Posted on 02/07/2010 6:15:41 AM PST by wolfcreek
An unexpected feature of this year's gubernatorial race is the revival of certain political notions identified with early American history. Republican candidate Debra Medina in particular has made nullification a major aspect of her campaign, both in her two debates with U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry and on her Web site, which includes, under the label "Restore Sovereignty," the message that the U.S. Constitution "divides power between the federal and state governments and ultimately reserves final authority for the people themselves. Texas must stop the over reaching federal government and nullify federal mandates in agriculture, energy, education, healthcare, industry, and any other areas D.C. is not granted authority by the Constitution."
She does not specify the mechanism by which nullification would take place, but, obviously, she appears to believe that the legal authority to nullify is unquestionable, making it only a question of political will.
(Excerpt) Read more at statesman.com ...
the pushback is already written in the Declaration of Independence...
now, whos ballsy enuff to start the timer ???
Ike was a real Texan, a real man, and a great president.
Texas has the largest National guard.
Postal system, not a problem
Maintain the roads, not a problem been doing it for ever.
Security, probably do a better job than the Feds.
Student loans. The Fed took that over and can keep it.
NASA, probably get that cheap since Barry is closing it.
The Border, LOL the Feds aren't doing their job.
Welfare recipients would need to join the New Texas volunteer military and Highway maintenance dept.
Ron Paul probably need to retire to a consulting position.
He deported 2.5 million illegal foreigners. That’s Texan enough for me.
That's like asking a cheetah to give up it's spots in lieu of stripes. It will never happen.
The only way you get the Obamination to quit being a communist is to defeat him in the next election and NEVER elect him for ANYTHING ever again.
Nevertheless, we have reached the point in this country where what is legal is what you can get away with. And that applies to the states as much as it does the federal government.
IMO, it is past time for the states to challenge the feds. It’s time for us to find out if the power balance between the states and the federal government can be altered in the direction/favor of the states. Which, I believe would be more in keeping with the intent and wording of the Constitution.
Rick Perry is a moron.
> Maybe the best answer is for Obama to stop being a communist.
Impossible for him. He’s a true believer and even believes his own lies.
If the election were tomorrow, maybe.
The only other way is removal from office ... which may be coming from a
majority-Conservative Congress and mainstream Democrats (not the
Progressives) in 2011.
As a Texan, I believe a violent secession would be a *last resort* type response. That’s why there’s nullification (legal remedy)
However, if the FedGov doesn’t firmly believe we are capable and willing of such rebellion, the threat is worthless.
I completely forgot about currency.
And I really can’t even begin to imagine how the financial markets would work.
Then again, Lithuania did it.
It certainly shows toughness and backbone.
But the three Texas presidents were on the other side on immigration.
So what does that tell you?
That my zip code in Houston is 50 percent Hispanic.
They’re Globalist pukes.
Some of your examples are poor. The partition of India and Pakistan in 1947 led to somewhere between half a million and a million deaths, and the two countries are still at each other's throats 60 years later. Croatia saw about 20,000 dead in the war that followed their declaration of independence. The Yugoslavian army invaded Slovenia to bring them back under control, failing in a brief and largely bloodless war.
Jefferson's own party didn't follow his own ideas when it was in power. The National Bank and protective tariffs that he rejected returned under Madison and Monroe.
That reading of history is not entirely clear in itself. Of the three, Madison certainly deviated the most from where the Jeffersonian Republicans were circa the "Revolution of 1800." This owes largely to his conversion to the moderate protectionist school during and shortly after the War of 1812 (the Madison of 1816 was a far cry from the Madison of 1789 where tariffs were concerned). It is also debatable to what extent the Tariff of 1816 may be truly called "protectionist." Its rates were exceedingly moderate compared to any of its successor acts, and it was much a lingering product of anti-British sentiments from the late War as any overt Clayite program (recall that even the later free trade standard-bearer Calhoun supported it). Overt protectionism did not begin in earnest until the Tariff of 1824, and by the time Jefferson wrote the aforementioned it, along with the canal bill, were thoroughly Adams' programs.
Indeed, Jefferson himself had trouble following his own principles during his own administration. Jefferson the constitutional scholar had real trouble accepting his own Louisiana Purchase and trade embargo.
The same might just as easily be said of any founder, including and particularly the Federalist supporters of the Sedition Acts of 1798 that ran far afoul of the recently adopted 1st Amendment. Jefferson at least had the courtesy to express his constitutional reservation about the Louisiana Purchase. As to the trade embargo, it was not the inconsistency you suggest. Dating to at least 1793 when he wrote his answer to Hamilton's programs, Jefferson considered it well within the powers of Congress to "regulate commerce" between nations for purposes of military and diplomatic strategy (which is more consistent with the ratification discussions of that clause than a protective aim). He also considered this power separate and apart from that of collecting "imposts" upon traded imports, which were deemed revenue measures.
But that is neither here nor there really, as the more relevant point is Jefferson's incorporation of the principles some would deem part of this recent "nullification" movement into the body of his constitutional thought. It certainly happened, and Levinson has done a disservice to his audience by neglecting to acknowledge it.
Jefferson's own party didn't follow his own ideas when it was in power. The National Bank and protective tariffs that he rejected returned under Madison and Monroe.
That reading of history is not entirely clear in itself. Of the three, Madison certainly deviated the most from where the Jeffersonian Republicans were circa the "Revolution of 1800." This owes largely to his conversion to the moderate protectionist school during and shortly after the War of 1812 (the Madison of 1816 was a far cry from the Madison of 1789 where tariffs were concerned). It is also debatable to what extent the Tariff of 1816 may be truly called "protectionist." Its rates were exceedingly moderate compared to any of its successor acts, and it was much a lingering product of anti-British sentiments from the late War as any overt Clayite program (recall that even the later free trade standard-bearer Calhoun supported it). Overt protectionism did not begin in earnest until the Tariff of 1824, and by the time Jefferson wrote the aforementioned it, along with the canal bill, were thoroughly Adams' programs.
Indeed, Jefferson himself had trouble following his own principles during his own administration. Jefferson the constitutional scholar had real trouble accepting his own Louisiana Purchase and trade embargo.
The same might just as easily be said of any founder, including and particularly the Federalist supporters of the Sedition Acts of 1798 that ran far afoul of the recently adopted 1st Amendment. Jefferson at least had the courtesy to express his constitutional reservation about the Louisiana Purchase. As to the trade embargo, it was not the inconsistency you suggest. Dating to at least 1793 when he wrote his answer to Hamilton's programs, Jefferson considered it well within the powers of Congress to "regulate commerce" between nations for purposes of military and diplomatic strategy (which is more consistent with the ratification discussions of that clause than a protective aim). He also considered this power separate and apart from that of collecting "imposts" upon traded imports, which were deemed revenue measures.
But that is neither here nor there really, as the more relevant point is Jefferson's incorporation of the principles some would deem part of this recent "nullification" movement into the body of his constitutional thought. It certainly happened, and Levinson has done a disservice to his audience by neglecting to acknowledge it.
Marshall truly pushed the court into new territory there with far-reaching implications that would later justify a constitutional theory embracing centralization. Nor can the theory he offered in that case be said to represent an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, as he - quite literally - stared down the very author of the Supremacy Clause from the 1787 convention and told him that his original meaning meant nothing. So if you seek the event that set the ball in motion for the income tax and everything else after it, trace it to that. Because it was the judicial green light that emboldened subsequent congresses to assume ever-greater powers at the federal level.
I'm with you there, Jim, in holding it as inherent as described in the Declaration of Independence. In this instance however, I'm referring to Texas' specific reservation of that right upon admission to the union, which may have been legally waived upon surrender during the Civil War. Needless to say, the final fact of expressing that right is up to the people.
Do you have a case number for this finding?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.