LA Times: Nullification Based on “Imaginary Authority”

In an editorial published September 16, the Los Angeles Times declared that states attempting to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government were “states of denial.” The very idea that states can “decide for themselves whether federal laws are unconstitutional” is, the paper insists, “rejected even by many legal scholars who support states’ rights.”

Articles such as this one are probably what made Thomas Jefferson declare, “I have given up newspapers in exchange for Tacitus and Thucydides, for Newton and Euclid; and I find myself much the happier.”

That said, the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times not only lacks basic understanding of fundamental principles of constitutional construction, but they hide their ignorance in a cowardly fashion behind the skirts of “scholars,” apparently afraid to come out and make statements of supposed constitutional certainty on their own.

To its credit, the article does make a bold statement so incredible and so detached from reality that it deserves reprinting here. TheTimes says, without qualification whatsoever, that state legislators violate [their oath of office] when they attempt to nullify duly enacted federal laws.”

With that statement in mind, one wonders if the Times will make the same accusation of all those federal lawmakers and President Obama who violate the oaths they have taken to be bound by the Constitution and to protect it from enemies foreign and domestic.

Moreover, will the Times call out these elected officials for their disregard of the very clear constitutional limits on their power? It only stands to reason that if an attempt to enforce constitutional limits on power is a violation of the oath of office, then overt acts to exceed those limits are even more unforgivable offenses against it.

Details

Immunity for War Criminals?

A Manhattan Project physicist once said, “secrecy, once accepted, becomes an addiction.”

The federal government keeps building up more and more tolerance of the crimes it must hide, and in doing so, is transforming itself into a centralized empire where nothing can be questioned!

The War on Terror tipped the balance between secrecy and privacy, yet many don’t even realize it. Today, we live in an age where secrecy has eclipsed privacy. In fact, there still are people out there convinced that if it concerns national security, they will give up everything for it. But no one can define it. It is ambiguous and ubiquitous at the same time. The 9/11 attack shifted the perception from inalienable rights, to rights not of natural origin and subject to the government’s whim. A symptom – the war crimes started with former President Bush, and have mounted with current President Obama.

Everything is a secret now days. From the crimes in Collateral Murder to the Snowden revelations, the federal government plays the “national security” trump card, or falls back to blatant denial.

As with any addict, the feds become tolerant to their drug of choice and need a higher dosage to feel a high. But as the atrocities mount, leaks of secret information hit our newsstands and Twitter feeds, and the approval rating of our government decreases.

Details

Unconstitutional Protection for Federally Defined ‘Journalists’

When the feds tell you they want to protect your rights, watch out! In all likelihood, that means they plan to strip some of your rights away and expand their own power.

Case in point, a “shield law” for journalists currently the subject of congressional debate.  The political class wants to protect journalists from requirements to reveal sources or documents. S.987 would “maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.”

Sound good, right?

But consider this: in the process, Congress gets to define a “journalist.”

Details