Posted on 02/05/2013 6:53:37 PM PST by 11th_VA
You may have heard the word “nullification” bandied about recently. It’s basically a fancy word for ignoring a law.
Juries sometimes do it, if they think enforcement of a law will result in an injustice. Merriam-Webster defines nullification as “the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.”
And now, increasing numbers of sheriffs and others across the country are publicly saying they will engage in nullification if faced by federal gun or health care laws they find unconstitutional.
Ignoring laws is rarely a good thing. We’d say never — but we’re reminded of Rosa Parks’ and other civil rights icons’ peaceful defiance of the immoral laws and customs of segregation.
An increasing number of folks are no less convinced that Washington is trampling on other civil rights.
Sheriffs in Idaho, Oregon and Texas have announced their intent not to go along with expected gun control laws. Other officials have said they won’t enforce the health care law. A state representative in Tennessee wants to make it a crime to enforce gun or ammunition bans in that state.
And several hundred gathered at the South Carolina capitol recently for a “Nullify Obamacare” rally. They were promised efforts by several state officials to block “federal encroachment.”
There’s a proud tradition of states’ rights in South Carolina — exemplified not that long ago by the light bulb. When federal law began phasing out production of the incandescent light bulb, South Carolina lawmakers passed “The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act” to allow for its production and sale within the state, which Washington can’t prevent.
But nullification has rarely seen this much favor since the Civil War, and may only gain steam if Washington continues down the path of trying to run everyone’s lives.
Washington may have no one but itself to blame for the rise of the nullification movement — particularly the Obama administration, which has set the standard for ignoring the law.
It was this administration, after all, that decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Even though the “Dream Act” can’t pass Congress, Mr. Obama “enacted” it via executive order — announcing that his administration would not deport illegal aliens who came here as minors. There is no such exception in the law.
His administration also announced that marijuana crimes would not be a “priority” — again, picking and choosing which laws to enforce.
When it appeared the defense industry might have to issue layoff notices to workers because of impending “sequestration” cuts just before the November election, the Obama administration encouraged contractors to ignore the law that seemed to require the notices.
The Obama administration also tried to block enforcement of state anti-voter-fraud laws last year.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate has failed to pass a budget as required by law the past four years — and the Obama administration has announced it won’t have a federal budget ready by the statutory deadline.
We don’t endorse the ignoring of laws. But if there’s a growing sentiment of defiance toward enforcement of federal laws in the land, Washington can’t exactly throw stones.
It has perfected the art.
No! I had not seen this! Thanks for pointing me to it!
If that is happening in New York, I’m very encouraged! If it were in Texas, I would not be surprised—but New York! That’s great.......
I know, I know — and they are hitting every point (”Are there prisons being opened up for those of us who *won’t* comply?”) Side note: how about that background music?!
Here’s the longer version (33 min) of the meeting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol1SzjHPFGw
Now at 58,116 views
G’night, basil.
Though their intentions are honest, there's a couple of problems with the article.
One, jury nullification is a somewhat different creature than the nullification held out by Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Ordinances and by South Carolina in their famous tiff with Andy Jackson.
Jury nullification is a legitimate power of the people, as is electoral nullification, and as is Militia nullification, a dicier subject which is nevertheless treated as "cartridge-box nullification" and a kind of People's veto over oppressive government policy. See Elaine Scarry's law article on the distribution of power in the Constitution. (Scarry, "War and the Social Contract: Nuclear Policy, Distribution, and The Right to Bear Arms", 139 U. PENN. L. REV. 1257 (1991). Available at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Scarry1.html [cold link].)
State nullification has a real problem with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. If you want to see a fine exposition of its doctrinal weaknesses, see Jefferson Davis's inaugural speech as President of the provisional Confederate Government in February, 1861, in which he couched his case for the necessity of secession as a function of the doctrinal failure of nullification.
Lastly, government disobedience of the law is a separate phenomenon completely, and needs to be separated from nullification issues and civil-liberty issues and considered as a problem of its own, of simple misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance of federal officials in the face of federal law.
Another great movie about Hard Tyranny aka Stalin’s USSR is “Burnt by the Sun”, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111579/plotsummary?ref_=tt_ov_pl, I highly recommend if someone has not viewed.
I used to work in quality control at a manufacturing plant. Parts produced in the machine shop were inspected to certify that they matched blueprint specs. Sometimes you would hear someone joke that the part is OK but I’m rejecting the blueprint. Sometimes it was NOT a joke, the blueprint was wrong but the machine shop had ignored it because they knew how the part was supposed to be made. Nullification is the legal equivalent of accepting the part (the action) and rejecting the blueprint(the law). Sometimes the blueprint is wrong but the part is OK.
I must, however, respectfully disagree with the statement State nullification has a real problem with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
There is no conflict if one realizes the clause means what it says and says what it means.
Article 6, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unless laws fall within the powers granted by the Constitution and within the jurisdiction of Constitutional limits, it is NOT made 'in Pursuance thereof'. A State has EVERY right to nullify it, and the People have every authority to ignore it!
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution
South Carolina's action concerning tariffs were unconstitutional as the federal government IS given the authority to regulate them, and the State was bound to observe those regulations as long as they were a part of the Compact.
Later actions by the South however are a different kettle of fish, but in an effort to stay on topic, perhaps we should save that argument for another thread. :-)
-----
In the case of second Amendment, there is no question. It is a specific restraint on the authority of government at both the State and federal level.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
A View of the Constitution of the United States, William Rawle.
-----
IMHO, people give the 'supremecy clause' WAY too much credit. The federal legislature was intended to legislate for federal concerns, NOT to micro-manage the States.
It is distressing to reflect, that it ever should have been made a question, whether the constitution of the United States on the whole face, of which, is seen so much labour to enumerate and define the several objects of federal power, could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect manner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law; a law filling so many ample volumes; a law overspreading the entire field of legislation; a law that would sap the foundation of the constitution, as a system of limited, and specified powers.
St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries
Bingo!
Have you ever actually used that argument with a liberal?
I have yet to hear one that didn’t say “we wouldn’t do that”, meaning that somehow, the leftists in power today wouldn’t abuse that power like leftists always have in the past.
It’s hard to argue with a belief, much less change what is, to them, an assumption.
Good analogy. As a former carpenter I am very familiar with nullifying blue prints. LOL
Yes, and I could direct you to a few threads from 2002-2005 that ran to thousands of posts, on just that topic. One thread of 4400 posts was pulled because one poster, nolu chan, challenged on the point by an opponent, quoted Lincoln being casual in his attitude and speech (Lincoln speaking for polemical purposes, but still quotably) toward African-Americans. Casting shadows on Abraham Lincoln is a hazardous exercise, it was shown then ..... the poster was shown the door, n/w/s he was an ace researcher who produced the docs and quotes to support his positions.
I agree with your sentiment, but unfortunately, the champions of illimitable federal government -- beginning with Alexander Hamilton, our American Iscariot -- have managed to have their way at our expense, using the "General Welfare" and "Necessary Purposes" and Commerce Clauses to do as they please.
I don't know whether a new amendment could patch the defect, given that these selfsame people, who are innately contemptuous of limits on their actions (like business executives), have turned the Ninth and Tenth Amendments into moribund, if not dead, letters.
The defect could be cured, at least temporarily, by a "Great Cure" opinion of the Supreme Court that addressed all the infringements of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments by the usurpation of omnicompetence by the Congress and Executive; but Supreme Court opinions are like the ancient praetorian law, good only until a new praetor proclaims a new policy. Therefore, an amendment giving affirmative remedies to the States will be required, and in America's state of half-freedom, half-totalitarian fascism, I don't think we could get it without a long preparation and a good "ground game" that has not been yet evinced by whatever resources remain to Republicanism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.