« Brave new world of political discourse | Main | A secessionist Freudian slip »
Monday, 09 March 2009
Nullification: Are we going to do it again?
Michael Rodgers over at "Take Down The Flag" is worried that we are, with S.C. House bill 3509, which seeks a concurrent resolution. And you know, you can easily see why he would think that, given such language as this:
I found that "sole and exclusive right" bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty. That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:
The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law.
And a certain neo-Confederate sensibility is suggested with the very first example of the sort of action on the part of the federal government that would constitute an abridgement of the Constitution under this resolution:
As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up: The bill's sponsors are indeed suggesting that this resolution is needed to declare that we won't let Reconstruction be reinstituted.
Because, you know, that Obama is such a clear and present danger. Or something. I guess.
Of course, not everyone is shocked, appalled or amused at the notion of a new nullification movement. Check out this op-ed piece we recently ran online, about Mark Sanford and nullification.
Posted by Brad Warthen at 10:15 AM in Barack Obama, Confederate Flag, History, Legislature, Mark Sanford, Out There, Republicans, Rule of Law, South Carolina, Southern discomfort, The Nation
Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4ea353ef011168ce0748970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nullification: Are we going to do it again?:
Comments
Often in times of crisis, political leaders tend to be short-sighted in their search for solutions. Unfortunately, this usually translates into trading long-term complications for short-term comfort. Many of these long-term complications come in the form of lingering federal mandates, which in this case are attached to stimulus funds and would inevitably haunt the state long after the effects of the stimulus disappear.
Few South Carolinians would be open to making permanent changes to their laws in order to receive temporary relief. One of Sanford’s primary duties as a steward for the state is to protect taxpayers from fiscal waste — especially that which is foisted upon South Carolinians by the federal government. It is this fiduciary duty that fueled Sanford’s misgivings about accepting stimulus funds without a careful review.
This was taken from the above op-ed piece.
You need to read the whole article.
Posted by: slugger | Mar 9, 2009 10:46:45 AM
Two weeks ago, the Ohio National Guard cancelled a training exercise in rounding up firearms from civilians, after protest from the civilian community and from within the Guard officers.
Remember when Clinton and Butch Reno had the FBI roping down into Columbia from black helicopters? Brad and other mouthpieces for Big Government were nonstop with the excuses for that, and demonizing anyone who questioned the motives of those who misused the US military against civilians at Waco.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 11:06:56 AM
Oh, and just in case you put stock in what Lee claims, I don't recall having said anything about Janet Reno, much having been "nonstop with the excuses."
Of course, the fact that I don't remember it doesn't mean I didn't say SOMETHING, although I have no memory of it. Perhaps Lee can refresh me. Nor can I imagine now why I would want to take sides between nuts who want to engage in armed defiance of the government, and club-footed gummint officials who burn down buildings with kids in them. Hard to find a side to cheer for, you know.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Mar 9, 2009 11:13:23 AM
1. I remember reading about the Oklahoma bill a few months ago -- before the election. So the Take Down The Flag Blog and your assertions that this bill is a result of Obama taking office is disingenuous. In fact, from the CNN article cited on the other blog:
Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican and the first to introduce this type of legislation last year, originally pursued it because he thought then-President Bush and Congress exceeded their authority with the Real ID Act, which required states to include certain information on driver's licenses.
2. Can someone tell me what this has to do with secession or the Confederate flag on the State House grounds (both of which are horrible things in my opinion)?
To me this bill is just essentially telling the federal government that they need to remember the Bill of Rights. And yes, they do seem to forget about our rights sometimes when it is inconvenient. Show me a time in history where power became more consolidated and people became more free and did not have their rights abused.
3. I cannot believe you actually ran an op-ed from Andrew Davis. This is the same guy who staged a fake anti-war rally and raffled an AK-47 while at Clemson University. Of course, that doesn't make these statements less true:
The blind acceptance of federal aid without a careful consideration of the long-term consequences should not be an option for anyone in a state with a history of opposing creeping federal authority.
Often in times of crisis, political leaders tend to be short-sighted in their search for solutions. Unfortunately, this usually translates into trading long-term complications for short-term comfort. Many of these long-term complications come in the form of lingering federal mandates, which in this case are attached to stimulus funds and would inevitably haunt the state long after the effects of the stimulus disappear.
Posted by: Birch Barlow | Mar 9, 2009 11:22:18 AM
Article VI, Sec. 2: the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution. Modern-day states' rights advocates need to read it and believe it. States cannot nullify or refuse to abide by an act of Congress. The federal government is supreme in the whole territory of the United States.
Posted by: Rich | Mar 9, 2009 11:30:09 AM
The federal government is only supreme in matters where it exercises its authority over federal matters, which are limited to those activities enumerated in the US Constitution.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 12:18:11 PM
Brad, man up and post your old opinion pieces defending the FBI intimidation exercises in Columbia and other cities.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 12:19:33 PM
Remember when Clinton and Butch Reno had the FBI roping down into Columbia from black helicopters?
What was this? I must say I do not remember.
Posted by: Greg Flowers | Mar 9, 2009 12:45:28 PM
So far there are eight comments on this post, and two on the related one that follows.
Now watch: If past patterns hold true, starting in 24 or 48 hours, there will be a sudden surge in comments, as the neoConfederates weigh in. This is something I've noted for as long as I've been on the editorial board. If you publish something about the Confederate flag or anything related to that general topic area, you will hear from a LOT of flag supporters or fellow travelers -- but only after a delay.
That's because there's a bunch folks who care DEEPLY about these topics, but who don't read newspapers or keep up with current affairs in general -- so their grapevine has to pick up what we published and pass it on (probably by e-mail at the fastest, or maybe even snail mail, or by postings on their topic-specific Web sites). Then we hear from them.
I'll be interested to see whether nullification as a topic works that way...
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Mar 9, 2009 1:21:20 PM
i think a repeal of the seventeenth amendment is in order. congress wouldn't be foisting so many mandates on the states, if the states had true representatives in congress.
Posted by: blue bunny | Mar 9, 2009 1:23:11 PM
So Brad... you're worried about an influx of comments from "neoConfederates", did you think about this before you posted this topic? Are you really trying to troll in your own blog?
So "neoConfederates" are ignorant is what you are saying. They don't read newspapers or keep up with current affairs. Have you watched the NAACP sheep lately? As far as they're concerned it's still 1955.
Why don't we discuss the gang wannabes in Columbia vs. Pizza Hut deliverymen.
Posted by: Bill C. | Mar 9, 2009 1:55:22 PM
Pizza Hut deliverymen 1 Gang wannabes 0.
Too bad a young life was snuffed out on account of his stupid behavior along with a gun toting pizza dude. Before I make a final judgement on this I want to see more facts. Is the delivery dude telling the entire truth? Was this entirely a case of self-defence or was it vigilante justice? There are a few red flags here that need some further clarification.
Posted by: bud | Mar 9, 2009 2:17:51 PM
Helicopters Assault Charlotte, NC
The Washington Post
(4/13/97, p. 1) r
Reports that "A dozen U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopters, their lights out, descended from the night sky March 4 on a corner of Charlotte, N.C. They swooped among the high-rise apartment buildings, then dropped dozens of special operations troops, some with their weapons blasting, into an abandoned warehouse to capture a group of ‘terrorists.'"
Inumdated
"Some terrified residents grabbed their guns. Others ducked into doorways. The 911 line went crazy, as did Mayor Pat McCrory's telephone line. "‘I could barely hear the callers because of the helicopter noise and the gunfire in the background,' McCrory recalled."
Local Police Surrender Local Accountability
"Neither McCrory nor his police chief was sure what was going on. But they had a clue: Three months earlier, two men in jeans and T-shirts from the secretive U.S. Army Special Operations Command had visited McCrory's office to ask permission to conduct urban counterterrorism exercises they said would go unnoticed. McCrory signed a confidentiality statement agreeing not to disclose the event beforehand or national security's sake."
Blitzkrieg Training Authorized By Gop Congress
"‘We were misled,' said McCrory, who was forced by the public outcry to kick the Army out of Charlotte after the first of what was to have been three days of urban antiterrorism training. ‘How they thought you could come in and out without any disturbance is beyond me. It was almost like a blitzkrieg operation. People went and got their guns. I feel fortunate no one was hurt.'"
At Least 21 U.S. Cities Are Subjected To Population Control Training By Commander-In-Chief Clinton's Defense Department
"Over the last three years, the U.S. Army Special Operations Command has conducted at least 21 such exercises in 21 U.S. cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Seattle."
---- note ------------
Columbia, SC was also one of these cities.
Do a NEXUS search of The State.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 2:44:05 PM
Sounds more like a ham ham handed training exercise than anything sinister.
Posted by: Greg Flowers | Mar 9, 2009 3:04:07 PM
Jeez, Warthen, you're a totalitarian.
Me, I'm a lot more worried about the "clear and present danger" from Obama than some state resolution affirming the Ninth and 10th amendments.
Why don't you and Rich the Euro guru make up some signs that say "End State Autonomy Now!" amd march up and down in front of the State House until you wear out the soles of your shoes?
Posted by: penultimo mcfarland | Mar 9, 2009 3:32:42 PM
Actually, I feel about the 9th and 10th Amendments about the same way that I feel about the other eight in the Bill of Rights: I feel like they're in fine shape and have held up well for more than two centuries, and they really don't need the S.C. General Assembly to pass new legislation to assert them. They stand on their own.
Posted by: Brad Warthen | Mar 9, 2009 3:40:21 PM
No kidding. Why does the Legislature need to preen and posture and act like they're the last thing standing between us and totalitarian government?
I don't think that was the U.S. government there in Charlotte. I think it was an alien planet doing secret maneuvers to try and catch us off guard. But wait. Could Obama work for them?
Posted by: KP | Mar 9, 2009 4:51:12 PM
It's sad the way 'Rich' cites the US Constitution as his excuse for the federal government taking away more individual liberty, when last week and next week he will be agreeing with Obama that the Constitution is irrelevant on some other rights.
What's sad is that these fools think they are smart and educated, and entitled to be the masters of other people.
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 5:28:08 PM
KP, were those fed cops or aliens who captured little Elian Gonzales at gunpoint and handed him over to Fidel Castro?
Posted by: Lee Muller | Mar 9, 2009 5:30:46 PM
Bill,
As a member of the NAACP, I read your comment and just could not believe it. 1955? That year was mild compared to 1931 (Scottsboro), 1923 (Rosewood), 1900s (Atlanta), or 1877 (end of Reconstruction). People of color were terrorized and lynched for almost 100 years after the end of the civil war. Their rights were rarely respected, and they were often physically brutalized and killed by local whites--especially if it appeared they were getting ahead and prospering.
Nothing infuriates racist whites like a prospering family of color. That's the history and it is extremely well documented.
Brad, I would let the flag thing die. The yahoos who support the flag don't want a rational debate, they want a shouting festival. They want the public spotlight to advocate the most awful, retrograde, ignorant public policy positions possible.
Compared to the confederate flag wavers, Sarah Palin standing by the turkey being killed and bled is a flaming liberal.
Even conservatives in places like Alaska and Wyoming have no idea of what we deal with down here once you leave Myrtle Beach, Beaufort, Columbia, and Charleston.
They have no idea!
Posted by: Rich | Mar 9, 2009 8:37:36 PM
Rich, tell me how does it feel to be a member of an acceptable racist organization? Don't believe me, what would you think of a NAAWP? Even the mention of such a thing has your leaders screaming on national television and would have the SC Legislative Black Caucus walking out of their chambers. Why isn't there a SC Legislative White Caucus? Oh yeah, that would be racist. I'm beginning to learn how this double-standard works. Now which channel is the Miss White America on, oh yeah WET.
Posted by: Bill C. | Mar 9, 2009 9:26:20 PM
Lee, as someone with extensive background and experience in family law, immigration law, and SWAT tactics (such that you know more about that situation that anyone who was involved with it, as you do all matters), why don't you tell us?
Posted by: KP | Mar 9, 2009 10:13:41 PM
Bill C brings up the non sequitur "what if white people did that?" to denounce black specific organization.
There is ample evidence of white caucuses, e.g. the US Senate with ONE black member. The power structure in the US is clearly in the hands of whites, mostly males. To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or maybe ignorance.
I surveyed my black high school students last year and most had grandparents who were in their 60s. This means when the grandparents turned 18, they could not vote in SC. These kids are only 2 generations removed from being second class citizens. The notion that this should be completely discounted reflects a lack of understanding of history as prelude.
Posted by: Randy E | Mar 9, 2009 11:19:03 PM
KP has been keeping up with Lee's posts, lol.
Posted by: Randy E | Mar 9, 2009 11:19:30 PM
BRAD WARTHEN WROTE:
"I found that "sole and exclusive right" bit interesting, with the way it seemed to brush aside the federalist notion of shared sovereignty."
D--- my eyes, Brad! You really DO NOT get it. Your argument only makes sense if you see the source of all power as emanating from the Federal government. You seem to forget that little July 4th bit about:
FOUNDING FATHERS WROTE: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Yes, we DO have "sole and exclusive right" as given by our CREATOR. After that, as we decide to participate in a larger organization (originally a federal republic) through our smaller organizations (the states), we enumerate certain powers to the Federal government yet STILL, besides the legal means of amendments and so forth, have the right and power to alter THE ENTIRE ARRANGEMENT when it comes right down to it.
BRAD WARTHEN WROTE:
"That language seems to go beyond the purpose stated in the summary, which is:
TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
"The point being, of course, that since we do HAVE the Ninth and 10th amendments, every word of this resolution is superfluous unless it means to negate federal authority in some way not currently set out in law...
"I feel about the 9th and 10th Amendments about the same way that I feel about the other eight in the Bill of Rights: I feel like they're in fine shape..."
That of course, only makes sense if you have a naive, Hitler Jugend sort of adoration for the transmogrified Federal omnipotence that currently exists. If you can't see the problem, you can't fix it. But then you have the editorial superpower of simply and arbitrarily labeling people who actually respect the U.S. Constitution as "neo-confederates" so that you can yawn and go about your "enlightened" fascist way.
This whole thing has nothing to do with a piece of cloth. The Confederate flag is nothing to be worshipped nor made legally exempt except to the simple-minded among the population who are just as eager to deify the US flag while they're at it.
It is, instead, the principles we have and the actions we take to preserve those principles that really matter. An expression of back-bone always seems to distress "pragmatic fascists."
"Shouldn't we all just get along?" you ask.
Sometimes, as on July 4th, 1776, the answer is "no."
Posted by: Workin' Tommy C | Mar 10, 2009 7:59:37 AM
