Why Not Nullification?

The election of a majority Democrat Legislative and Executive branch and the power mad actions of that party have raised issues that haven’t been considered very seriously for many years, but it may be time for reconsideration of at least one such issue.

Nullification is the doctrine that a State has the right to nullify a Federal law if the State determines that the law violates the Constitution.  This idea is based in the correct understanding of the Constitution that the Federal government is subordinate to the States in almost every area and that its purpose is to serve the needs of the States (else why have it at all.)

The primary reason that many people would find this a shocking or dangerous idea is that those people do not understand the Constitution, how our Nation was formed, or even the meaning of the word “State”.  (for purposes of this discussion, we will include Commonwealths as States) 

Although many of our students in K-12 education do not understand the real meaning of the word State, it is more disturbing that many adults are ignorant regarding this word as well.  Most people don’t even think about it, and only come close to an accurate understanding of it when discussing foreign bodies.  To put it simply, a State (as understood by the original States that formed the United States of America) is a sovereign governmental or societal group within specified geographical borders.  The definition that many Americans unconsciously hold is that of a group of constituent districts within our Country.  If this second definition were the intent of the ratifiers of our Constitution, we could have a much less unwieldy name.  The “United States of” part would be superfluous at best.

Our Constitution was carefully written by, and discussed lengthily, by representative of each of these States, empowered by their respective States to defend its interests.  The document was clearly crafted to bring together these various governments in a limited way for specific purposes.  Purposes such as a common defense, and general (meaning mutually supportive) welfare.  Much of the argument related to ratification centered on ensuring that each State would retain sovereignty in most areas of consideration.

This proper understanding of what a State is, and the understanding of the limitations imposed on Federal power, lends credence to the concept of nullification.  Nullification however, has been largely considered only as a response to Federal laws that violate the Constitution and the broadly defined rights of the States.

The areas in which it has not been given much consideration have even wider, and potentially longer lasting, implications.  The people of many of the States have seen their rights to self-governance eroded by the Supreme Court of the United States, and these States have not stood up to the Court.  Perhaps it is time for States to say “No!”  Roe v. Wade is a well known example of the Court interfering with State governance without regard for the strict limitations placed on the Federal government by the Constitution.  The grasp of the Court not only surpassed its Constitutionally intended reach, it also created a right to privacy not provided for in the Constitution.  Assuming the Court could locate this right, it certainly didn’t apply.  This is not a matter of National Defense, it is not a matter of interstate commerce, it is not a matter of any right under the bill of rights, it is not provided for as a power specifically given to the Federal government, and it is therefore not a matter for the Federal government.  Each State consequently has the right to nullify any affects of that decision.

There have been many other decisions made by the Court that clearly violate the rights of the State, based on flimsy arguments related to interstate commerce, establishment, and the non-existent “wall between church and State.”  Many of these decisions have had as the result (and possibly intent) to grab power for the Federal from the State.  This clearly violates the intent of the Constitution and its specified limitations on the power of the Federal government.

This concept of nullification can be extended to the Executive as well.  A recent example is the Secretary of Health and Human Services demanding an explanation of rate hikes by the Anthem insurance company in California.  This is a situation where the company has every right to tell Sebelius, and by extension the President, to stuff it.   The State of California should represent the citizens and corporate entities within the State and add “where the sun don’t shine.”  The executive nose has been poked deeply into State business in the areas of education, labor, and infrastructure.

The road to this point where the people must decide whether their States will become states has been long, and with almost no exceptions, downhill.  I have defended the nation and its colors with great pride for all of my adult life.  I believe in the flag, and “the Republic for which it stands.”  It may be time though, to start flying the flag of my State with as much or more pride than those beloved colors.  It may be time to fly the Gadsden flag in mindfulness of its more contemporary meaning alongside both the State and American flags.

And it may be past time to say “No!”

Satire V

This entry was posted on 12. February 2010 at 11:41 and is filed under Things Obama Doesn't Understand. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

| Print