As a follow up to my earlier blog on the subject of good alternative media coverage, here’s an update. Even more coverage, including two from some of the bigger players in alternative media – almost mainstream media. The passage of AB351 in California is definitely making the rounds. Learn about the bill here. Huffington Post…Details
While the big-wigs hate our guts – all of them, that is – it’s nice to see an uptick in media coverage from alternative sources, online and other. In The New American magazine, Joe Wolverton reports on our new #NullifyNSA campaign: http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/16656-tenth-amendment-center-drafts-model-legislation-to-nullify-the-nsa ACLU SoCal cited TAC and quoted me in their press release on the…Details
Usually, nullifiers are called racists. But now we have some dude spouting on how dangerous the nullification movement is because he believes YOU are too stupid to handle liberty and take responsibility.
In the Philly Post, Charles D. Ellison equated nullifiers to Duck Dynasty watching, rebel flag waving, outlaws in the driver’s seat heading down the path to America’s apocalyptic future.
Mr. Ellison, master of the status quo, wanted to show how that the nullification movement is disrupting the balance between two parties. He went on to assert the Civil War obviously resolved the question of who is the sole authority over 100 years ago, and that this new pesky nullification movement is messing that up.
Ohhhh Charlie!!!! You are so lame. And ignorant!
But wait! We’ve been down this road sooooooo many times before that I’m willing to look at this differently. Hey, I’m adult enough to try and see this from Charlie’s point a view. Let me try it out. Let’s see what it looks like through the eyes of someone who ignores important parts of the supremacy clause, ignores the fact that our form of government is a republican form, and believes that the Civil War settled things.Details
When one of the remaining deans of Florida newspaper reporters writes an opinion piece about the Tenth Amendment that isn’t historically false, insulting and agenda driven, we take notice.
In his Tallahassee.com op-ed It’s time to start talking about the 10th Amendment, the highly acclaimed retired Tallahassee Democrat reporter Bill Cotterell writes, “Recently, though — and not just since Obama’s election — we’ve seen increased instances of states wanting to reject federal mandates. Surprisingly, and inconsistently, the Obama administration has gone along with some of them.
“The legal basis for this resistance is the 10th Amendment, which states, ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people…’ Nobody really knows what that means. James Madison, who proposed it, thought the idea was so obvious that Ye Olde Bill O’ Rights didn’t need to spell it out, but some state legislatures were reluctant to ratify without a guarantee of their own powers.”
Of course, at the Tenth Amendment Center we know exactly what that means. Still,this is an excellent and open minded opinion, and a welcome change from the diatribe and mythology that has emanated from the likes of the Heritage Foundation, CATO and just today, Reason.com.Details
The New York Times published on September 3, 2013 an article written by Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, on the “limitations of nullification”. I have had the honor of having personal discussions with Mr. Levy on several issues and even had the opportunity to debate him on the issue of nullification in a forum in South Florida. It will be no surprise to Mr. Levy that I disagree with his opinion. Opinions aside, I would like to have the opportunity to present the facts.
Mr. Levy’s main premise is that the States have the option to not agree and not enforce federal law, but they do not have the ability to prevent the federal government from enforcing its laws within the States.
“That’s because federal officials are authorized to enforce their own laws, even if they cannot compel the states to do so. Thus, on the second point, the nullifiers are wrong: states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.”
Mr. Levy’s premise is flawed and a mere review of the facts makes that clear. This country was built upon the foundation of free, independent, and sovereign States.
“Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States…” Lee Resolution June 7, 1776Details
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
If Mark doesn’t consider this reasonable, deletes our post on facebook, or attacks us as pseudo-anything, that should speak volumes.
Here’s what we had to say, on my personal approval, on his facebook page today:
And for posterity, since we know his staff is prone to delete posts that disagree with him, here’s the full text:Details
bal·ance: noun equality between the totals of the two sides of an account
That’s a pretty straight forward definition. Yet FOX continues to “frame” the news instead of reporting it.
You could expect that from their opinion shows that take of their prime time and evening coverage. There is no balance there and you shouldn’t expect it; they’re opinion shows. So when you hear Bill O’Reilly say that he thinks oil speculators should be jailed, and all of our oil reserves nationalized and controlled by the national government, you can take that for what it is and tune out. When Eric Bolling pulls out his pocket constitution from CATO and says that he is all for more cameras on the streets, you can shake your head and wonder if he has ever read it. Opinion shows are just what they are advertised as – opinion shows.
But news reporting used to be just “news” – balanced, informative reporting. No longer.
During the founding of the nation there was much debate over whether or not states wanted to establish a central government. Newspapers ran a number of editorial pieces called the Federalist Papers. These were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and were 100 percent pro central government pieces. Also published were their rebuttals, collectively known today (not as well as they should be) as the anti-Federalist papers. These were written in part by Richard Henry Lee, George Clinton and others. These papers sought to expose the weaknesses of the constitution and explain how tyranny could take foothold in the future if the Federalists succeeded in getting the constitution ratified. For the purposes of this blog, the important thing was that both were published and distributed. Fair and balanced, no editing or salesman like pitches rammed down your throat as you read them in the town square, or picked up your copy from the corner stand.Details
In an effort to keep inhabitants of Nebraska and Iowa from taking any queue from their Missourian neighbors, the World-Herald editorial team has published the latest and greatest compilation of mainstream attacks on nullification. Nick Hankoff takes them to taskDetails
Davis Merritt’s article Hidden price of nullification: forfeited rights is another example of fantasy instead of reality.
Many in the media keep repeating an inaccurate narrative about nullification. Are they truly that ignorant of history, or they have been forced fed so much that it has evolved into pseudo reality?
Merritt spends the first three paragraphs of his article recounting the dark history of the American South during the 1950s and 1960s. He pushes the emotional gas peddle harder (instead of the logical brake) when bringing the nostalgia of last weeks remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King’s classic speech. He writes:
The 50-year anniversary last week of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech also marked a half-century since the idea of state nullification of federal laws had any credence at all. But the irony of that historical juxtaposition is lost on a new generation of nullification enthusiasts in state legislatures.
Interesting that Merritt conveniently forgets one of Dr. King’s most famous quotes, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Merritt apparently has never read Thomas Jefferson who also wrote, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.”Details