Wallbuilders Selective Originalism

Bookmark and Share
Posted by

  • Share on Tumblr

David Barton of the organization Wallbuilders takes a firm stance against nullification. How could this be? Does he not profess to believe in the original intent of the U.S. Constitution? I guess that depends on whose intent. Barton, much like others, prefers to focus on the intent of a small faction which favored a super-powerful centralized government far beyond what was authorized by the state sovereignty minded ratifiers. 

What surprises me most about such an argument is not just that it’s obviously historically inaccurate but that the ones making it profess to believe in Godly limited government. What individual who is actually familiar with the modern day, mass-murdering leviathan based out of D.C. can actually believe such nonsense?

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.
Support the Tenth Amendment Center!

This entry was posted on Friday, February 26th, 2010 at 4:53 pm. It is filed under Big Government, Nullification and tagged with , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

1 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
DonovanWoodside
DonovanWoodside

I was listening to a recent episode of WallBuilders Live and I think i may have partially figured out what is David Barton's objection to the nullification movement. His take is that we (those that support nullification in contemporary times) are of the mindset that we want to nullify any federal law we don't like. Period. He apparently misses the entire constitutional aspect that I hear ever week on every issue on TRX. http://www.wallbuilderslive.com/audio/podcast/WBLive2013-01-31.mp3 @21:20 What gets me yelling at the radio on a semi regular basis while listening to the WBL show is that they are participating in nullification. When it covers matters they support, they will agree with guests on their actions, and commend them for their hard work (nullifying federal, unconstitutional laws). But then they usually fall back to the "We have to wait for the Supreme Court" argument. And then, when the Supremes hand down a ruling they don't like they struggle with how to deal with it.