Emerging GOP Theme: Nullification
Minnesota's Governor Tim Pawlenty last week joined in the growing chorus in his party singing the praises of nullification. He didn't come right out and use the word, preferring to talk of "state sovereignty" instead, but the concept is the same. This seems to be an emerging theme among the Republican Party as it lurches slowly towards the 2012 presidential campaign. The fact that the issue was largely settled by the Civil War does not seem to faze those wishing to dish up some red meat to GOP voters.
Pawlenty made the news while talking on a conference call sponsored by the Republican Governors' Association last Thursday. Asked by a caller about using the Tenth Amendment to reject any healthcare reform passed in Washington, Pawlenty (from two media reports, one in Politico and one from Minnesota Public Radio) responded with:
"Depending on what the federal government comes out with here, asserting the Tenth Amendment may be a viable option, but we don't know the details. We can't get the president to outline what he does or doesn't support in any detail. So we'll have to see. I would have to say that it's a possibility."
"You're starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our Tenth Amendment rights. Asserting the Tenth Amendment may be a viable option." Pawlenty also talked of "claims, and maybe even lawsuits, if need be."
To be fair to Pawlenty, the next day he walked this back considerably:
I made some comments that made it into the press last night about the Tenth Amendment. What I was trying to convey is that we have an important amendment in the U.S. Constitution and we should at least have the discussion. Not seceding from the union, not filing lawsuits, but at least some awareness that the Tenth Amendment exists.
That was a pretty fast reversal, from "maybe even lawsuits, if need be," to "some awareness that the Tenth Amendment exists," but then, after all, Pawlenty hails from Minnesota and not Texas. In Minnesota such talk is considered a bit more unseemly (even among Republicans) than in Texas; where such talk is considered pretty mild and wimpy -- when compared, for instance to Texas' governor expressing support for exploring outright secession from the Union.
For the record, here is the text of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:
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.
But it's not just a few Republican governors speaking off the cuff about such explosive ideas as nullification and secession. State legislatures in Republican-controlled states are passing actual resolutions stating their intent to follow through on such ideas. These are not legally-binding resolutions, but still it's somewhat of an oddity in modern America.
The first I heard of such efforts was from Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker, who wrote about it a few months ago under the title "Bonkers In Georgia." A website dedicated to the idea (www.tenthamendmentcenter.com) reports (speaking of a similar resolution in Alabama) that:
If HJR10 passes both houses of the legislature, Alabama would be the eighth state to pass a resolution affirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, joining Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Similar resolutions have been introduced in thirty-seven states in the past year.
While the resolution is not legally binding, supporters say it's an important first step to "serve notice" to the federal government that it's exercising powers not delegated to it by the People in the Constitution. They say that state-level nullification of federal laws is the next step, and efforts have already begun on this in a number of states.
Montana and Tennessee, for example, have passed laws exempting people of their state from certain federal firearms regulations. In 2010, Arizona voters will have the option of approving a state constitutional amendment that would effectively ban a future national health care plan in the state. Similar laws and amendments are being considered in states across the country.
They also provide the full text of the Alabama resolution, which is much more succinct than the one that passed the state senate in Georgia by a vote of 43-1. Hertzberg dissects some of the language of the Georgia resolution, which he calls: "a resolution that mixes three parts inanity and one part prospective treason into a Kompletely Krazy Kocktail of militia-minded moonshine and wacko white lightning -- a resolution that not only endorses defiance of federal law but also threatens anarchy and revolution."
Hertzberg mirthfully points out that the resolution: "is written in a mock eighteenth-century style, ornate and pompous. Just two of its twenty sentences account for more than 1,200 of its 2,200 words. But the substance is even nuttier than the style." But what he fails to connect is that he is, in essence, calling Thomas Jefferson a nutjob. Because the language in question in the Georgia resolution ("where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which have not been delegated [to it by the states], a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy") isn't merely "mock eighteenth-century style," but in fact was written in the eighteenth century, about ten years after the United States Constitution was ratified -- and that the language came directly from Jefferson's pen. Because Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolutions, which is where Georgia cribbed it from. James Madison wrote a similar document which became the Virginia Resolution.
Of course, this was all before the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s, where South Carolina walked up to the brink of open defiance of the federal government (President Andrew Jackson's Vice President, John C. Calhoun, actually resigned over the issue to run for the Senate, where he took up the cause). Congress actually passed a "Force Bill" in 1833 which authorized the president to use military force against South Carolina, should it become necessary; South Carolina readied a militia to fight, as well. The issue was eventually defused, and the Civil War was hence postponed for three decades.
But the Civil War (which began in South Carolina, of course) eventually was fought. The concept of nullification was laid permanently to rest, along with the thousands of soldiers who died on both sides during the conflict. So one would think the issue would be dead forever.
Apparently, one would be wrong. The Tenth Amendment is one of the rarer parts of the Bill of Rights for the Supreme Court to actually rule on, but every so often one of these cases is taken up by the Court. And, increasingly, Republicans are using it as a "last resort" against federal laws they don't like. Although, to be fair, one of the more recent decisions (Gonzales v. Raich) went against a California woman who argued that since she was growing medical marijuana on her own land for her own consumption, the constitutional powers of the federal government to regulate interstate trade simply did not apply. The Supreme Court disagreed, but at least it was consistent, since it had ruled during World War II that a wheat farmer could not use this argument to escape federal war efforts to regulate wheat production (Wickard v. Filburn). In both cases, the Court reasoned, even if the farmer didn't sell his or her crop, it could still impact the interstate commerce for that crop. Meaning Congress could, indeed, regulate it.
The Supreme Court has also upheld Congress' right to essentially blackmail states to do what the feds want, by using the leverage of withholding federal funding to the states unless they comply with the fed's wishes. Anyone who lived through the 1980s saw how Washington used federal highway funds to blackmail states into raising their drinking age in just such a fashion. But the Supreme Court has also ruled that the feds cannot tell states to actually enforce federal laws directly. Most recently, the Court has struck down gun restrictions such as a "Gun-Free School Zone," or mandatory background checks for gun sales, which (the Court reasoned) cannot be imposed by the feds on the state governments.
Meaning that the Tenth Amendment is still open to some degree of interpretation. Most people consider it as much an anachronism as the Third Amendment (which deals with "quartering troops"), but with the conservative bent of the current Supreme Court, who knows how they would rule on a state which decided to "nullify" a federal healthcare system?
Which also means that calling the Tenth Amendment movement a bunch of nutjobs may be premature. They consider themselves in the company of Jefferson and Madison, after all. And they have a few recent Supreme Court decisions to give them hope. While outright secession is still relegated to nutjob-type thinking among most Americans today, the movement among Republicans to stick their finger in the eye of a (Democratic, of course) president or Congress doesn't seem so outlandish. This is actually an old argument. The "code words" change over time (from "nullification" to "states' rights" to Pawlenty's "state sovereignty"), but the idea is the same -- we don't care what the feds say, we retain the right to ignore any laws we don't feel like following.
And, from these indications, it will likely be an emerging theme among Republican candidates (on a small scale) in next year's elections, and (on a much bigger stage) in the 2012 presidential race. Pawlenty, after all, is widely considered to be thinking about such a run himself -- which goes a long way towards explaining why a governor of a very Northern state should be talking about a concept which usually originates in the American political discussion from the Deep South.
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
GOP says "nullification"....
Dems say "reconciliation"...
Of course, the actual process and reasoning is different....
But the desired result is the same.
An end run around the democratic process to serve a partisan political agenda.
Once again, we are shown that Democrats and Republicans are simply two sides of the same politically bigoted coin...
Gods help this country..
Michale......
Similar resolutions have been introduced in thirty-seven states in the past year.
I would also point out one obvious fact that doesn't get mentioned.
If the majority of states are fed up with the Feds (as is indicated by the number of states introducing these resolutions), what message should said Feds take away from this?
Michale.....
Chris, the Force Bill of 1833 also precipitated the nation's first militia movement. Whereas the militia had been an official state organization up til then, gun clubs popped up in South Carolina, New Orleans, Mobile, etc. in full expectation they would need to fend off northern aggression.
But I'm not entirely convinced the Supremes are conservative enough to fall for Tenther arguments (that's right, they've already earned a name, like "birthers" and "deathers" and "healthers"). Moreover, I doubt even Georgia would long resist a public option -- a combination of public demand and just plain old reality would eventually overcome resistance from Teh Crazyâ„¢.
But I'm not entirely convinced the Supremes are conservative enough to fall for Tenther arguments (that's right, they've already earned a name, like "birthers" and "deathers" and "healthers").
Iddn't it amazing how the party that is so against labeling always seems to find a label for those they disagree with??
Ahhh, I yearn for the bygone days of yester-year, where there were REAL liberals who actually PRACTICED what they preached.
These so-called "liberals" these days, who are nothing but stale flip-side Republicans, really become tiresome after a while... :D
One has to wonder why the Left has embraced Nixon's concept of the "Silent Majority" so readily. Oh wait.. These faux-liberals call it "The Quiet Plurality"....
By Any Other Name....
Halfway decent Trek episode... :D
I guess all the Town Halls this summer, PLUS a million person march on Washington DC is all contrived opposition, eh?? :D
I, for one, simply cannot wait til November 2010!!!! :D
Michale.....
On a completely un-related note, it's sad to note the passing of Patrick Swayze.
It's a reminder to us all, at least those of us in our advance years.....
"I have come to the realization that there are considerably more years behind me than there are in front of me."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK VII, Generations
Hey Michale,
Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post where he touches on a subject dear to my heart and related to your frustrations w/ Democrats and Republicans.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/14/resentment/index.html
The leaders and elected representatives from both parties benefit from an ongoing feud which really isn't much of a feud.
He says that there "ought to be citizen rage towards the government that transcends -- indeed, that has little to do with -- divisions between the so-called 'Right' and 'Left.'"
For example, what happened during the financial crisis- people from both sides were upset w/ the way the financial industry was manipulating the government.
It's not Right or Left, but anger that these large corporations are ripping off average people.
What happens, though, is that both sides try to play this off to divide people so we're feuding with each other and meanwhile, they can continue w/ the same corrupt system.
So I have to keep distinguishing between day-to-day people and the leaders of the parties. My beef is not so much w/ conservatives like yourself as it is w/ the leaders of the party who keep trying to pit us against each other.
I honestly think if 2 people such as ourselves sat down we could come to a lot of agreement and come up w/ a better plan than most things that come out of Washington. Look at the good discussion we had around health care! There's a lot we can agree on.
Right vs. Left seems false to me. It's really mostly true at the leadership level and talked about by the media. In the end, we have more in common I think than we do differences.
Just wish Washington could work more like the wonderful CW forum :)! (now who's kissing @ss?)
Cheers
David
Maybe only the real ideas are coming out of the Green's and the Libertarians?
Hay CW!!
Ya better dust off you extra-special, super-duper, mega-shiny Talking Points for this Friday!!
Obama is doing Five (Yes, count them!! 1-2-3-4-5) Sunday Talk Shows this weekend.
Not to mention also doing Letterman!
The Administration is obviously pulling out all the stops.
To me, it smacks of desperation. Obama was on the verge of excessive public overload before this. I think this blitz will end up doing more harm than good..
Michale.....
One has to wonder if the following rules apply retro-actively to Democrats during the Bush years....
Under section 370 of the House Rules and Manual it has been held that a Member could:
• refer to the government as “something hated, something oppressive.â€
• refer to the President as “using legislative or judicial pork.â€
• refer to a Presidential message as a “disgrace to the country.â€
• refer to unnamed officials as “our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs.â€
Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.â€
• call the President a “hypocrite.â€
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.â€
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.â€
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.â€
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.â€
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/House_guidelines_for_Presidential_putdowns.html
The answer is probably the same answer that Iran gave to the Obama administration with regards to discussing Iran's Nuclear Program.
NO....
Michale.....
And STILL.....
No one wants to talk about ACORN.. Despite the voracious defense of the agency during the 2008 Elections, no one wants to discuss ACORN now..
Geeee.. I wonder why that is.. :D
Sorry, the I-TOLD-YOU-SO urge is just too damn strong... :D
Michale.....
Michale -
OK, I just have to ask. Who said: "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs"? That's actually pretty funny, no matter which side it came from...
:-)
-CW
David,
Now that I got all that silly stuff outta my system (probably. :D) let's discuss....
I agree with your premise that TPTB always pit Left against right and versie vicie..
My beef in these pages is that it appears the majority of commenters fail to differentiate between Conservative LEADERS and the rank and file Joe Q Public... How many times have "Tea Party" protestors or "Town Hall" protestors been ridiculed by the Democratic Leadership and the Party rank and file...
When I rail against Democrats (and I do... Often) I try to make the distinction between the Leadership and the rank and file. Often times (as with the issue of Labeling mentioned above) the actions are one and the same..
I mean, seriously. Doesn't ANYONE have a problem with Pelosi labeling legitimate protestors, "NAZIS"???
Seriously...
Or the problem I mentioned before about any complaint against President Obama automagically being a "racist" issue..
This is a pattern exhibited by both the Leadership AND the Rank n File of the Democratic Party.
Fortunately, in these pages, such attitudes are rare. But they are NOT non-existent.
You and I are in complete agreement. If the likes of us could sit down and hash out a compromise that we ALL could get behind, then this country (dare I say, this WORLD) would be better off..
But alas, we are but prawns in this galactic game.. :D
Michale.....
OK, I just have to ask. Who said: "our half-baked nitwits handling foreign affairs"? That's actually pretty funny, no matter which side it came from…
:-)
Tru dat! :D
Ya gotta wonder, though...
The conventional wisdom in the 2010 elections is not IF the GOP will gain seats over the Democrats, but rather HOW MANY seats over the Democrats will be gained.
Assuming that this is accurate, this begs the question...
Will Democrats follow the very rules that THEY THEMSELVES put forth??
One only has to look at MA State Democrats to know the answer to THAT question... :D
The phrase, "Hoisted by their own Petard" comes to mind... :D
Michale....
And here we see another Democrat leader (and a grossly failed one at that) saying that ANY argument against Obama MUST be based on racism.
Jimmy Carter: Wilson comments 'based on racism'
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090916/D9AO5MA00.html
Some choice excerpts....
"There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."
How "many"?? A dozen?? 10?? 20??
Such purely bigoted comments should be beneath a person of Carter's (alleged) stature...
The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.
And where was "The Georgia Democrat" when there was a far more disturbing trend of demonstrators equating Bush to Nazi leaders??
Hypocrite, thy name is Carter.
"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state," Carter said. "And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect."
Unless, of course, the President is a Republican, right Carter?
Jeeze, the blatant political bigotry showed by Carter makes me want to puke.
Michale.....