Are you familiar with the concept of nullification? Do you recall the Bill of Rights? How 'bout the 10th. Amendment? What did you think of the dustup Taylor Swift had with iTunes? (Bet you can answer that one.)
Ok, let's do a little brushing up shall we?
The Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, if you think the Supreme Court's rulings this week are consistent with this Amendment, then you may leave now. There's a beer in the fridge. But if you don't then please allow me to introduce you to the concept of nullification. It goes like this. The Constitution was ratified by various and INDEPENDENT States in order to join "a more perfect union". The Constitution was the contract so to speak. You can't change a contract unless BOTH sides agree. Washington has changed that contract therefore it is within the individual State's RIGHTS AND DUTIES to unilaterally NULLIFY this overreach. The mechanics are the State's governing body meets, debates and votes on the law just like any other law, prohibiting the enacting or enforcement of the Federal "law" within the borders of the State. The other States can do as they damn well please, but the law in said State is NULLIFIED, it doesn't exist.
Now, this has been tried many times over the years (Wisconsin tried it with the Fugitive Slave Act) and always shot down by the FEDERAL courts. But come on, would we allow one of the parties in a contract dispute to arbitrate that dispute? It's ridiculous on its face. Would nullification work? Probably not, in fact HELL NO! But according to my information there are 24 States currently controlled 100% by Republicans. If we got everyone of those States to pass at least a resolution condemning either one or both of these insane decisions then that would send a STRONG political message to the Federal government, the judiciary and the country that this fight is far from over. Or...ORRRR we can whine and bitch and moan and take it up the Hershey Highway just loving being one of Obama's bitches, just like our Country Club Republicans. Actually I doubt our Establishment types will even complain.
So, there you have it. We can push back, buck up our side and raise the blood pressure of the other side. We can change the narrative and "have a conversation" on what the Constitution and federalism means...or we can play dead. What's it gonna be?
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I want to do whatever it takes to put a Republican in the White House in 2016. If that means wearing chaps and fishnets on South Beach next spring, I'm there. Anything that might be counterproductive to achieving that objective is just so much dying for a lost cause. Because Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) in the White House with the benefit of Obama's precedents in the use of executive power will pretty much turn the United States in to France, only without the good food, stylish dress, or actually competent people in government. Therefore, if you were to agree on that big picture, what is your preferred course of action now?
As I've said many times, God hates a coward. Sitting on our thumbs doing nothing only creates frustration. Our side needs to land a few punches because we are in desperate need of a win. From my perspective I am no more motivated to go to the polls for, let's say a Jeb Bush than for Hillary. So, for all the moderate Republicans I say keep it up, and I guarantee a loss come 2016. Remember this, three million social conservatives stayed home in '12, if they had voted Romney would have been President. If you ignore people one me, we both lose.
I have never understood why no one has sued ObamaCare under the 10th Amendment. I never objected to RomneyCare because that was a state matter. But under the now convoluted twists. The Federal Gov't can require you to buy crap the Congress mandates...that's what ObamaCare means.
Why does someone not sue under the reasoning that it's Unconstitutions due to limitations imposed by the 10th?
Rich, for all sorts of reasons, the 10th amendment is to a great degree "the forgotten" amendment. For better or for worse, most courts and legal intellectuals have considered it a toothless restatement of the allocation of power under the Constitution, rather than having any inherent meaning. Certainly after the Civil War (which massively expanded federal power) and the FDR administration (ditto), most people believe that the main constraint on federal power vs. the states is in the Senate, which in theory represents the states equally. In recent years, some conservative judges have been finding *some* constraints in the enumerated powers of the federal government (see the Court's opinion in the first ACA case, which strained to find a basis in the taxing power, rather than just waving it through as the liberals would have done).
Constitutional Convention of the States.
Post a Comment