Judges? We Don’t Need No Stinking Judges

In response to my latest column I received an e-mail from Bill Walker, co-founder of the Friends of the Article V Convention. The text of the e-mail was also posted as a comment on the original post.

My point with this post isn’t to burn bridges or start some feud between organizations that have similar goals in mind, namely restricting federal power. But I do think it’s important to understand both what we’re up against and where each organization comes from. So, with that in mind, allow me to expand on a few points by addressing Mr. Walker’s comments.

He writes: “[Joel Poindexter] provides no proof where any judge has ever ruled the states have such authority [to use nullification].”

This assumes that the states need approval from the Feds before they can nullify the Feds, and as the title of this post states, “we don’t need no stinking [judges].” And to that point, let me first suggest that if any judge with any clout ever ruled that a state can nullify an unconstitutional “law,” as determined by that state, we’d likely be in far better shape. Any judge who would side with a state on this issue isn’t likely to acquiesce to federal overreach in the first place, and since judges are appointed to the bench by politicians, we’d have to assume this judge had a similar outlook on federalism.

It’s because judges aren’t overturning unlawful “laws” that nullification is even necessary, so who needs them? That’s sort of the point of nullification; it essentially removes the Feds from the equation, since by the time a state has decided to nullify something, the Feds must have failed somewhere in the process. Whether it’s a legislature with an overly broad interpretation of the commerce clause, an executive who decides to write his own laws or a court without the moral fiber to strike down one of the former, nullification is the answer.

Details

A Thug in a Suit

Before this week, I had never heard Senator Charles Grassley speak – on anything. In the last few days, though, I’ve been sent a number of emails about him being a “strong 10th Amendment supporter.” Skeptical of any Senator in DC actually supporting the Constitution in a meaningful way, I browsed around YouTube and found what must’ve incited the onslaught of emails about him. It was a clip called “Sen. Grassley: Health Overhaul Violates 10th Amendment.”

Title: Good.

Before the 1:30 mark, he had this to say:

“This is the first time in the 222 year history of our country that we have forced you as a constituent – any of our constituents – to buy a product…..And if you don’t buy it, IRS is gonna tax a family $1500.”

Interesting comment. Ok, I’m listening.

He’s then asked a question: “Is this Constitutional – forcing them to buy it and punishing them through the IRS if they don’t?”

His response

“Uh…I’m not a lawyer …”

Alert: Politician Code Word.

Details

The Typical NeoCon Response?

In response to Michael Rozeff’s article on the Obama school address, we had a few angry emailers.  Not many.  But, Drew’s response here was pretty typical (spelling errors and typos have been preserved): You guys are republican bungholes with no brains.Typical neocon response.Did’nt hear you sqealing when hHabeas Corpus was abolished by Bush.did’nt hear you…

Details