Much as I’d like to think some people on the Left might reject knee-jerk nationalism, articles like this one are all too typical. Let me paraphrase: nullification (which the poor guy can’t even define) and rebellion are wicked. Cut it out. Obey your overlords. You are born to be ruled. And forget that “question authority” thing…Details
Federalism — the idea of a nation made up of smaller, semi-autonomous states — was deemed so important by the founders of the United States that they included it in the “Bill of Rights,” the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The tenth amendment says that “powers not delegated to the United States by…Details
Here’s a few radio interviews I’ll be doing in the next few days to talk about Constitution Day and, of course, limited government under the 10th Amendment. (all times Pacific) Thursday 9/17/2009 7:35 AM – Rob Johnson Show, 840 KMPH – Modesto, CA 8:05 AM – John Lofton, TheAmericanView.com 11:35 AM – Lou Dobbs Radio…Details
While the traditional left has been way off base when covering issues related to the 10th Amendment, Chris Weigant over at Huffington Post is much more fair in his review of both nullification specifically, and the 10th Amendment Movement in general.
Usually, places like HuffPo, MSNBC, ThinkProgress, and elsewhere slam the 10th as being pointless, try to make fun of people who believe in limited government under the 10th by calling them “Tenthers,” try to associate the entire movement with vile racism, and other nasty rhetoric designed to distract from the real issues.
On the other hand, there’s Weigant, who’s obviously making a sincere effort to give a fair report. I think he make some good points, too. Here’s an excerpt:
The Tenth Amendment is one of the rarer parts of the Bill of Rights for the Supreme Court to actually rule on, but every so often one of these cases is taken up by the Court. And, increasingly, Republicans are using it as a “last resort” against federal laws they don’t like. Although, to be fair, one of the more recent decisions (Gonzales v. Raich) went against a California woman who argued that since she was growing medical marijuana on her own land for her own consumption, the constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate interstate trade simply did not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed, but at least it was consistent, since it had ruled during World War II that a wheat farmer could not use this argument to escape federal war efforts to regulate wheat production (Wickard v. Filburn). In both cases, the Court reasoned, even if the farmer didn’t sell his or her crop, it could still impact the interstate commerce for that crop. Meaning Congress could, indeed, regulate itDetails
It’s hard to cover everything that needs to be addressed in this 6+ minute video, but I’ll touch on a few of them below.
Here’s a few observations:
1. Turley is absolutely correct that “decades of precedent” in the courts oppose the view that the federal government is not authorized to enact a national health care plan. But, what he fails to point out, is that under the original meaning, intention and understanding of the Constitution – these kinds of powers would have been unthinkable. The court is, in plain English, wrong. Learn more here.
2. Neither the host nor Turley seem to have any clue about nullification – or its current efforts. Nullification has nothing to do with getting a positive ruling from the Supreme Court. It’s when a state passes a law simply refusing to implement a federal law. In fact, it has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been used to resist laws against free speech, fugitive slave laws, the use of the militia in war and more. Hardly “right-wing” at all. Learn more here.Details
When “they” start giving you a name – and especially when they attempt to use it in a derogatory fashion – you know you’re having an effect.
So here comes the new one – “The Tenthers.” I recently started seeing a few references to this term in the standard places, Alternet, ThinkProgress, and elsewhere. But now it seems to have come from on high like the NeoCons did with every new buzzword during the Bush years.
These days, everyone from MSNBC on downward is disparaging those who invoke the principles of limited government that the 10th Amendment stands for as something awful. And they’ve got this cute little word for it too!Details
Writes Gary Marbut from FirearmsFreedomAct.com:
I just received an email from CNN saying that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act story will be on the CNN Lou Dobbs show today at 5:15PM, Mountain Time (7:15 Eastern)
If anyone gets the video from this, please send it our way asap!