Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with, i.e., Sen. John C. Calhoun's Doctrine of Nullification, rejected and discredited since the end of the Ciivl War. The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws:
The proposed constitutional amendment, a tea party favorite, is being touted by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) in the Senate and co-sponsored by Sens. John Barasso (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In the House, Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) are leading the charge.
The goal, according to proponents, is to stop the tyranny of Washington over the economy and circumscribe other federal powers.
* * *
Supporters of the so-called Repeal Amendment say that it was the 17th Amendment, added to the Constitution in 1913, that helped lead the country down the path of too much federal power. Tea partiers have suggested repealing the 17th Amendment — which allows for direct election of senators — but Republicans have balked.
Marianne Moran, executive director of the Repeal Amendment, told TPM creating a new constitutional amendment may be easier to swallow then repealing the 17th.
'The amendment will be officially rolled out Thursday in a Capitol Hill press conference. Most of the sponsors declined a request for comment from TPM Wednesday afternoon." I'll bet.
What these Neoconfederate insurrectionists are proposing is that the U.S. Constitition should resemble the Constitution of the Confederate States of America.
Listen up you Neoconfederate crackers: The Civil War is over. You lost. Get over it!
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am well aware of the history of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99 written by Thomas Jefferson, and the Virginia Resolution of 1798 written by James Madison. The resolutions were in response to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of their political opponent, President John Adams.
Jefferson and Madison wrote about the concepts of nullification and interposition in these resolutions. These concepts predate the Constitutional Convention but were not included in the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. It is fair to say that these concepts were considered and rejected by the Constitutional Convention, and by the states which ratified the Constitution.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were not accepted by any of the other states. Rather, seven states formally responded to Kentucky and Virginia by rejecting the Resolutions and three other states passed resolutions expressing disapproval but did not transmit their resolutions.
Moreover, when Jefferson and Madison served as president, neither ever sought to amend the Constitution to adopt these concepts, which can fairly be interpreted as their having abandoned the idea after their political opponent John Adams had left office.
In fact, James Madison later changed his views during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830’s prompted by the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832, and the most famous statement of the theory of nullification authored by John C. Calhoun, in the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828” (aka “Calhoun’s Exposition”). James Madison denounced the concept of nullification by a single state, stating that the Virginia Resolution should not be interpreted to mean that each state has the right to nullify federal law. Madison wrote, “But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined.”
John C. Calhoun differed from Jefferson and Madison by explicitly arguing for a state’s right to secede from the Union, if necessary, instead of simply nullifying certain federal legislation. Although Calhoun died nearly 10 years before the start of the American Civil War, his theories on nullification and secession were the intellectual inspiration for the secessionists of 1860–61 (not Jefferson and Madison). That is why I give Calhoun credit. I consider him to be the father of the Civil War.
The Civil War determined with finality that the federal government has supremacy over the states (under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and federal law trumps state law in the event of a conflict). It is Article 3 federal courts (not the states) that make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal and state laws, not state legislatures. States do not possess any right of nullification or interposition, nor secession. This matter was litigated by a Civil War; we are not going to relitigate a final decision paid for in blood.
As for your nonsensical statement “I’m also not sure I understand why he implies Civil War proves that states shouldn’t have opposed the Fugitive Slave Act,” I have no idea where you find this in the post above.
It was anti-slavery northern states that opposed the federal Fugitive Slave Acts with state “personal liberty” laws. Since the U.S. Constitution contained an express fugitive slave clause at that time, the U.S. Supreme Court correctly ruled that the state of Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify federal law or to prevent federal officials from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act in Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859). The Court found that the people had delegated the judicial power, including final appellate authority, to the federal courts with respect to cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States (i.e., the Supremacy Clause).
This is why Congress amended the Constitution to remove any vestiges of slavery after the Civil War.
I wonder why the author attributes the idea nullification to Calhoun instead of its actual architects: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. I’m also not sure I understand why he implies Civil War proves that states shouldn’t have opposed the Fugitive Slave Act. Or why, because nullification isn’t accepted by the liberal-neoconservative establishment that somehow makes the idea incorrect.
It would surely be interesting to see him attempt to explain his reasoning.