Connecticut just became the tenth blue state to pledge to cast its electoral votes for whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote nationally. Why? Because according to the measure’s proponents, the electoral college — along with everything else that’s more than 10 minutes old — is backward and stupid. Here’s one more step toward making…Details
On July 14, 1798, the Sedition Act became law. Jefferson and Madison responded with the heroic Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, calling for nullification.
I’ve given many talks on nullification, and written a book on it. But this is my favorite one. The last 15 minutes in particular.
Some resources I put together on nullification here:
Apparently there’s been a series against me over at the Daily Kos by a left-liberal lawyer. I no longer pay attention to left-wing attacks. It’s the same arguments every time. They pretend I haven’t answered them. I have. They idiotically call me a “neo-Confederate” (have they really not seen the zombie video, or are they trying to caricature themselves?).
The most recent one is only slightly different. For some reason, central to his argument is his claim that Thomas Jefferson was an Antifederalist. He was not. Jefferson was a supporter of the Constitution, though he wanted term limits for the president, as well as a Bill of Rights. This is all explained in a basic text like David N. Mayer’s The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson.
I am then accused of “mendacity” (because I stand to gain a lot by lying about nullification!) because I do not note that nine states spoke out against the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which laid out the doctrine of state nullification. By my count, seven states issued statements against the Resolutions, and I have discussed them repeatedly, both in my book (which the author has not read, naturally) and online.
I am “mendacious” for leaving this out, even though I didn’t leave it out, but my critic isabsolutely not mendacious for himself leaving out the reason that six of those seven states opposed Virginia and Kentucky: they favored the Sedition Act, and the principle that journalists should be thrown in jail for criticizing the president. Oops!Details
I talk to Brion McClanahan, author of The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution, in this brief video. I was in a funny mood this morning, so I decided to include a blooper at the end.
State Senator Clark Jolley, chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Oklahoma Senate, suppressed a recent nullification bill there. (On nullification, see StateNullification.com and NullificationFAQ.com.) A friend sent me a copy of his letter to a constituent. It reads, in part: Nullification is simply a fantasy that is the most dangerous type – one semi based in reality. It…Details
In Mississippi, House Bill 490 would establish a commission to evaluate the constitutionality of federal actions and prevent the enforcement of unconstitutional ones. (They are calling this neutralization, not nullification, but it’s the same thing.)
Naturally, the Opinion Police are appalled at this; this idea does not appear on the 3×5 card of positions we peons are allowed to hold. So the Clarion Ledger has published at least two articles on the subject in the past week in which we are treated to breathless posturing about the civil rights movement, in order to make the idea of political decentralization toxic to the public. They also claim the bill is “unconstitutional” — and whenever an article against nullification makes this claim, you can be sure it will be followed up with: “According to Fred Lawyer of John Marshall Law School, the bill is unconstitutional because according to Article VI of the Constitution, federal law trumps state law.”
Here are the two articles:Details
And a local reporter condemns him with the same old fourth-grade arguments. He gives us the Supremacy Clause (which he evidently thinks Thomas Jefferson didn’t know about), which he takes to mean that any old federal law trumps all state law, an interpretation that would have come as a surprise to the ratifiers. He gives us the morally grotesque “the Civil War settled this” argument, naturally. And so on.
Then we get the usual lecture about the bad old Articles of Confederation, regarding which Aronno is content to repeat his fourth-grade lesson, and has evidently never shown any curiosity beyond that. He quotes Madison without acknowledging the Report of 1800, where Madison said the states had to have a defense mechanism to guard against all three branches of the federal government.Details