Posted on 04/23/2014 9:11:01 AM PDT by xzins
Madison: "Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter."
Madison’s prescription.
“Should an unwarrantable measure…” Madison was talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification
Madison suggests
1. Disquietude of the people – Madison expected the people would throw a fit
2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union - Noncompliance. ..When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce
Look at the feds struggling to implement Obamacare. Thirty states refusing to go along
3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State - ...governors formally protesting federal actions. ...lead to the next step – legislative action.
4. Legislative devices, .. - he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. ...formalize the doctrine of nullification.
Was he right? ...northern resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was so effective, South Carolina listed “nullification” of the fugitive slave laws in its declaration of causes for secession.
Madison clearly expected the states to serve as a check on federal power.
(Excerpt) Read more at tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
We can’t blame the Constitution for our failure to enforce it.
Far too many Americans view any resistance to federal authority as rebellion. They need to recognize that the true rebels are elected officials, federal bureaucrats and functionaries in Washington D.C. who refuse to respect the constitutional limits of their power. It’s time for us to take on our proper role in this system and put down the rebellion.
As Madison said, the means are “powerful and at hand.”
BTTT
The problem was the the statists were smart enough to use a carrot and stick approach, where Madison was only worried about the stick.
If a state’s legislature acted to resist Obama he’d send in the SWAT teams from Department of Agriculture and Department of Education to slaughter the legislators in their homes at 3am in the morning.
His is an interesting story, which can be found here
"When the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 proposed the federal Constitution, Iredell was its foremost advocate in North Carolina. He inaugurated the first public movement in the state in favor of the document and wrote extensively in hopes of creating a new government. In particular, he responded to Virginia’s George Mason’s eleven objections to the Constitution and gained national attention in doing so. A Norfolk printer, for example, shelved other political tracts in 1788 to publish Iredell’s “Answers.” The essay preceded 49 of the 85 essays that constitute the Federalist Papers and appears to have been widely distributed.
"At the first North Carolina ratification convention, Iredell was the floor leader for the Federalist forces. After the 1788 convention refused to ratify the federal Constitution, he then wielded his influential and skillful pen to fell Anti-federalist arguments and champion the Federalist cause and the benefits of the Constitution. When North Carolina finally ratified the document at its second convention (1789), Iredell was widely considered the intellectual general of the Federalists’ victory."
"For Iredell’s ratification efforts, President George Washington rewarded the North Carolinian with an appointment to the original U.S. Supreme Court, where he served for almost a decade. (Even before ratification, his acquaintances had speculated that his future included a federal judgeship.) During his tenure on the Supreme Court, Iredell closely dealt with Presidents Washington and John Adams and offered vigorous and partisan support for their administrations. He also chronicled important events and personalities."
Despise does not even come close to an adequate verb when used to portray regard for the sewer slime currently curing D.C. into a den of Obamaness.
“Disquietude of the people – Madison expected the people would throw a fit”
**************
And indeed he was right. Back then.
Now we are surrounded by a vast sea of low information voters, a largely apathetic populace, and a general sense of entitlement and expections that big government will take care of people. In order for there to be wide spread disquietude, there would have to be a generalized awareness of our national decline and threats to our liberty. I just don’t see this grand awakening happening any time soon. I wish this was not so but just trying to keep it real.
That would happen but once. Then the disquietude of the people would be aroused.
Something so naked and bold would bespeak of their obscene arrogance...but it would be met with force....imho.
The States do not follow it because the governors want the pipe dream job of Presidential gallore and do not work for the State. It is like a career path to them. The narcissism has completely corrupted things. Sooner or later, though, a government check is not going to pay what the XL business pipeline would. The Feds are going to have to shove it, Texas Style.
The Northern States had every Authority to make slavery illegal in their respective States, but they had none to deny the 'full faith and credit' of the laws of the slaveholding States when a Citizen of one of those States came into theirs. That's what the Northern States agreed to, and that violation has set the stage for just about every unconstitutional action ever since, IMO.
------
Don't get me wrong - I know that position is (justifiably) offensive to some people, and I'm honestly not trying to drag the thread off-subject, but attempting to build justification for a Constitutional argument on an unconstitutional action is flawed from the start.
I see it simply as an example of nullification being effective.
We also so during the Bundy standoff that the Nevada governor expressing concern over the BLM’s actions definitely affected how that standoff was going to progress.
If the Nevada legislature were to censure the Federal Government and, for example, demand payment for the dead animals, the broken property, and the time and expense of the Bundys, then this would go to the top of the charts with a bullet.
As a Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist, I fully support the concept of State Sovereignty and believe that it is a necessary check on federal overreach. Unfortunately, the addictive drug of "free money" has weakened the will of the States and the People to resist federal overreach. Only by returning the federal to its Article 1, Section 8 boundaries can we completely resolve this problem.
James R. McClure Jr.
Jeffersonian Anti-Federalist Democrat candidate for IN09
Hi James. Do anti-federalists oppose nullification by sovereign states?
Nullification is effective, but my point was a State can only legitimately nullify that which it has never agreed to.
States who are attempting to restrict the Right to keep and bear arms are glaring examples of illegitimate nullification.
-------
demand payment for the dead animals, the broken property, and the time and expense of the Bundys,then this would go to the top of the charts with a bullet.
Exactly. Primarily, it's the job of the protect its People from to over-reach of government. Those who don't desperately need to have that administration tossed into the dustbin of history and elect one that will.
They’d never make it out of town if they tried that stuff.
What do you think happened at the Bundy Ranch?
Just so.
And it is sparking a resolve to stand up to them. Like Abbot in Tx is doing.
Maybe more will rise when they do not feel alone...
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.