Funny to watch the establishment’s reaction to the reappearance of the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. This isn’t allowed, of course — the right of Ivy Leaguers to impose their theories on the country shall not be infringed.
The extremely conventional Sanford Levinson trots out all the old arguments. My book on this subject, slated for mid-June release, answers all of them many times over. But especially dishonest is Levinson’s by-the-books argument that Virginia and Kentucky found no support for their arguments in 1798.
What he leaves out, of course, is that the vast bulk of the states that protested the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions expressly affirmed, in their very replies to those states, their own support of the Alien and Sedition Acts, which they considered perfectly constitutional! The fact that a bunch of states that were dead wrong objected to Virginia and Kentucky is supposed to make us rethink nullification?
And within 10-15 years, many of these states, too, were speaking of the right of state interposition. In 1820 the Ohio legislature passed a resolution indicating its support for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, whose principles “have been recognized and adopted by a majority of the American people.”
Much, much more can be said against Levinson. But even the tiny bit I’ve said here, at least a portion of which you’d think an honest person might acknowledge, is absent from his article. You may hesitate to believe me — I mean, an establishment historian leaving out the relevant facts? — but it’s true.
NOTE: Cross-Posted from the LewRockwell.com Blog
Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution. Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution? If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances?
Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious "interpretations" does not change the law. If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion. The idea that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" is nonsense. The Constitution is written in plain English. What these advocates of "interpretation" really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority. This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions.
For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level. If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?
We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us. And where is the remedy?
The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people. And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about. Certainly there are people who don't like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.
Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution. Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution? If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances?
Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious "interpretations" does not change the law. If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion. The idea that the Constitution needs to be "interpreted" is nonsense. The Constitution is written in plain English. What these advocates of "interpretation" really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority. This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions.
For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level. If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?
We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us. And where is the remedy?
The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people. And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about. Certainly there are people who don't like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.