So, I was reading a very good recent article by the TAC Machine Mr. Maharrey, and I noted a misunderstanding by the lawmaker (Florida State Rep. Gaetz) cited in the piece, illustrated by this passage from an email he sent to a constituent:
“It is said that one evening, while he was president, General Jackson was interrupted in his reading in his bedroom by an alarmed military aide who breathlessly reported, “Mr. President, the “nullifiers” are in front of the Executive Mansion with torches and guns. They are screaming that each state has the right to decide for itself which federal laws to follow. They threaten to burn us down if you will not agree with them.”
Without lifting his head from his reading, Andrew Jackson said, “Shoot the first nullifier who touches the Flag. And hang the rest.”
Chaplain (Gaetz’s constituent), I have sworn an oath on my father’s Bible before Almighty God to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. Count me with Andrew Jackson.”
So, I wonder what the Lawmaker thinks “Preserve Protect and Defend” might entail, if not the nullifying of, by his own assertion, unconstitutional laws. Maybe he thinks preserve means to encase the original copy in glass so it will be “preserved” from the rigors of time. Or he might think “protect” means he needs to enter his name for the watch roster at the Smithsonian where he can “protect” the original. Maybe he thinks he may need to raise funds for a building to house the Constitution in Florida where it can more easily be “defended”. Or maybe he thinks he needs to commission a carpenter to build a table to “support” it. Seriously, what else could be meant other than what Madison penned in the Virginia resolution?
“That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”
Certainly, it should be fairly obvious to anyone who has read the Constitution; the document is a list of powers given to the government. That list is capped by the Tenth Amendment, which makes it crystal clear that what is not given in the document is specifically forbidden. What other action could be called for by a state legislator when confronted with a federal act of usurpation than a nullification? What other act would fulfill the oath to “Preserve Protect and Defend” this contract? If the legislator had a pit-bull, and it bit him, would he not discipline it? If he had a child who swore would he not wash his mouth out with soap? What other action might be called for by a police officer observing a crime than to arrest the criminal? Apparently he would prevent anyone from interfering with his dog while it bit a pedestrian. Or scold any person who complained about his child’s foul mouth. Or he may even trip the sheriff’s deputy to prevent the criminal from being apprehended.
Perhaps state lawmakers would rather have the job of distributing spoils from the federal welfare state than that of confronting the villain that DC has become. Remember, when DC acts outside its enumerated powers it violates the Constitution; it doesn’t support it. Nullifying those laws supports and enforces the Constitution; it does not violate it. The supremacy clause only makes laws in pursuance of the Constitution “supreme.” Laws not in pursuance are unworthy of the label of law and are in fact crimes. Nullifying them is as much a duty of state legislatures as stopping criminals is of police officers. It is laudable and praiseworthy certainly not treasonous, vile or even for that matter that extreme.
Nullification is implicit in your oaths to the Constitution! Do not allow your fealty to the Cult of the Supremes to allow the Feds to make a dead letter of the Constitution you are sworn to defend! The Supremes are a branch of the Federal government. As a creature of the Constitution, they have a conflict of interest that would force any other judge to recuse himself, and negate any power to enforce his will, even he they did decide the other branches were outside their authority.
The states are the rightful enforcers of the Constitution. To rely upon the Federal government to enforce the Constitution, is to rely upon the Constitution to enforce itself. That is beyond absurd.