I do read your posts. They are repetitive and repeat “talking points” taken from the massive body of leftist historiography on this subject. Benson Lossing and Eric Foner live rent-free in your head. You are so invested in Northern Triumphalist history that you are willing to swallow an unlimited state. Judicial review was nothing but a usurpation of power. Thomas Woods has an excellent book on the history of nullification, but you won’t read it because its careful sourcing would be upsetting.
Well, well... if my posts sound "repetitive" then you should reflect on the fact that they only repeatedly answer the same nonsense you keep posting, over & over.
If you quit posting the same nonsense, then you'll find my answers look fresh and original! ;-)
As for your allegations on Lossing and Foner, or "leftist historiography", that is so much rubbish.
I never heard of any of those people.
But I do "get" who you are, and you are not a conservative.
You consistently argue, not for the conservative position -- which is Founders' original intent as amended -- but rather, you argue for the anti-Federalist, anti-Constitution position, so you can justify the 1860 Slave-Power's unilateral declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
Like them, you want there to be no real justification necessary.
My position follows that of Madison, and other Federalists to the degree they agree with him.
Those are the Founding generation, and their original intent is what matters to real conservatives.
So if there is anyone proudly living "rent free" inside my head, it is that Founding generation, especially as understood through the 1860 lens of anti-secession -- i.e., Abraham Lincoln.
achilles2000: "You are so invested in Northern Triumphalist history that you are willing to swallow an unlimited state."
Pure rubbish on "an unlimited state".
achilles2000: "Judicial review was nothing but a usurpation of power."
And now you're arguing against the Founders, which makes you anti-Federalist, and anti-conservative.
So I'll repeat what I said the last time you posted that: despite Jefferson's written disapproval, neither he nor anyone else since then made any effort to curb the Supreme Court's power of judicial review.
That makes it, for all intents & purposes: original intent.
achilles2000: "Thomas Woods has an excellent book on the history of nullification, but you won’t read it because its careful sourcing would be upsetting."
Beloved by anti-Federalists, nullification was an idea which came and went, even amongst the Founding generation.
Madison eventually disclaimed it.
So it is not, and never was, the conservative position.
Now, my time is gone for today, must get back to work!