"Contrary to the contentions of Straussians, neoconservatives, and left-liberals alike, nullification was not simply a doctrine that Jefferson and Madison contrived out of nowhere as an ad hoc response to the threat to civil liberties posed by the Alien and Sedition Acts.
To the contrary, the line of thought that culminated in the Resolutions of 1798 can be traced all the way back to the Virginia ratifying convention, where its central principles were laid out by prominent Virginia Federalists."
Liberals think a Judicial Oligarchy is federalism.
1. If nullification is a valid doctrine, then the Supremacy Clause is meaningless.
2. If nullification were widely practiced, we would end up with a situation where the federal government proposed laws, and the states decided at their leisure which to enforce and which to ignore. This would rapidly become an inconsistent mess, a la the Articles of Confederation.
3. Jefferson seems to have forgotten about strict constructionism when the opportunity presented itself to purchase Louisiana. Where does the specifically enumerated Presidential power to acquire land appear in Article II?
Thank you for posting it. It is a very solid essay, that appears to be right on the mark. If it was not getting late, I would say more. This needs a wide circulation.
I will be back, tomorrow. Again, my hearty thanks.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
"Patrick Henry expressed his fear that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (which said that the federal government would have all powers "necessary and proper" to carry into effect the powers granted in Article I, Section 8) would inevitably be interpreted by the federal government as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised into an unlimited government that would menace the people's liberties. He was likewise concerned about the "general welfare" clause, since government could justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare."
It was almost as if Patrick Henry saw our present day government. The "general welfare" clause, the "necessary and proper clause", and the "interstate commerce" clause have all been abused beyond all comprehension.
I keep saying that our founders were men far ahead of their time.
bump for later
just had to quickly comment on this line from the original article:
"Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 [...] which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had "treasonable" leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans..."
Boy, the modern equivalent of this act certainly doesn't seem to be much of a problem for our MODERN "Republicans", does it? Don't portions of the Patriot Act seem kinda familiar?
Bump for later
Um, wasn't the Republican Party founded in 1850?
Thanks for the ping and posting the article. As a staunch Federalist I find that it's amazing how few truly understand a concept which is at the core of what has defined America, and around which so many of our struggles in the past (Civil War and Civil Rights movement just to name the biggies) revolve.
Jefferson's side of the argument is not nearly as widely read and studied in schools as The Federalist Papers (Which deserve full consideration as well).
Jefferson was not as adept at using the media of his day (Newspapers) as was his adversaries. Although I fall on the other side of the fence, I still feel that Jefferson's views deserved to have been given the full attention they deserved instead of the demonization treatment they got.