Podcast: Play in new window | Download Add to iTunes In this live post-GOP special event, host Michael Boldin welcomes birthday boy Nick Hankoff into our LA home studio to co-host. Happy Birthday Nick! They cover the debate and rip some holes into the idea of the GOP being filled with Constitutionalists. Boldin and Hankoff…Details
cross-posted from the New Jersey Tenth Amendment Center
This election year was one of mixed results for the Nullification and Tenth Amendment movement. In some states, initiatives were on the ballots that, in one way or another, sought to remove the federal government from the decision making process on an assortment of issues. Some met with success, while others failed.
Ohioans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Issue 3, which nullifies ObamaCare’s health insurance mandate. While this is only a small part of the health care reform bill, it is a beginning. Hopefully, state legislatures, local governments and the people of their respective states will begin dissecting and nullifying the rest of the 2,000 page monstrosity.
Mississippi’s Personhood initiative (26) failed by a roughly 14 point margin. Had it passed, it would have recognized the unborn as persons from the moment of conception in their state. There was disappointment among Pro-Lifers, particularly Pro-Life Tenthers, that the measure did not pass. I would remind them that the firstTenth Amendment Resolution introduced in New Hampshire in 2009 failed in a vote that was expected to pass, given New Hampshire’s reputation for being very much its own state.
The people of the State of New Jersey re-elected incumbents in almost all the state legislative races. However, perhaps unaware they were nullifying, they voted yes on a non-binding initiative stating New Jersey should pass a law allowing sports betting in Atlantic City. While some would claim the feds have the final say, the first question asked in response should be, “Why?”Details
Andrew Bacevich, in his new book Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, takes apart the saccharine platitudes of the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, ideas one is considered “crazy” or a “kook” for challenging, and finds that it is these platitudes themselves that are crazy, ahistorical, without foundation, etc. Bacevich, a contributing editor of The American Conservative, considers why these ideas persist, and why they are foisted on the American public with such vigor. Why should the U.S. still have troops in countries all over the world, where the conflict that brought them there no longer even exists? He asks simple and obvious questions like that, the kind of questions that get conventional thinkers — i.e., the vast bulk of the political and media classes, not to mention a good chunk of the government-school-educated public — reaching for the matches to burn the heretic.
From the book:Details