Things are working out great – or something

Generally, I try to avoid inane Facebook debates. They suck you in and can turn into a giant time waster. But I admit, sometimes I find debating people interesting and informative.

When it comes to nullification, most people quickly find themselves out of their depth. They throw out the typical talking points – supremacy clause, the Supreme Court decides and the like. But most folks quickly run out of ammo. I’ve dealt with those arguments so many times, it’s a little like swatting away flies. Annoying, but not particularly taxing. Generally, I try to get people to dig deeper. To consider the intended structure of our Republic. To think about what it means to have a government of limited, enumerated power – and the absurdity of asserting that the federal government should determine the extent of its own authority. At this point, I usually find out what really drives the other person.

Generally, it’s a desire for centralized power.

In fact, it seems that very few people really want to make the government smaller and less intrusive. What they REALLY want is to lay their hands on the levers of power so they can get their way.


Anyway, I thought I would share a recent exchange I had with George. It demonstrates what we face every day here at the Tenth Amendment Center. Watch how he argues his point – and ultimately gives up – revealing his true colors.


Did I Miss the Revolution?

The argument against Nullification, with a lot of folks, seems to be that at the end of it all… if the Federal Government wins in their own courts, we (the States/People) must choose to either back down, or attempt secession.

This argument is absurd!
Lets follow the logic:

1. A State legislature determines that a federal action lays outside the scope of Congressional authority. The examples of this are legion, but to name a few: Making it illegal to publish critical statements about the President, making it illegal to trade with foreign nations, initiating a Draft to invade Canada, establishing a National bank, making possession of a specific medicine a crime, infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms by taxation or regulation, making it illegal to enter into certain contracts, making it mandatory that citizens assist in the kidnapping and return of escaped slaves, etc, etc, etc…

The State would then pass some sort of hindering legislation (at the Tenth Amendment Center we call this a Nullification, as Thomas Jefferson called it in the Kentucky Resolution). This legislation could be as mild as a statement disapproving of the federal action in question, or as severe as a bill making it illegal to enforce the abominable usurpation within the State, and calling for severe penalties for Federal and/or State officials attempting to enforce the statute in question. Or anything in between.


Medicinal Marijuana and Connecticut: House Bill 5389

Currently, 16 states have laws allowing medicinal marijuana usage, and with Connecticut House Bill 5389 passing through the Connecticut House by a 96-51 affirmative vote, there may soon be a 17th. The purpose of this bill is to legalize “palliative marijuana.” The bill states in Section 1.2.B that “any medical condition, medical treatment or disease…