state's schools. This year, Utah is facing an expected $700 million budget shortfall.

GOP lawmakers said it's a worthwhile investment because the state has the potential to create tens of billions of dollars in new revenue if a court rules in its favor.

Initially, the state would target three areas for the use of eminent domain, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves.

"In the Kaiparowits plateau alone there is a trillion dollars worth of natural resources. Had that been privatized ... we'd have $50 billion in our school trust land," said Rep. Christopher Herrod, a Provo Republican sponsoring the eminent domain bill.

Herrod contends that the federal government has violated its contract with Utah when it gained statehood because it has not sold federal lands and given the state money from it for its school system.

Eminent domain would also be used on parcels of land where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar scrapped 77 oil and gas leases around national parks and wild areas.

Shurtleff acknowledges winning a legal battle would be difficult. There's also no guarantee the Supreme Court would even hear the case, although Shurtleff believes the court's makeup would look favorably upon state rights issues.

Herrod likened the probable court challenge to "swinging for the fences" in baseball.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

* 3 Votes
* Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/02/11/3882118-utah-lawmakers-want-federal-land-returned-to-state

banyon
02-18-2010, 12:53 PM
My guess would be by decree by Progressive Teddy Roosevelt, but anyway...


Your guess and grasp of history do not fail to disappoint.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:54 PM
I'm just poking TJ with a verbal stick.
Lighten up Francis
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2564590109_5cffd05093.jpg?v=0

Well, it wasn't very effective. You still need to use the word right for it to be effective or communicate. Sorry, that one's on you not me.

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 01:24 PM
Your guess and grasp of history do not fail to disappoint.

Another ad hominem.

Like you said

Originally Posted by banyon View Post
I don't know How that violates the Constitution and I don't know how that land came into the possession of the government in the first place. I am an asshole

banyon
02-18-2010, 02:36 PM
Another ad hominem.



I said you didn't know the history. You don't.

notorious
02-18-2010, 02:53 PM
This country was founded on the idea that people are born to be free.


Free to be successful, free to fail, free to do whatever the hell they wanted or needed to as long as it didn't bring someone else into the equation.

This country was NOT founded to give handouts. It was NOT founded to forcefully take money and property from it's citizens. It definately was NOT founded to support the pieces of shit in congress and/or any president.


Government: Get the **** out of our lives. If you want to impose your idea of a utopia, take it somewhere else. This country WAS just fine without you.

orange
02-18-2010, 03:04 PM
Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


That's all, folks! All the limits on Congress.

Question to Tenthers and other "originalists" - what document is that from?

banyon
02-18-2010, 03:07 PM
This country was founded on the idea that people are born to be free.

This is a noble sentiment, and I agree with it, but it's hard to take at face value with a document that explicitly recognizes the right of people to own other people.

mikey23545
02-18-2010, 03:25 PM
Calhoun lost this debate 140 years ago. It was called "the Civil War".

Ahh, so the rationale behind the Civil War was to crush state's rights, and not to end slavery? How brave of a liberal to adopt such a stance...

I'm sure you and Obama would love to send in some jack-booted thugs to squelch this newest insurrection....

orange
02-18-2010, 03:29 PM
Ahh, so the rationale behind the Civil War was to crush state's rights, and not to end slavery? How brave of a liberal to adopt such a stance...

I'm sure you and Obama would love to send in some jack-booted thugs to squelch this newest insurrection....

Jack-booted thugs squelching the first U.S. insurrection:

http://www.ng.mil/resources/photo_gallery/heritage/images/lawsunion.jpg

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 03:36 PM
Other articles of wisdom from John Calhoun: Slavery is "instead of an evil, a good, a positive good".

Yeah, thanks.

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 03:37 PM
Jack-booted thugs squelching the first U.S. insurrection:

http://www.ng.mil/resources/photo_gallery/heritage/images/lawsunion.jpg

Yeah, the libertarians try really hard not to remember George Washington. He didn't take their side on much of the issues that they love the most. They vilify Alexander Hamilton while ignoring that Washington almost invariably followed Hamilton's line of thinking instead of their own hero's.

banyon
02-18-2010, 03:42 PM
Ahh, so the rationale behind the Civil War was to crush state's rights, and not to end slavery? How brave of a liberal to adopt such a stance...

I'm sure you and Obama would love to send in some jack-booted thugs to squelch this newest insurrection....

I've never pretended state's rights weren't a major issue in the War between the States.

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 03:44 PM
Ahh, so the rationale behind the Civil War was to crush state's rights, and not to end slavery? How brave of a liberal to adopt such a stance...


It was neither, actually, but whatever.

mikey23545
02-18-2010, 03:53 PM
Yeah, the libertarians try really hard not to remember George Washington. He didn't take their side on much of the issues that they love the most. They vilify Alexander Hamilton while ignoring that Washington almost invariably followed Hamilton's line of thinking instead of their own hero's.

Ahh, so trying to hold together a new, fragile union that had yet to really coalesce into a nation is the same as a bitter, angry, neo-communist wannabe dictator sending in the brown-shirts to enforce his royal fiat?

Stalin would be proud, my Brave New Progressives.

orange
02-18-2010, 03:56 PM
Ahh, so trying to hold together a new, fragile union that had yet to really coalesce into a nation is the same as a bitter, angry, neo-communist wannabe dictator sending in the brown-shirts to enforce his royal fiat?

Stalin would be proud, my Brave New Progressives.

So would Eisenhower:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2006/04/22/1145711135_9279.jpg

Amnorix
02-18-2010, 04:04 PM
Ahh, so trying to hold together a new, fragile union that had yet to really coalesce into a nation is the same as a bitter, angry, neo-communist wannabe dictator sending in the brown-shirts to enforce his royal fiat?

Stalin would be proud, my Brave New Progressives.

He's done that? Really?

Last I saw he couldn't even get a health care bill through Congress even with a supermajority...

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 06:12 PM
Yeah nullification = another civil war

What a joke. In recent years, nullification was used to defeat Bush's real ID.

Geesh! I never knew Dems, or even Progressives for that matter, were such nationalists. Put that together with their socialism. Whattya' get?

banyon
02-18-2010, 06:14 PM
Yeah nullification = another civil war

What a joke. In recent years, nullification was used to defeat Bush's real ID.

Geesh! I never knew Dems, or even Progressives for that matter, were such nationalists. Put that together with their socialism. Whattya' get?

Uh, what? :spock:

notorious
02-18-2010, 08:42 PM
This is a noble sentiment, and I agree with it, but it's hard to take at face value with a document that explicitly recognizes the right of people to own other people.

Absolutely Correct. Their idea is sound, but they had clouded judgement (to put it lightly) in other areas.

The Mad Crapper
02-19-2010, 11:40 AM
Ahh, so the rationale behind the Civil War was to crush state's rights, and not to end slavery?

Pretty much, yeah.

Chocolate Hog
02-19-2010, 01:38 PM
Tenthers are racist.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 01:44 PM
Civil War crushed state's rights for mercantilist interests. Those were the industrialists who wanted subsidies for public works infrastructure which was RRs at that time. These are the corporate interests that put Lincoln into power. Hence that super high tariff passed on the south that was the last straw. It would not have benefitted them.

Amnorix
02-19-2010, 01:56 PM
Civil War crushed state's rights for mercantilist interests. Those were the industrialists who wanted subsidies for public works infrastructure which was RRs at that time. These are the corporate interests that put Lincoln into power. Hence that super high tariff passed on the south that was the last straw. It would not have benefitted them.

So it's your understanding that "corporate interests" put a hick lawyer from the backwoods into power, instead of long standing New York Senator William Seward.

Nor of course was LIncoln even in office long enough to have anything to do with ANY "super high tariff", which makes it very hard to understand how IT could possibly have been the "last straw".

Thanks again for your contribution to historical inaccuracy.

orange
02-19-2010, 04:45 PM
Madison is considered the Father of the Constitution for this reason but he basically took notes from the Convention debates, the compromises of them all and crafted the final document.

They may not have agreed on every detail but they did on the basics. Of course there was a serpent in the room with them too.;)

Being the final arbiter is an abstract thing, but the reality is the guy that penned it is a damn expert on it.


I agree with you on this. Yet, he was also a key contributer in debating too. He was also one of the writers of the Federalist Papers.

The final document is the compromise of all the issues much of which was the entire topic of how much govt should be necessary to accomplish their objectives without destroying freedom. I say they reached a historical and new form of govt om trying to set boundaries for a central govt. It may not have been perfect but it was a revolutionary idea that is now being drowned in ideas of the Ancien Régime, but covered up with new words.


Document 43

James Madison, Notes on Nullification 1835--36

Writings 9:606--7

A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt. in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a6_2s43.html

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 05:29 PM
Orange, they debated that and Madison was with the Federalists originally; then went more with Jefferson later particularly after Hamilton's escapades regarding the bank. He even destroyed some of his notes because of that. At the convention they discussed the idea of using force if a state were to leave and they decided to do away with it. There was also practice of nullification in the early days as well.

Madison also considered it supreme law of the land only in regards to the enumerated clauses and it's jurisdiction in those areas. You have to be careful to not take Madison out of context on that. Because he wrote to Hamilton when he was being too expansive on the tax and spend clause.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 05:33 PM
Virginia Resolution of 1798 (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/virginia-resolution-of-1798/)

James Madison wrote.


That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.


So Madison did support state's having the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts. And they were “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state in order to preserve liberty.

orange
02-19-2010, 06:15 PM
James Madison

To Edward Everett

Augst. 28 1830.

Dr. Sir

I have duly recd. your letter in wch. you refer to the "nullifying doctrine," advocated as a constitutional right by some of our distinguished fellow citizens; and to the proceedings of the Virga. Legislature in 98 & 99, as appealed to in behalf of that doctrine; and you express a wish for my ideas on those subjects.

I am aware of the delicacy of the task in some respects; and the difficulty in every respect of doing full justice to it. But having in more than one instance complied with a like request from other friendly quarters, I do not decline a sketch of the views which I have been led to take of the doctrine in question, as well as some others connected with them; and of the grounds from which it appears that the proceedings of Virginia have been misconceived by those who have appealed to them. In order to understand the true character of the Constitution of the U. S. the error, not uncommon, must be avoided, of viewing it through the medium either of a consolidated Government or of a confederated Govt. whilst it is neither the one nor the other, but a mixture of both. And having in no model the similitudes & analogies applicable to other systems of Govt it must more than any other be its own interpreter, according to its text & the facts of the case.

From these it will be seen that the characteristic peculiarities of the Constitution are 1. The mode of its formation, 2. The division of the supreme powers of Govt between the States in their united capacity and the States in their individual capacities.

1. It was formed, not by the Governments of the component States, as the Federal Govt. for which it was substituted was formed; nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the U. S. as a single community in the manner of a consolidated Government.

It was formed by the States — that is by the people in each of the States, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed, consequently by the same authority which formed the State Constitutions.

Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it has within each State, the same authority as the Constitution of the State; and is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will.

2. And that it divides the supreme powers of Govt. between the Govt. of the United States, & the Govts. of the individual States, is stamped on the face of the instrument; the powers of war and of taxation, of commerce & of treaties, and other enumerated powers vested in the Govt. of the U. S. being of as high & sovereign a character as any of the powers reserved to the State Govts.

Nor is the Govt. of the U. S. created by the Constitution, less a Govt. in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers, than the Govts. created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is like them organized into Legislative, Executive, & Judiciary Departments. It operates like them, directly on persons & things. And, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it. The concurrent operation in certain cases is one of the features marking the peculiarity of the system.

Between these different constitutional Govts. — the one operating in all the States, the others operating separately in each, with the aggregate powers of Govt. divided between them, it could not escape attention that controversies would arise concerning the boundaries of jurisdiction; and that some provision ought to be made for such occurrences. A political system that does not provide for a peaceable & authoritative termination of occurring controversies, would not be more than the shadow of a Govt.; the object & end of a real Govt. being the substitution of law & order for uncertainty confusion, and violence.

That to have left a final decision in such cases to each of the States, then 13 & already 24, could not fail to make the Constn. & laws of the U. S. different in different States was obvious; and not less obvious, that this diversity of independent decisions, must altogether distract the Govt. of the Union & speedily put an end to the Union itself. A uniform authority of the laws, is in itself a vital principle. Some of the most important laws could not be partially executed. They must be executed in all the States or they could be duly executed in none. An impost or an excise, for example, if not in force in some States, would be defeated in others. It is well known that this was among the lessons of experience wch. had a primary influence in bringing about the existing Constitution. A loss of its general authy. would moreover revive the exasperating questions between the States holding ports for foreign commerce and the adjoining States without them, to which are now added all the inland States necessarily carrying on their foreign commerce through other States.

To have made the decisions under the authority of the individual States, co-ordinate in all cases with decisions under the authority of the U. S. would unavoidably produce collisions incompatible with the peace of society, & with that regular & efficient administration which is the essence of free Govts. Scenes could not be avoided in which a ministerial officer of the U. S. and the correspondent officer of an individual State, would have rencounters in executing conflicting decrees, the result of which would depend on the comparative force of the local posse attending them, and that a casualty depending on the political opinions and party feelings in different States.

To have referred every clashing decision under the two authorities for a final decision to the States as parties to the Constitution, would be attended with delays, with inconveniences, and with expenses amounting to a prohibition of the expedient, not to mention its tendency to impair the salutary veneration for a system requiring such frequent interpositions, nor the delicate questions which might present themselves as to the form of stating the appeal, and as to the Quorum for deciding it.

To have trusted to negociation, for adjusting disputes between the Govt. of the U. S. and the State Govts. as between independent & separate sovereignties, would have lost sight altogether of a Constitution & Govt. for the Union; and opened a direct road from a failure of that resort, to the ultima ratio between nations wholly independent of and alien to each other. If the idea had its origin in the process of adjustment between separate branches of the same Govt. the analogy entirely fails. In the case of disputes between independent parts of the same Govt. neither part being able to consummate its will, nor the Gov. to proceed without a concurrence of the parts, necessity brings about an accommodation. In disputes between a State Govt. and the Govt. of the U. States the case is practically as well as theoretically different; each party possessing all the Departments of an organized Govt. Legisl. Ex. & Judiciary; and having each a physical force to support its pretensions. Although the issue of negociation might sometimes avoid this extremity, how often would it happen among so many States, that an unaccommodating spirit in some would render that resource unavailing? A contrary supposition would not accord with a knowledge of human nature or the evidence of our own political history.

The Constitution, not relying on any of the preceding modifications for its safe & successful operation, has expressly declared on the one hand; 1. "That the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the land; 2. That the judges of every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constn or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; 3. That the judicial power of the U. S. shall extend to all cases in law & equity arising under the Constitution, the laws of the U. S. and Treaties made under their authority &c."

On the other hand, as a security of the rights & powers of the States in their individual capacities, agst. an undue preponderance of the powers granted to the Government over them in their united capacity, the Constitution has relied on, 1. The responsibility of the Senators and Representatives in the Legislature of the U. S. to the Legislatures & people of the States. 2. The responsibility of the President to the people of the U. States; & 3. The liability of the Ex. and Judiciary functionaries of the U. S. to impeachment by the Representatives of the people of the States, in one branch of the Legislature of the U. S. and trial by the Representatives of the States, in the other branch; the State functionaries, Legislative, Executive, & judiciary, being at the same time in their appointment & responsibility, altogether independent of the agency or authority of the U. States.

How far this structure of the Govt. of the U. S. be adequate & safe for its objects, time alone can absolutely determine. Experience seems to have shown that whatever may grow out of future stages of our national career, there is as yet a sufficient controul in the popular will over the Executive & Legislative Departments of the Govt. When the Alien & Sedition laws were passed in contravention to the opinions and feelings of the community, the first elections that ensued put an end to them. And whatever may have been the character of other acts in the judgment of many of us, it is but true that they have generally accorded with the views of a majority of the States and of the people. At the present day it seems well understood that the laws which have created most dissatisfaction have had a like sanction without doors; and that whether continued varied or repealed, a like proof will be given of the sympathy & responsibility of the Representative Body to the Constituent Body. Indeed, the great complaint now is, not against the want of this sympathy and responsibility, but against the results of them in the legislative policy of the nation.

[end part I]

orange
02-19-2010, 06:16 PM
[part II]

With respect to the Judicial power of the U. S. and the authority of the Supreme Court in relation to the boundary of jurisdiction between the Federal & the State Govts. I may be permitted to refer to the number of the "Federalist" for the light in which the subject was regarded by its writer, at the period when the Constitution was depending; and it is believed that the same was the prevailing view then taken of it, that the same view has continued to prevail, and that it does so at this time notwithstanding the eminent exceptions to it.

But it is perfectly consistent with the concession of this power to the Supreme Court, in cases falling within the course of its functions, to maintain that the power has not always been rightly exercised. To say nothing of the period, happily a short one, when judges in their seats did not abstain from intemperate & party harangues, equally at variance with their duty and their dignity, there have been occasional decisions from the Bench which have incurred serious & extensive disapprobation. Still it would seem that, with but few exceptions, the course of the judiciary has been hitherto sustained by the predominant sense of the nation.

Those who have denied or doubted the supremacy of the judicial power of the U. S. & denounce at the same time nullifying power in a State, seem not to have sufficiently adverted to the utter inefficiency of a supremacy in a law of the land, without a supremacy in the exposition & execution of the law; nor to the destruction of all equipoise between the Federal Govt. and the State governments, if, whilst the functionaries of the Fedl. Govt. are directly or indirectly elected by and responsible to the States & the functionaries of the States are in their appointments & responsibility wholly independent of the U. S. no constitutional control of any sort belonged to the U. S. over the States. Under such an organization it is evident that it would be in the power of the States individually, to pass unauthorized laws, and to carry them into complete effect, anything in the Constn. and laws of the U. S. to the contrary notwithstanding. This would be a nullifying power in its plenary character; and whether it had its final effect, thro the Legislative Ex. or Judiciary organ of the State, would be equally fatal to the constitutional relation between the two Govts.

Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Govt. & rights of the States agst. usurpations & abuses on the part of the U. S. the final resort within the purview of the Constn. lies in an amendment of the Constn. according to a process applicable by the States.

And in the event of a failure of every constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations & abuses, rendering passive obedience & non-resistence a greater evil, than resistence & revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all, an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the constitutional compact, to original rights & the law of self-preservation. This is the ultima ratio under all Govt. whether consolidated, confederated, or a compound of both; and it cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only would have a right, as an extra & ultra constitutional right, to make the appeal.

This brings us to the expedient lately advanced, which claims for a single State a right to appeal agst. an exercise of power by the Govt. of the U. S. decided by the State to be unconstitutional, to the parties of the Const, compact; the decision of the State to have the effect of nullifying the act of the Govt. of the U. S. unless the decision of the State be reversed by three-fourths of the parties.

The distinguished names & high authorities which appear to have asserted and given a practical scope to this doctrine, entitle it to a respect which it might be difficult otherwise to feel for it.

If the doctrine were to be understood as requiring the three-fourths of the States to sustain, instead of that proportion to reverse, the decision of the appealing State, the decision to be without effect during the appeal, it wd. be sufficient to remark, that this extra constl. course might well give way to that marked out by the Const, which authorizes 2/3 of the States to institute and 3/4. to effectuate, an amendment of the Constn. establishing a permanent rule of the highest authy in place of an irregular precedent of construction only.

But it is understood that the nullifying doctrine imports that the decision of the State is to be presumed valid, and that it overrules the law of the U. S. unless overuled by 3/4 of the States.

Can more be necessary to demonstrate the inadmissibility of such a doctrine than that it puts it in the power of the smallest fraction over 1/4 of the U. S. — that is, of 7 States out of 24 — to give the law and even the Constn. to 17 States, each of the 17 having as parties to the Constn. an equal right with each of the 7 to expound it & to insist on the exposition. That the 7 might, in particular instances be right and the 17 wrong, is more than possible. But to establish a positive & permanent rule giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority, would overturn the first principle of free Govt. and in practice necessarily overturn the Govt. itself.

It is to be recollected that the Constitution was proposed to the people of the States as a whole, and unanimously adopted by the States as a whole, it being a part of the Constitution that not less than 3/4 of the States should be competent to make any alteration in what had been unanimously agreed to. So great is the caution on this point, that in two cases when peculiar interests were at stake, a proportion even of 3/4 is distrusted, and unanimity required to make an alteration.

When the Constitution was adopted as a whole, it is certain that there were many parts which if separately proposed, would have been promptly rejected. It is far from impossible, that every part of the Constitution might be rejected by a majority, and yet, taken together as a whole be unanimously accepted. Free constitutions will rarely if ever be formed without reciprocal concessions; without articles conditioned on & balancing each other. Is there a constitution of a single State out of the 24 that wd. bear the experiment of having its component parts submitted to the people & separately decided on?

What the fate of the Constitution of the U. S. would be if a small proportion of States could expunge parts of it particularly valued by a large majority, can have but one answer.

The difficulty is not removed by limiting the doctrine to cases of construction. How many cases of that sort, involving cardinal provisions of the Constitution, have occurred? How many now exist? How many may hereafter spring up? How many might be ingeniously created, if entitled to the privilege of a decision in the mode proposed?

Is it certain that the principle of that mode wd. not reach farther than is contemplated. If a single State can of right require 3/4 of its co-States to overrule its exposition of the Constitution, because that proportion is authorized to amend it, would the plea be less plausible that, as the Constitution was unanimously established, it ought to be unanimously expounded?

The reply to all such suggestions seems to be unavoidable and irresistible, that the Constitution is a compact, that its text is to be expounded according to the provision for expounding it, making a part of the compact, and that none of the parties can rightfully renounce the expounding provision more than any other part. When such a right accrues, as it may accrue, it must grow out of abuses of the compact releasing the sufferers from their fealty to it.

In favour of the nullifying claim for the States individually, it appears, as you observe, that the proceedings of the Legislature of Virga in 98 & 99 agst the Alien and Sedition Acts are much dwelt upon.

It may often happen, as experience proves, that erroneous constructions, not anticipated, may not be sufficiently guarded against in the language used, and it is due to the distinguished individuals who have misconceived the intention of those proceedings to suppose that the meaning of the Legislature, though well comprehended at the time, may not now be obvious to those unacquainted with the contemporary indications and impressions.

But it is believed that by keeping in view the distinction be tween the Govt of the States & the States in the sense in which they were parties to the Constn, between the rights of the parties, in their concurrent and in their individual capacities, between the several modes and objects of interposition agst the abuses of power, and especially between interpositions within the purview of the Constn & interpositions appealing from the Constn to the rights of nature paramount to all Constitutions, with these distinctions kept in view, and an attention, always of explanatory use, to the views & arguments which were combated, a confidence is felt, that the Resolutions of Virginia, as vindicated in the Report on them, will be found entitled to an exposition, showing a consistency in their parts and an inconsistency of the whole with the doctrine under consideration.

That the Legislature cd not have intended to sanction such a doctnne is to be inferred from the debates in the House of Delegates, and from the address of the two Houses to their constitutents on the subject of the resolutions. The tenor of the debates wch were ably conducted and are understood to have been revised for the press by most, if not all, of the speakers, discloses no reference whatever to a constitutional nght in an individual State to arrest by force the operation of a law of the U. S. Concert among the States for redress against the alien & sedition laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment, and the attainment of a concert the immediate object of the course adopted by the Legislature, which was that of inviting the other States "to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary & proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities rights & liberties reserved to the States respectively & to the people." That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co operatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary controul of the people and Legislatures of the States over the Govt of the U S cannot be doubted, and the interposition of this controul as the event showed was equal to the occasion.

It is worthy of remark, and explanatory of the intentions of the Legislature, that the words "not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect," which had followed, in one of the Resolutions, the word "unconstitutional," were struck out by common consent. Tho the words were in fact but synonymous with "unconstitutional," yet to guard against a misunderstanding of this phrase as more than declaratory of opinion, the word unconstitutional alone was retained, as not liable to that danger.

The published address of the Legislature to the people their constituents affords another conclusive evidence of its views. The address warns them against the encroaching spirit of the Genl Govt, argues the unconstitutionality of the alien & sedition acts, points to other instances in which the consd limits had been overleaped, dwells upon the dangerous mode of deriving power by implications, and in general presses the necessity of watching over the consolidating tendency of the Fedl. policy. But nothing is sd. that can be understood to look to means of maintaining the rights of the States beyond the regular ones within the forms of the Constn.

If any farther lights on the subject cd. be needed, a very strong one is reflected in the answers to the Resolutions by the States which protested agst. them. The main objection to these, beyond a few general complaints agst. the inflammatory tendency of the resolutions was directed agst. the assumed authy. of a State Legisle. to declare a law of the U. S. unconstitutional, which they pronounced an unwarrantable interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Ct. of the U. S. Had the resolns. been regarded as avowing & maintaining a right in an indivl. State, to arrest by force the execution of a law of the U. S. it must be presumed that it wd. have been a conspicuous object of their denunciation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:16 PM
If you think I am going to read all that....think again. I'm not. Just tell me, if Madison was referring to things clearly within the Feds enumerated powers? That would be different. Otherwise, it's not. You are reading Madison in the context of how the document is treated today - a living breathing document written on rubber-not how it was intended to be treated So it does not apply the way you think.

Please explain to me how states did nullify in the past ( Alien and Sedition Acts which Madison helped to nullify) and recently with Bush's real ID?

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:22 PM
...
That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy:

orange
02-19-2010, 06:29 PM
Please explain to me how states did nullify in the past ( Alien and Sedition Acts which Madison helped to nullify) and recently with Bush's real ID?

FROM ABOVE:


That the Legislature cd not have intended to sanction such a doctnne is to be inferred from the debates in the House of Delegates, and from the address of the two Houses to their constitutents on the subject of the resolutions.

The tenor of the debates wch were ably conducted and are understood to have been revised for the press by most, if not all, of the speakers, discloses no reference whatever to a constitutional right in an individual State to arrest by force the operation of a law of the U. S.

Concert among the States for redress against the alien & sedition laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment, and the attainment of a concert the immediate object of the course adopted by the Legislature, which was that of inviting the other States "to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary & proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities rights & liberties reserved to the States respectively & to the people." That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co operatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary controul of the people and Legislatures of the States over the Govt of the U S cannot be doubted, and the interposition of this controul as the event showed was equal to the occasion.

THIS REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OF 1798 - I.E. THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS - WHICH MADISON SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY SAYS CALHOUN ET AL ARE MISINTERPRETING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER HE COULD BE:

I do not decline a sketch of the views which I have been led to take of the doctrine in question, as well as some others connected with them;
AND OF THE GROUND FROM WHICH IT APPEARS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS OF VIRGINIA HAVE BEEN MISCONCEIVED BY THOSE WHO HAVE APPEALED TO THEM.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:34 PM
THIS REFERS SPECIFICALLY TO THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OF 1798 - I.E. THE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS - WHICH MADISON SPECIFICALLY AND CLEARLY SAYS CALHOUN ET AL ARE MISINTERPRETING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CLEARER HE COULD BE.

No you are misreading it. You are ignoring other parts of what he says before he makes the part you agree with. He's saying what I am saying.

Being thus derived from the same source as the Constitutions of the States, it has within each State, the same authority as the Constitution of the State; and is as much a Constitution, in the strict sense of the term, within its prescribed sphere, as the Constitutions of the States are within their respective spheres; but with this obvious & essential difference, that being a compact among the States in their highest sovereign capacity, and constituting the people thereof one people for certain purposes, it cannot be altered or annulled at the will of the States individually, as the Constitution of a State may be at its individual will.

They cannot nullify if the Federal govt where it is acting within it's rightful sphere because that would be Constitutional. Otherwise, anything not enumerated for the Fed's powers they can. It's only sovereign and supreme law where it's authorized. Your intepretation is a nationalist one. It's not a nationalist document across the board.

You don't understand it. You have a leftists understanding of the document so you rely on the modern idea of what the document is to be.

orange
02-19-2010, 06:37 PM
...

Concert among the States for redress against the alien & sedition laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment, and the attainment of a concert the immediate object of the course adopted by the Legislature, which was that of inviting the other States "to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate by the necessary & proper measures in maintaining unimpaired the authorities rights & liberties reserved to the States respectively & to the people." That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co operatively taken, were meant measures known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary controul of the people and Legislatures of the States over the Govt of the U S cannot be doubted, and the interposition of this controul as the event showed was equal to the occasion.

orange
02-19-2010, 06:38 PM
If you think I am going to read all that....think again. I'm not.

And... How DARE you say I read it wrong when YOU HAVEN'T READ IT AT ALL! LMAO

http://fotosa.ru/stock_photo/Fancy%20by%20Veer/p_2747714.jpg

BEP

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:40 PM
And... How DARE you say I read it wrong when YOU HAVEN'T READ IT AT ALL!

I did go back and read the beginning half and found exactly what I was looking for though when you persisted. That whole first part puts qualifiers on Madison's following statements.

You're wrong. It's a hyrbrid document. I am familiar with his writings elsewhere too.

orange
02-19-2010, 06:48 PM
Virginia Resolution of 1798:


That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/virg1798.htm


WHICH NULLIFIED NOTHING.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:52 PM
Uh...hmmm.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 06:54 PM
You're mixing up the levels of govt orange. The powers of the Federal government are few, and are specified.

Jenson71
02-19-2010, 06:55 PM
Uh...hmmm.

You're projecting.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 10:02 PM
You're projecting.

Big time....heh.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 10:10 PM
Big time....heh.

Yeah, but I didn't accuse him of being something bad personally as a defense mechanism for handling anxiety ( true projection) or not at all relevant to a point he's making in the discussion.Not the way pat does when I accuse pat of that. pat gets personal or uses ad hominem when he does that. That's why I do that so often to him.

Orange is actually reading that wrong and that is relevant. The qualifying statements precede the statements made later by Madison and affect those statements orange is emphasizing. That's part of the discussion. I showed where they were before his first red type. Orange is intepreting the words according to modern liberal beliefs about the Constitution and not from an originalist pov which would be what how Madison said the Constitution worked.

Jenson's just being a childish copycat with no contribution to the points as are you except to make personal attacks. Some Catholic boy there.

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 11:10 PM
Yeah, but I didn't accuse him of being something bad personally as a defense mechanism for handling anxiety ( true projection) or not at all relevant to a point he's making in the discussion.Not the way pat does when I accuse pat of that. pat gets personal or uses ad hominem when he does that. That's why I do that so often to him.

Orange is actually reading that wrong and that is relevant. The qualifying statements precede the statements made later by Madison and affect those statements orange is emphasizing. That's part of the discussion. I showed where they were before his first red type. Orange is intepreting the words according to modern liberal beliefs about the Constitution and not from an originalist pov which would be what how Madison said the Constitution worked.

Jenson's just being a childish copycat with no contribution to the points as are you except to make personal attacks. Some Catholic boy there.

Uh....hmmm. :hmmm:

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 11:11 PM
In response to Amnorix stomping on state's rights:

Yes, the Constitution delegated certain powers and placed certain limitations, on the federal government. Constitutional scholars refer to those as "delegated powers." Delegated powers are those powers, specifically, granted to the national government. Other powers are left to the states; Constitutional scholars refer to those as "reserved powers." The Constitution, as written, grants delegated powers to the federal government; it leaves reserved powers to the states.

The sticky wicket is "concurrent powers." Some powers are exercised by both the federal and state governments. Historically, until the late 1800s concurrent powers were few and far between--most of them explicitly identified by the Constitution itself. In the late 1800s, the federal government began looking for excuses to assert more and more powers--powers that had traditionally belonged to the states. Too often, an activist judiciary has facilitated this process by expanding the "loopholes" I mentioned previously.

Apparently, you are completely fine....with that usurping of state power; many of us, though, are not. It's a trend that has gone too far, for too long.


In response to me:
Bring back the Tenth!

Bring back the Tenth!!

Bring BACK the Tenth!!!

BRING BACK the Tenth!!!

BRING BACK---the TENTH!!!

PBJ PBJ PBJ
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5671707&highlight=Tenth+Amendment#post5671707

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 11:11 PM
Uh....hmmm. :hmmm:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
02-19-2010, 11:16 PM
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. :thumb:

....okay, you got me there. Heh. LMAO

googlegoogle
02-21-2010, 04:26 AM
Calhoun lost this debate 140 years ago. It was called "the Civil War".

ROFL

googlegoogle
02-21-2010, 04:28 AM
This is a noble sentiment, and I agree with it, but it's hard to take at face value with a document that explicitly recognizes the right of people to own other people.

ROFL

So you don't recognize the Constitution! LOL.

STFU

googlegoogle
02-21-2010, 04:33 AM
Pretty much, yeah.

The Civil War was Lincoln's baby. he wanted to preserve the Union by force. End of story.

:eek:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nbFty9nZUac&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nbFty9nZUac&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>