en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/831945 Comments by algernon http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/08/privileges-or-immunities/#IDComment171696810 Thanks for this. It is quite timely seeing how there is a new (mis)use of the fourteenth afoot right now over the debt ceiling-- Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:11:10 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/07/08/privileges-or-immunities/#IDComment171696810 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/rachel-maddow-obey-your-overlords-citizen/#IDComment142644671 "The issue of Nullification deserves a better defense of its merits than this and Nullification as a tool to be used by sovereign states can stand on its own merits..." Are you going to provide the better defense? I may be wrong but from your comment it sounds as if you haven't read much from his books. The Germany reference is only a small portion of his overall argument for nullification. And as far as nullification standing on its own merits, I think it would be safe to say that without Woods and his tireless work on this issue (along with groups like TAC) many state legislators would not be talking about this, let alone taking it serious. This is certainly the case in Idaho. Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:37:06 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/rachel-maddow-obey-your-overlords-citizen/#IDComment142644671 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/11/the-real-extremists-are-in-washington-dc/#IDComment142099323 I really love Jack Hunter. I went to school at the College of Charleston and I'm not a hater but it took the 21st Amendment (1933) to repeal the 18th (1919). The 19th Amendment was women's suffrage-- Tue, 12 Apr 2011 04:55:27 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/11/the-real-extremists-are-in-washington-dc/#IDComment142099323 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139760105 "The drafters well understood and explicitly intended that this would give the federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final say about what the Constitution means. That's why the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions are authoritative." You are espousing the doctrine of judicial review and it's not in the "original text." In fact this idea was specifically brought up in the Constitutional Convention in the form of a judicial veto and was rejected by the framers. So much for all the drafters explicitly intending and agreeing to the idea of judicial review. Mon, 4 Apr 2011 00:57:03 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139760105 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139520658 I had a comment posted earlier but it has since vanished. I will try to reconstruct it. For Alex— I have read your comments throughout TAC and I was curious as to where you are coming from constitutionally. I have just a few questions. 1)You seem to place great emphasis on the judicial branch in your constitutional interpretation. Can the federal judiciary ever be in violation of the constitution? And if so, what is to be done about it? 2)Can the acts and laws of the other two federal branches be unconstitutional? If so, what is to be done when all three federal branches are in violation of the constitution? 3)In your comments you seem to be of the opinion that the US Constitution treats the states as an afterthought and not an important center of political sovereignty. What is the purpose of the states? 4)If the federal judiciary is the final arbiter of all constitutional questions, acts of the executive and laws of the congress, both federal and state, and the judges are not elected, what system of government do we have in the US? What do you appropriately call rule be judges? I am just trying to understand your constitutional thought. Thanks— Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:17:39 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139520658 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139441102 This comment is for Alex Hamilton. After seeing your comments scattered throughout TAC I have a few questions for you. 1) Can the actions, laws and/or rulings of any of the branches of the federal government ever be in "defiance of constitutional authority"? Your comments seem to indicate that the US Constitution treats states as an afterthought or of little importance as one of the depositories of political sovereignty. 2) Can the decisions and opinions of the judiciary EVER be unconstitutional? And if so what is to be done? 3) If it is possible for the three federal branches to do anything unconstitutional, what is to be done when they are all doing or sustaining unconstitutional acts and laws? 4) And if the federal judiciary, which is made up of justices who are unelected, is the final arbiter of all actions and laws of the other federal branches and states, the only interpreter of the constitution and interposition is hogwash, what system of government are we living under? A republic? A democracy? An oligarchy? A monarchy? An aristocracy? I really am seeking to understand your constitutional thinking? Thanks-- Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:50:15 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/31/this-is-not-a-time-for-choosing/#IDComment139441102 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/texas-to-dc-cease-and-desist/#IDComment139419243 Good piece of legislation. I was impressed with how it both affirmed allegiance to the United States and Texas, reflecting the true federal structure that we should have. My question is, if (and when) the national government ignores the resolution what will you do? The language of the bill is very much in the form of a command. Is there a follow up resolution laying out an appropriate response if the national government ignores the bill? We here in Idaho (the state house at least) have pushed for nullification of the healthcare law but so far without success. Texas could and should be the leader on this mainly because of the size and prestige of the state. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 18:27:54 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/texas-to-dc-cease-and-desist/#IDComment139419243 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/idaho-house-rejects-federal-control-of-health-care/#IDComment138989925 Having followed this as a resident of Idaho I will say that even this toned-down bill will face an uphill battle in the Idaho senate. This is the place that Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis helped kill the bill and tried to justify it by stating in part: "I agree that we should do all we can to push the federal government to return to its enumerated powers...But for me, I need to do it within the system. … My heart, but not my mind, is with the supporters of this legislation.” Absolute nonsense. Let's hope he can steel his mind long enough to support this bill and that he won't let his mind betray his heart and kill this bill as well. To me this is a candid admission that he simply lacks the courage to do what is right. And more from the Spokesman-Review: "Senate President Pro-Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, told the crowd [after hearing testimony about the first nullification bill], “We're angry and we're frustrated, and I have a sacred Constitution that I believe provides for remedies for that. … I find no constitutional justification for the things that we are talking about here today. I commend you for your … goals… (and) passion. … I cannot pursue them in the manner that some of you are prescribing.” So this is what we are dealing with in Idaho. The people through their elected representatives in the House want to retain an ounce of state sovereignty but the illustrious senate leaders find the rightful remedy of nullification distasteful. Like Tom Woods says it's a solution that doesn't fall within the Gingrich to Pelosi spectrum of acceptable ideas. Our representatives will continue to "push" for solutions to an overreaching national government but only if it's compatible with the current twisted constitutional construct. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 02:16:16 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/idaho-house-rejects-federal-control-of-health-care/#IDComment138989925 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/obama-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/#IDComment138762762 Out of curiosity and sheer boredom I glanced Levin's website and his recommended reading list. I think what he lists as must reads reveals where he is coming from on the war powers issue and many other constitutional issues as well. Here are the highlights: Rumsfeld, Bill Benett about the War on Terror, Gingrich, all of Hannity's books, Rove, Palin, Coulter, Bolton, a book on Cheney, Tom DeLay, and Rush Limbaugh. To be fair he has Goldwater and Hayek on his list too but they are at the end. Now don't get me wrong, if you want to understand the derailing of conservatism or the decline of the Old Right Jeffersonian types in the conservative movement and the rise of a new crop of conservative reformulation this is a great list. Unfortunately as we've seen, Levin represents not a recommitment to liberty after the Bush years but a reaffirmation of the liberty-killing foreign policy and tendencies of neoconservatives. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 04:07:16 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/obama-levin-wrong-on-war-powers/#IDComment138762762 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/did-the-republic-end-in-1913/#IDComment135754352 Thanks for the post. Of course I'm sure if you had the time and space you would have included the 17th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve to round out the trio of doom for federalism. 1913 would truly be the year to erase if one had the power. Don't get me wrong I want a democratic system of government that I can participate in, it's the only way to practice civic virtue and guard against corruption but when democracy is exported to a far away government (DC is 2,300 miles away from me) it becomes tyrannical. Madison said a republic would work over a large territory, not democracy. Another good book that warns about the dangers of a national democracy is Freedom and Federalism by Morley. I highly recommend it. Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:58:06 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/03/did-the-republic-end-in-1913/#IDComment135754352 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/first-in-the-nation-idaho-house-passes-health-care-nullification/#IDComment135474035 In response to a couple of blog posts dealing with the Idaho Senate’s tabling of the healthcare nullification bill found at the Spokesman Review, I wrote the following responses: “How utterly incomprehensible is Bart Davis: ‘I agree that we should do all we can to push the federal government to return to its enumerated powers,” he said. “But for me, I need to do it within the system. … My heart, but not my mind, is with the supporters of this legislation.’ Do all that you can? Maybe he should have his words read back to him very slowly so that he can see how ridiculous they are. Staying within a system that has been warped and twisted means that you will NEVER stop the encroachments of the federal government. Doing all you can do is casting a vote FOR nullification. Nullification is not treason, it is one way to help states fulfill their role as part of a federal system. Well done Davis et al. You all went from vanguards of restoring republicanism to ambiguous defenders of the status quo (which means federalism stays dead).” AND: “From reading the comments from those posting regarding nullification I have to ask: when you say that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land what does that have to do with nullification? What if practicing nullification actually helps uphold the Constitution by giving states a middle way between leaving the union and suffering under laws that are unconstitutional? And why is it that those who quote (often incorrectly) Article Six never mention the gross violation of the Constitution under the Tenth Amendment? It is a bit suspicious that all of the emphasis among legal scholars (including our own David Adler) and layman alike is on violations that seem to be in favor of restoring some state authority. If you want to devolve power back to the states and create some balance you are a radical; a bomb-thrower; a home grown terrorist on par with McVeigh. This predicament we as a nation find ourselves in (losing control at the local level) is a direct result of the central government absorbing too many of the duties and prerogatives that have always been under the authority of the state governments. Why are we halting and concocting fictional constitutional scruples at this time when action is needed most? The way is open for us, why won’t we seize it?” Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:23:21 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/first-in-the-nation-idaho-house-passes-health-care-nullification/#IDComment135474035 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/first-in-the-nation-idaho-house-passes-health-care-nullification/#IDComment130757037 As one of the "deadbeats" living in Idaho I can tell you that like many states we have so much to nullify here that I can't wait to see what's next. Will it be restoring to the state some of its land? the wolves? I'm not sure but it's a great feeling to know that where my vote really counts (state & local levels) I might actually have a voice. Esto Perpetua, Semper Fidelis Meae Civitati, etc-- Sat, 26 Feb 2011 03:47:00 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/first-in-the-nation-idaho-house-passes-health-care-nullification/#IDComment130757037 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/10/the-origins-of-nullification/#IDComment92141612 To Gj Merits-- I know what you mean. Some folks who you think would be supporting this idea are somehow emotionally invested in the status quo. But supporting and defending the status quo will soon get us into some serious trouble-- Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:22:59 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/10/the-origins-of-nullification/#IDComment92141612 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/08/rewriting-history/#IDComment91816095 Great article--I swear we are living in the twilight zone where not only progressives but many everyday citizens see things like nullification not as a legitimate extension of the Tenth which is necessary to check an overreaching government but a dangerous and lawless doctrine of a crazy minority. Black is white, white, black and sweet is now become bitter. I guess one can't expect anything different in a world where students and citizens are taught the virtues and beneficence of the federal governmet and the vices of the backwards, racist and ignorant states. May we all get out there and change some minds! Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:11:35 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/08/08/rewriting-history/#IDComment91816095 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/22/was-thomas-jefferson-a-great-president/#IDComment89502060 Is there a part two that discusses the Embargo? I think it shows how even a great republican president like Jefferson, probably the closest we've had or will ever have to the classical ideal, can promote disastrous policies that can effectively ruin state sovereignty. How important the 9th and 10th Amendments are--you can't trust ANYBODY in federal office. In fact the Federalists in New England used the principles of Jefferson's nullification doctrine against him and in support of state sovereignty. I literally just read this in Tom Woods new book pp. 60-67. Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:38:46 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/22/was-thomas-jefferson-a-great-president/#IDComment89502060 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/misunderstanding-the-supremacy-clause/#IDComment89295997 Just to help prove your point about the gross misunderstanding of the supremacy clause I am reading For the People by Akhil R Amar and Alan Hirsch. Their main thesis is that the Constitution is based on popular sovereignty. As such the people of the states have the right to bypass Article V and amend the Constitution, make national laws through plebiscites and do all sorts of things that many today would consider radical. They write with the hopes of restoring the true meaning of the Constitution. But when it comes to their understanding of the supremacy clause they write this: "Congress offers another potential safeguard [against the potential tyranny of the majority]. As noted, under Article VI of the Constitution, the laws of the United States take precedence over state laws with which they conflict." No qualifiers, no quoting of the the supremacy clause which states that the laws of the national government are supreme IF they are "made in Pursuance thereof", (which you correctly point out relates to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8). So even the more radical of law professors and political scientists are clearly comfortable with the status quo misunderstanding-- Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:06:42 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/misunderstanding-the-supremacy-clause/#IDComment89295997 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/25/youre-not-entitled-to-your-own-history/#IDComment89012555 I am not a Democrat, Progressive or a Left-winger by any means but I have found that many Republicans and other conservatives are dead set against things like nullification and find the compact theory of the Constitution absurd and frightening. They are wholly nationalist in their views to the point where the states hardly enter into the constitutional picture. I particularly find this line from Senator Whelan common among them: "The secessionists, state’s rights nullifiers lost [the Civil War]. The United States of America won. We are one nation, indivisible, governed by the laws our Congress and President enact." I recentrly told in a forum where I questioned the misuse of the 14th Amendment that: "The 14th Amendment was MEANT to curb state sovereignty so that the states could never again violate certain rights. We had a civil war. The states' rights side lost, and that loss was enshrined into law by the 14th Amendment. Get over it." Those promoting the restoration of true federalism have a lot of work to do-- "Semper Fidelis Meae Civitati" Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:09:47 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/25/youre-not-entitled-to-your-own-history/#IDComment89012555 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/09/whether-they-want-us-to-or-not/#IDComment89003102 This whole discussion is about promoting a true federal system. You can see how far we have moved toward the consolidation side of the liberty scale in America when a principle like nullification, which promotes true federalism is seen as kooky by those who, like Barnett, have actively supported the restoration of federalism in the past. Barnett also thinks that calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment is too kooky as well even though Eugene Hickok writes that it would be "difficult to overstate the impact of the Seventeenth Amendment on Congress and on federalism (Why States?, 61)." I suppose those pushing for restoration of constitutional principles will have to wait until radical becomes respectable. But will it be too late by then? Mon, 26 Jul 2010 19:59:48 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/09/whether-they-want-us-to-or-not/#IDComment89003102