When faux-intellectuals like Rob Schofield of NC Policy Watch attack nullification, they’re just lying. He attended our Nullify Now event and barely reported on what was said.Details
“Each State then reserves its own rights to itself, and the [Virginia] Resolutions affirm, that the right to refuse obedience to an unconstitutional law, is among those reserved rights. Again: if the State may not act upon its own decision, until the majority have sanctioned it, the right so to decide, is, until the majority have sanctioned it, in that majority, and not in the State. The State has only the right to express its opinion; which opinion although involving her ‘safety,’ and her very existence, goes for nothing until approved by others.” – Abel P. Upshur
Some, such as Matt Spalding a the Heritage Foundation, argue only all of the states working together can legitimately nullify an unconstitutional act. The 19th century Virginia jurist obliterates that foolish notion. Nullification is a natural right of self-defense reserved to the states and the people.
I’ve been paying attention to what Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has to say for nearly two decades. In that time, I’ve never heard him exaggerate our circumstances. So, when he alerts us that he is anticipating a “big, big collapse” of our monetary system, it’s time to take heed. What does Paul Say we should…Details
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.”
-Elbridge Gerry. Vice President under James Madison.
Originally published at American Thinker
Democrats tell us that ObamaCare is “the law of the land,” and that the Supreme Court declared it constitutional, and that we should get used to it — it’s here to stay. Actually, the Court found ObamaCare unconstitutional on two counts, but let it pass anyway.
The problem for defenders of ObamaCare is that its court challenges just keep coming. One place to check up on them is the website Health Care Lawsuits. In September, American Enterprise Institute ran an article by Chris Conover headlined “Will the Courts Derail Obamacare?” The article covers several of the ongoing court challenges to ObamaCare, including the status of each case. (The article also ran at Forbes.)
On October 5, National Review ran a terrific article by former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy that addresses a specific legal challenge:Details
Now it appears that John Kasich, Ohio’s Republican governor, was lying through his teeth when he ran for office on a platform of opposing the horribly misnamed Affordable Care Act. Yes, Kasich now loves Obamacare and the allegedly free money that comes with it.Details
“No man, but one of his (Andrew Jackson’s) peculiar intellect, would ever think of an amendment of the Constitution as a means of resisting a breach of that instrument. It is not the object to amend the Constitution, but to preserve it unimpaired as it is.” – Abel P. Upshur
In The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has an anti-originalist column A Tree Grows in Canada — with some interesting Canadian history. As she explains, the British North America Act (effectively Canada’s original constitution) provided for “qualified persons” to be appointed to the Senate. When a woman, Judge Emily Murphy, sought appointment, she was rejected because (it was said) women did not qualify as “persons.” As Greenhouse continues the story:
Judge Murphy and four other Alberta women, who were to become known as the Famous Five, formally petitioned the federal government, which then put a question to the Supreme Court of Canada: “Does the word ‘Persons’ in Section 24 of the British North America Act include female persons?”
The Supreme Court said no, on grounds that would warm the heart of some current members of the United States Supreme Court. Whether it would be desirable for women to be eligible for senatorial appointment was beside the point, Chief Justice Frank Anglin wrote in his opinion. What mattered was what the drafters of the 1867 statute intended, and the words they wrote had to “bear today the same construction which the courts would, if then required to pass upon them, have given to them when they were first enacted.”
Based on this, Greenhouse doesn’t understand originalism, and neither did Chief Justice Anglin (about whom I otherwise know nothing). The decision is silly, and no modern originalist would follow it, nor would it warm anyone’s heart on the current Court. It’s possible (even likely) that the drafters of the Act only had only men in mind as Senators. But they did not write “men,” as they easily could have. (Voting laws of the time typically referred to “male” citizens, for example). They wrote “persons.” In 1867, I cannot imagine that in any ordinary legal language, in Britain or Canada, “persons” meant “only male persons.” A word in a statute should be given its ordinary public meaning, regardless of subjective intentions harbored by its drafters.Details
If ever there was a lesson in why granting power to busy-bodies and petty-tyrants is a bad idea, it is the decades-long federal ban on hemp production. Allowing a small cadre of bureaucrats to rule over whole sections of the earth and its occupants has stunted economic growth by limiting production and employment opportunities. It has largely destroyed the intellectual capital that existed in the United States for hundreds of years and finally there is hope this will end.
Since the 1950s hemp has been considered a controlled substance – despite having negligible levels of THC – and thus farmers have been prohibited from growing hemp for industrial purposes. This hasn’t meant that it cannot be imported, as recent estimates put the annual sales of hemp-based products at roughly half a billion dollars in the United States. You see, hemp is too dangerous to be grown Montana, but it’s perfectly safe when produced in say, Alberta, Canada.Details