Once again, the Heritage Foundation, pretending we hadn’t refuted its arguments last time, is adopting the establishment position against state nullification. (It would violate “common sense,” the Constitution, and the “rule of law” for the states to fail to implement a law that violates the Constitution, Heritage tells us with a straight face.)
People are writing to tell me how surprised they are at this. They shouldn’t be. Heritage can always be counted on to take the safe, establishment-approved line on pretty much everything. Sure, they’re for cutting spending (someday), but the New York Times will give you only a mild scolding for that, and perhaps even leave you alone. The Times (along with the entire media establishment, as usual) also supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that doesn’t make Heritage particularly cheeky, either. But when it comes to truly fundamental questions, like the structure of the Union and the proper understanding of federal-state relations, you can be sure it’ll be the Times and Heritage sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Every time.
There is not an argument in the Heritage piece I haven’t replied to time and again, so I refer readers to my fairly thorough “Nullification: Answering the Objections.”