Posted on 12/10/2002 6:57:25 AM PST by billbears
Not long ago I wrote an article on nullification for a well-known libertarian publication. Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution. As Virginian political thinker Abel Upshur put it, since no common umpire exists between the federal government and the states to render judgments on breaches of the Constitution, each state – as a constituent part and co-creator of the Union – has to make such determinations for itself. (The idea that the Supreme Court, itself a branch of the federal government, could function as this common umpire is rather like saying that we shouldn’t feel apprehensive that a mafia family has taken over our town since, after all, if we have a dispute with them their cousins will be happy to adjudicate.)
Along came "libertarian" Timothy Sandefur, who (I’m told) argues in a recent issue of Liberty magazine against the right of a state to secede and who, as a follower of Daniel Webster, denies to the states any authentic existence or any real sovereignty. Unable to get his reply published in the magazine in which my article appeared, he posted it to his website. His attack on my article showed him to be only very superficially acquainted with the issues at stake (he claimed, for instance, that nullification was intended to be carried out by state legislatures; why all this time did we think it was to be done in sovereign conventions?).
But his article was nevertheless useful in that it illustrated a standard blind spot in mainstream classical liberalism: having absorbed virtually all of the basic assumptions of modern political theory, the classical liberal cannot conceive of secession, devolution, competing or overlapping jurisdictions, or indeed any of the fabric that ultimately made Western liberty possible. They imagine a strong, large-scale state defending everyone’s natural rights. And they’re actually surprised when it never works!
A surprising number of my students, when nullification is explained to them, find it an intriguing idea. At the same time, I have plenty of students for whom Daniel Webster’s conception of an unbreakable union is so familiar, since they’ve all learned what American history they know from an absurd Lincolnian point of view, that they cannot imagine any other way of organizing society. They honestly believe that voting guarantees that only good legislation will be enacted, and that to defy "majority rule" is to commit some kind of blasphemy. They cannot break out of the model of the single, irresistible sovereign voice; they believe it is this that makes a society wealthy and strong.
Yet it was in the context of a very different model of society, in the Middle Ages, that Western liberty took root. The modern idea of sovereignty simply did not exist. As Bertrand de Jouvenel observes of our day and theirs,
A landlord no longer feels surprised at being compelled to keep a tenant; an employer is no less used to having to raise the wages of his employees in virtue of the decrees of Power. Nowadays it is understood that our subjective rights are precarious and at the good pleasure of authority. But this was an idea which was still new and surprising to the men of the seventeenth century. What they witnessed were the first decisive steps of a revolutionary conception of Power; they saw before their eyes the successful assertion of the right of sovereignty as one which breaks other rights and will soon be regarded as the one foundation of all rights.
In such a society, where a multitude of legal jurisdictions abounded and no single sovereign voice could be found, the king did not make the law but was himself bound by it. Law was something to be discovered, not made (as with the absolute monarchs and parliaments of the modern age). In his classic study of Cardinal Wolsey, Alfred Pollard described the decentralization of power that characterized the Middle Ages, as well as the lack of reliance on legislation:
There were the liberties of the church, based on law superior to that of the King; there was the law of nature, graven in the hearts of men and not to be erased by royal writs; and there was the prescription of immemorial local and feudal custom stereotyping a variety of jurisdictions and impeding the operation of a single will. There was no sovereignty capable of eradicating bondage by royal edict or act of parliament, regulating borough franchises, reducing to uniformity the various uses of the church, or enacting a principle of succession to the throne. The laws which ruled men’s lives were the customs of their trade, locality, or estate and not the positive law of a legislator; and the whole sum of English parliamentary legislation for the whole Middle Ages is less in bulk than that of the single reign of Henry VIII.
The great sociologist Robert Nisbet described medieval society as "one of the most loosely organized societies in history." Political leaders who desired centralization found themselves up against the historic liberties of towns, guilds, universities, the Church, and similar corporate bodies, all of whom guarded their (often hard-won) liberties with great vigilance, and all of whom would have been baffled at the modern idea that a single sovereign voice, whether of a king or of "the people," could on its own authority have redefined or overturned those rights, whether or not "majority rule" sanctioned it.
Our "democracy" today feels itself bound by no such obligations, and routinely overturns settled ways of life in one community after another. The myths of democracy – that it is necessary for economic prosperity, that it guarantees that government will not become abusive, that it ensures that the "will of the people" is expressed in law – seem more absurd and ridiculous than ever. Today we have a two-party system that is so utterly corrupt, so totally dominated by crooks and ignoramuses, and so deliberately rigged against any outside challenger – and with a media positively wedded to the current arrangement – that it is beyond laughable to speak in any way of "the will of the people," if such a thing can be said to exist in any case. I’m sure the same students who reject nullification as treason against the holy will of the majority would defend the upcoming Iraq war as a reflection of the will of the people, despite the fact that "the people" had virtually no antiwar candidates to vote for.
Earlier this year, 90 percent of the US Congress voted for a resolution supporting the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in a show of support much greater than his own government gives him. Was that a reflection of the will of the American people?
The vast majority of Americans know absolutely nothing about the US Constitution and what it authorizes, so the idea that their votes alone will prevent unconstitutional legislation is simply laughable, and completely contradicted by the evidence of everyday life and indeed of the entire twentieth century. Moreover, most Americans know absolutely nothing about, say, money and banking, so how can the Federal Reserve be described with a straight face as what "the people" demand? Do the people demand a million illegal immigrants a year?
Should there be a state in our day with enough courage and intelligence to resist the unconstitutional federal interference in their affairs that goes on as a matter of course – just consider the popular referenda in Colorado and California alone that federal courts imperiously overturned in the 1990s – then far from lamenting this descent into "anarchy," we should positively rejoice that at last the American people have come to understand their own tradition once again.
I don’t want to romanticize the people too much: plenty of government expansion has taken place with their approval or connivance. The great John Randolph of Roanoke referred to unfettered democratic governance as rule by "King Numbers," but so many students have been raised on the religion of democracy that they cannot even conceive of how a state or community might be oppressed by the untrammeled "democracy" of the remainder. I sometimes ask: if majority rule is such a precious principle, and if I hold my property only at the sufferance of a majority of my fellows, then why not let India and China vote on how much American wealth they’d like to confiscate? That would be "majority rule" in action, so why exactly would it be wrong?
Hans Hoppe is right: no "limited government" can stay that way for long, and if anything the democratic system only accelerates the move away from government’s original limitations. Once the right to tax is conceded to an institution said to possess a monopoly on the use of force, no feeble constitution can stand in the way of its expansion.
The genuine reactionary in our day should not be pining to take over the reins of the modern state, but should rather aim to dismantle this destructive institution that was absolutely foreign and unknown to medieval Europe. As Hoppe, Ralph Raico, and others have pointed out, it was precisely the decentralized nature of European political life that allowed capitalism to develop and the good things of civilization to flourish. According to David Landes, "Because of this crucial role as midwife and instrument of power in a context of multiple, competing polities (the contrast is with the all-encompassing empires of the Orient or the Ancient World), private enterprise in the West possessed a social and political vitality without precedent or counterpart" (emphasis in original). Likewise, Jean Baechler wrote that "the expansion of capitalism owes its origins and raison d’être to political anarchy."
As radical as it doubtless sounds, the time has come to think very seriously about alternatives to the modern state. That the central state here in America is on the side of every degenerate aspect of culture and society goes without saying, and this is true regardless of which party is in power. (Bob Dole’s Viagra commercials just about sum up the Republican Party on cultural questions.) It has squandered everyone’s retirement money, slowed job creation, created the business cycle, debased the currency, all but nationalized education, dictated social policy to every community in America, confiscated money from ordinary Americans to pay farmers not to grow anything, made war on freedom of association – I could go on for quite a while. And what it’s supposed to do – protect us from criminals and from foreign attack – it does appallingly badly. (Remember the visas our immigration service issued to the September 11 hijackers months after the fatal attacks?) Our legal system is a complete shambles, which is why private dispute resolution companies are flourishing.
As Donald Livingston has argued, the modern unitary state has a lot to answer for, having been responsible for terror and destruction without precedent in history:
Its wars and totalitarian revolutions have been without precedent in their barbarism and ferocity. But in addition to this, it has persistently subverted and continues to subvert those independent social authorities and moral communities on which eighteenth-century monarchs had not dared to lay their hands. Its subversion of these authorities, along with its success in providing material welfare, has produced an ever increasing number of rootless individuals whose characters are hedonistic, self-absorbed, and without spirit. We daily accept expropriations, both material and spiritual, from the central government which our ancestors in 1776 and 1861 would have considered non-negotiable.
Unworkable and utopian, some will say of the pure private-property order. But the more you think about it, the clearer it becomes that what is truly unworkable and utopian is the idea of "limited government," whose epitaph stands right before our very eyes.
Marbury says otherwise. "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." Try again.
You wail and whine about President Lincoln's actions and cite just the one person, the pretty much discredited Roger Taney.
Sorry Walt, but you have yet to offer any valid reason whatsoever why Taney should not have ruled on that case. Try again.
Of course you excuse the secessionists, who had neither legal or moral grounds for their actions.
No Walt. The right to self government supersedes statute. Try again.
You need to find criticism of Lincoln in the record contemporary with his actions.
And I did just that, Walt. It's called Ex Parte Merryman. Try again.
This throwing up of hands, "Eek, look what mean old Lincoln did!" is just the same thing, as I say, that changed Columbus from great hero and explorer to syphilitic oppressor of minorities.
Perhaps, but that would presume somebody was doing either. You have yet to establish that. Try again, Walt.
"The success of the Maryland policy became a political byword and was celebrated, beyond the borders of Maryland, throughout the war...Republicans would later enjoy substantial bipartisan agreement on the necessity of the early arrests in Maryland.", says Dr. Neely.
No ammount of words from Dr. Neely, or Noam McPherson for that matter, will change the fact that The Lincoln resorted to unconstitutional means though. Try again, Walt.
Your carping is just sour grapes.
The only sour grapes here are being pointed at by an individual who has just had his rear end handed to him in debate after he grasped at every straw available to deny the common sense reality that the court ruled against The Lincoln and The Lincoln ignored it. That person is you, Walt, and your attempts to legitimize your unsupportable position become more absurd by the day.
Listen, why don't you try for a hearing on that Muslim CNN, whatever it's called? They love tearing down America too.
No thanks, Walt. I think they'd be much more receptive to Constitution-hating, America-hating traitors such as yourself who could go on there to blame George Bush for september 11th while singing praises for your hero and candidate of choice Bill Clinton.
Lincoln didn't use unconstitutional means. By the standard of the day, he had as much right to interpret the Constitution as Taney did.
You are applying modern day standards to an historical person. But now you are outed.
Walt
A right to interpret the Constitution individually does not supersede the right of the court to exercise judicial review as established under Marbury. Marbury made that VERY clear - "The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution." Try again.
You are applying modern day standards to an historical person.
Not at all, Walt. What you are alleging to be the practice of the day - an absurd notion that logically dictates all court rulings void on simple disagreement with them elsewhere - was simply not the practice of the day. No ammount of saying otherwise is going to change that. Your desparation sure is showing though!
Taney was acting as a circuit court judge. President Lincoln's attorney general supported the president's actions. If Taney had a problem with that, he should have had the issue brought before the Supreme Court.
The Constitution only says what Congress may -not- do in regards to the Writ; it says nothing about what the president --may-- do.
If you are going to take this tack you need to raise your hand and swear off ever saying that secession is legal because it is not explicitly prohibited.
Walt
Yeah, you're right. Andrew Jackson suspended the Writ 47 years before Lincoln did, and he wasn't even president.
Walt
Yes Walt. And circuit courts rule on cases too.
President Lincoln's attorney general supported the president's actions.
An attorney general opinion does not overturn a ruling of the court, Walt.
If Taney had a problem with that, he should have had the issue brought before the Supreme Court.
It was not Taney's burden to appeal his own ruling, Walt. That would have been absurd. The burden to appeal according to judicial procedure was on The Lincoln. He failed to do so.
The Constitution only says what Congress may -not- do in regards to the Writ; it says nothing about what the president --may-- do.
Nonsense Walt. We've been over this one several times. The Constitution designates the power to suspend habeas corpus to the legislature by way of Article I, Section 1. Nowhere does it extend that power to the president, nor does it indicate anywhere that any individual should have the right to suspend it beyond those it specifically indicates - the legislature. Every court ruling ever made on this issue has confirmed this position, including the standing precedent of the Supreme Court. No ammount of bloviation will get you around that, Walt.
If you are going to take this tack you need to raise your hand and swear off ever saying that secession is legal because it is not explicitly prohibited.
I don't purport secession's "legality" on the grounds that it is not explicitly prohibited, Walt. I support secession on the grounds that it is an exercise of an inherent right beyond any law and that the use of coercion to enforce obedience otherwise is itself a violation of the compact of a union. Try again.
Your desparation is showing again, Walt. The fact that an individual committed an unconstitutional act and got away with it in no way makes it any more constitutional.
You really, really need help. Please seek it before it's too late.
Tell them up at church about your problem, I think they may be able to steer you to a competent mental health professional.
Your desparation[sic] is showing again, Walt. The fact that an individual committed an unconstitutional act and got away with it in no way makes it any more constitutional.
The fact that Jackson was commended by the Congress for doing so shows that you are making a modern day judgement on an historical person.
One thing about Jackson -- there weren't even telegraphs when he suspended the Writ. How could Congress alone have the power? It doesn't make sense, and the Constitution doesn't forbid it.
Walt
Not at all Walt. Congress has always passed laws and supported measures that were unconstitutional. That in no way made them any more constitutional. Try again.
One thing about Jackson -- there weren't even telegraphs when he suspended the Writ.
What's your point? It may take a little longer, but there's no reason they still can't get the message to him.
How could Congress alone have the power?
Cause that's what the Constitution you hate so much says.
It doesn't make sense
Centuries of common law say otherwise. The suspension of habeas corpus has historically always been a matter of the legislature.
Section. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
No it doesnt. I reckon you mean Art. sec. 9. para 2
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Now, tell me where the Constitution forbids the president from suspending the Writ?
Walt
Yes Walt. It does. Article I, Section 1 states "All legislative Powers herein granted," meaning in this article, "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"
One of the powers granted in article I is that of suspending habeas corpus and section 1 states that it shall be vested in the Congress.
Now, tell me where the Constitution forbids the president from suspending the Writ?
On a strictly technical reading, in Article I, Section 1 because it specifically vests that power in the Congress and not the president.
The test is simple, if you never again post to me, ever, on any subject unless I refer to you personally, I will concider that you might have some shred of sanity left.
I won't post to you, and you won't post to me. Is it a deal?
No matter what I say in a post, if it doesn't concern you personally, you will just ignore it, and I will do the same unless you refer to me personally. Deal? Can ya do it? Are ya sane enough for that? Can ya JUSTSHUTUPANDTAKEIT?
Simply answer "deal" or "no deal" and you will pass or fail based on your reply.
The Writ has nothing to legislative power. It's a privilege.
I am still waiting for you to tell where the Constitution -specifically- prohibits the president from suspending the Writ.
Walt
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.