Skip to comments.Appeal to Heaven or Appeal to Law [contra Mark Levin]
Posted on 01/20/2014 7:16:53 AM PST by don-o
Last week on his call-in radio program, conservative commentator Mark Levin disparaged the spreading push by states rights activists like The Imaginative Conservatives friend Kevin R.C. Gutzman for nullification by state legislatures of overreaching federal legislation. Sadly, Levin chose to slur the notion as a fundamentally neo-Confederate desideratum, one he views as, among other dreadful things, nullifying his recent push for a convention of the states. Now, thats not niceor trueat all. Some sharp observers have taken notice of Levins unkindand untrueaccusations, but theyve missed some of the acute angles. Everyone seems to agree that a nullification-supporter de facto sets himself against all Constitutional procedures. Errantly.
Notwithstanding the presumptions of both Levin and his rivals, there exists zero genuine opposition between nullification on the one hand, and on the other, Levins rightminded push for a convention of the states. Again, I endorse strongly his push for a states convention (as well as the prompt to nullification), upon whose manner of procedure I will be, in a few weeks here on The Imaginative Conservative, presenting an article exposing the ideas of my friend and mentor Mike Rappaport, the single Originalist legal scholar in the country to have endorsed the type of state convention that Levin claims will obviate the dangers of the much feared runaway convention.
(Excerpt) Read more at theimaginativeconservative.org ...
This is a good essay about ideas - not personalities.
Bump for later.
Who has the Levin ping list?
the law now is whatever obama says it is
Be nice to use what we have first before we change it, since changing it might not go as planned.
We live in an age that is diluting its principles, not making them bolder, stronger and more concentrated.
I fear we as we are now will make things worse, rather than improve upon what the FFs gave us.
A guy from Alabama called Levin last week and asked, “What will keep a judge from just ruling against anything that comes from the state convention?” I wish I could remember Levin’s exact answer, but it was something about the whole thing existing to bypass federal overreach. That answer, though not exactly his words, is why I believe the Convention idea is inferior to Nullification. We’re dealing with a runaway, lawless federal government. They will rule against whatever comes out of the convention in violation of the constitution as they’ve done consistently these past decades. They will actively thwart it through the executive, legislative, and judicial branches with the help of State Run Media.
The good news is, after all of that, nullification will still be on the table. But why not just skip right to it while we have momentum, before the crackdown really comes?
Exactly! If everything Levin proposes were implemented AND adhered to, it would be great. Just like if the constitution were followed, it’d be great. Laws, however, only constrain those who fear them. The federal government, consisting of gifted demagogues, has no reason to fear what they can nullify through judicial and executive fiat, and hove the media cover for them.
So, even for the Convention to work, nullification by the states will have to eventually happen.
The author struggles because his primary assumption is wrong. Being ‘Nullification’ works.
Nullification is a pipe dream that’s more likely to do critical damage than a Convention of States. The results of a Convention of States is just and enforceable. While Nullification will just lead to quick law suits weakening the States Legislatures as they spend their ‘good will and valuable considerations’
But who can’t appreciate the authors coining of the phrase “fundamentally ‘neo-Confederate’ desideratum”.
But we don’t want another George Will wanabe.
Very good case against the Article V convention, for nullification made here:
She explains why instead we must learn about our Constitution, and enforce it with nullification of un-Constitutional acts of Congress, and a lawless executive...
An amendment proposed by a COS, ratified by the states, is by definition Constitutional, when it becomes part of it. Judges at that point can't say that an amendment is not Constitutional, only whether cases brought to it adhere to one amendment or another, including the new COS amendments.
A COS will take a few years to propose amendments, and then a few years to ratify. The remedies it will propose, as stated in the "call" is to restore a runaway federal govt - there would be generic types of amendments to reign it in... like term limits.
OTOH, nullification, if I understand it, is more specific and less generic. It would be used to address specific issues that a State encounters against the federales. It would apply only to the states that use it, and the rest of us are still in limbo (like forever here in MA). It would address specific abuses, while the federal govt continues to run away.
I'd like to see both used... nullification can be used much more quickly for pressing problems that can't await a COS. And the COS is needed too to solve these problems from a top-down approach.
The first part I can't agree with. If a term limit, for example, is added to the constitution, it would not be able to be deemed unconstitutional. We see this at the state level with the Federales thwart the people in a state with federal law, but if something is clearly stated in an amendment, it is therefore part of the constitution. Your second part is definitely true. They federal leviathan will do all they can to ignore, thwart, and mutually act to get around new additions. Anything added would have to be written with proper legal implications so it cannot be twisted...and it must be written so it is easily explained and understood by all people.
The only argument I see against the Article V is the liklihood of actually getting amendments though the process and enacted. It's a long road. Otherwise, it makes all the sense in the world to proceed.
This so-called “publiushuldah” character is dead to me.
I won’t dwell too much on facts in this reply (other than below), because in a previous encounter elsewhere with this very “person”, she raked me over the coals with a personal attack, the kind that would warrant the abuse button here on FR, and moderator action.
However, I’ll point to one thing on that link - she talks about congress selecting the COS delegates, and the number from each state. This is not so. You can read the COS-setup legislation from Indiana (one of the furthest thru the COS process) and you can read various law journal articles that document convention precedent. Delegates WILL be selected by state legislatures, and each state’s delegation, whether they send one or 10 delegates, will be limited to one vote. There is an expected next meeting in May and another in December, where I’d expect some of this will hash out - ie, how many delegates. Now, it is in COS power (not the congress) to steer from this, BUT, then the COS simply will not happen - it will collapse, as too many states would pull out.
Thus, both nullification AND COS are needed. Might as well start going the COS route now, as we are talking many many years to relief.
And how would we keep nullification from sliding into anarchy?
Very good! Thanks for posting it.