« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Nullification as legitimate act of civil disobedience

This South Carolina Gamecock does not favor firing on federal forts in Charleston Harbor nor passing secession resolutions of any kind.

In fact, the Palmetto State’s flagship university sports teams’ nickname honors Thomas “Gamecock” Sumter, a Revolutionary War hero that founded the Union and our signature quote at the bottom of this and all our rooster crowings, honors an Old Hickory who saved the Union in New Orleans and with whom we agreed when he threatened to invade his and John C. Calhoun’s home state to stamp down the latter’s early 19th Century call for Nullification over tariff disputes.

But that doesn’t mean that Nullification is at all times an illegitimate tool of We the People to secure our lives, Liberty and happiness pursuits.

We do favor many of the nullification-type laws being passed by many states in response to the jobs and Liberty-killing actions of the federal government, despite the presence of the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution, and especially those actions that violate that same founding document in other particulars and otherwise oppress We the People in our attempts to make a living.

Nullification is not Secession

We accept the Lincoln precedent on the latter, but we also think that the resolution of the Jackson-Calhoun nullification dispute actually provides a model for the prudent assertion of states rights to try and preserve prosperity in these United States.

The federal government of the United States ensured the legality of slavery at the time of the tariff dispute. The fact that most slavery was in the South affects the weight of the South’s complaint, but not the general issue. The tariff generally protected northern industry from foreign competition, while exposing Southerners to the higher prices engendered by protectionism. President Jackson rightfully, in my view, asserted that the preamble of the Constitution concerning the formation of a “more perfect union” by We the People (not states), trumped assertions of any right to secede. Moreover, I would also agree with Jackson that it and the Supremacy Clause also trump any assertion of a right of states to nullify constitutional laws passed by the federal government and constitutional acts by the executive branch. I am for the manifestly destined Union; am glad Lincoln won the war between the states; and know that 5 Canadas couldn’t have beaten the Kaiser, much less Hitler and Stalin, but I digress.

That said, one can still argue about what is and is not constitutional, especially when the branches of the federal government disagree among themselves; and concerning what action is moral and just when the unalienable rights of man are usurped, even if that usurpation is legal and constitutional. In this regard, I would invoke the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the tactic of civil disobedience by individuals and suggest that Nullification can be a moral and just equivalent by sovereign states.

Nullification worked

Most know that Calhoun’s South Carolina backed down from the Nullification challenge in the face of a threatened invasion of the state by federal troops to be personally led by Commander-in-Chief Jackson. Most have forgotten that the crisis was defused because Jackson compromised with Calhoun on the tariff.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could find a way to get ObamaDems to back down on many of their oppressive policies? Of course, and by all means let us continue to fight in the House and Senate, courts of law, and elections, including down to the grassroots work of electing conservative precinct committeemen to run the GOP. But isn’t there enough evidence in to make us sufficiently pessimistic that the golden parachute/revolving door crowd won’t be moved to appease us until two weeks before elections, i.e. that there may be a breakdown in responsiveness of representatives to our concerns? Haven’t we read enough 5-4 Supreme Court decisions written by the erstwhile Commander-in-Chief and determiner of evolving standards of decency as rights named Anthony Kennedy? How many more court orders nullifying oil-drilling moratoriums must Obama defy before we understand that he invokes the Constitution only when it suits his power-crazed purposes.

The federal government violates its main purpose of preserving our unalienable rights. In this circumstance, people have the right to assert their rights. Our Founders did so with arms in 1776 only after many years of trying to regain self government taken from them by a King in order to pay for a war.

We the People should seek to concentrate the minds of those representatives that have refused to heed our instructions via elections via creative ways that might ultimately fail in courts much as Martin Luther King was right to defy unjust laws in a non-violent and civilly disobedient way. We the People acting through our states may also take just steps against unjust laws via nullification as a more comprehensive form of non-violent civil disobedience, such as:

  • ObamaCare individual mandates challenged in court and via state laws that could fall under Supremacy Clause;
  • Arizona sued by Feds to prevent them from protecting their border;
  • S.C. law to ensure secret ballot union elections may violate NLRB Act that provides other options;
  • Texas v EPA to try and prevent implementation of carbon emission regs that may not be authorized by federal statutes;
  • State abortion regulations of clinics and fetal pain will test Planned Parenthood v. Casey;
  • Federal government insisting that states build high-speed rail boondoggle funds;
  • States fighting against federal government control of public lands holding natural resources that could provide jobs and energy supply;
  • States passing laws to end the sexual assaults by federal airport screeners;
  • Montana attempt to avoid interstate commerce clause in sale of guns and ammo;
  • Manhattan Declaration calls for civil disobedience for violations of First Amendment rights for free religious speech and other exercises of religious rights;
  • Pitchfork threats against Bank CEOs lest they agree to salary caps;
  • Texas insisting on Indiana-style Voter-ID law.

King lost many court cases, was beaten often and was ultimately assassinated. But his civil disobedience ultimately moved the hearts and minds of a majority of Americans and their elected officials to end denials of Liberty to Blacks.

Sometimes it is right to defy court orders. It depends on the merits of each particular case. Clearly Obama’s actions on deep water oil drilling moratoriums was not one of them. But had Alabama Judge Roy Moore received the support of his Governor in the state right to decorate state buildings, I would have favored same and doubt President Bush would have sent in troops to remove the Ten Commandments. Likewise, while conservatives may lose many battles, if they win just one against Obama, it could be monumental and the spectacle of Obama fighting on so many fronts against We the People will be devastating to his chances of retaining power.

Many of the above nullification efforts targeting even more comprehensive abridgments of Liberty against all races will fail, but could well aid the hastening of the overall goal of concentrating the minds of elected congressmen to stop taking away our Liberty and prosperity.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte ObserverThe Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com




COMMENTS

  • Flagstaff

    I may be the only one who doesn’t “know that Calhoun?s South Carolina backed down from the Nullification challenge in the face of a threatened invasion of the state by federal troops to be personally led by Commander-in-Chief Jackson.”

    Not a part of American History I was ever even aware of, and I’m afraid I may be typical, rather than the exception.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    due to their increasing disdain for Big Government regulation of their lives.

  • JSobieski

    and just like in the case of his birth certificate, I think it is a fight that he wants. Makes him look far more moderate than he is.

    On the other hand, I think it would be good to pursue adding some new procedural safeguards:

    (1) How about significant new regs needing to be approved by Congress?
    (2) How about a proposed Constitutional Amendment giving 30 Governors a collective veto power over new statutes?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • JSobieski

    I think Obama would welcome any civil disobedience, including nullification.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    or civil disobedience would need to have a smart strategy and stay the course as the media and Dems demonize them. But I think majorities of the people are fed up with the recession that Obama hasn’t even tried to alleviate and also resent the attacks on oil and coal etc and the ability of us to make a living and create jobs…see also opposition to ObamaCare

    now back to work…real work to make a living!

  • http://www.timelyrenewed.com timelyrenewed

    Nullification is very appealing, but may I suggest another approach? This is to use the amendment power to restore the original meaning of the clauses which have been most distorted by the Supreme Court to allow the unconstitutional expansion of the power of the national government. This federal overreach goes far beyond Obamacare. Moves like overturning Obamacare, or even asserting a state right of nullification, are worthy, but in the end are retail solutions to a wholesale problem. We need to amend the Constitution to restore it to its original meaning and end all federal encroachments on states rights.

    Of course, this is impractical as long as Congress has an effective monopoly on initiating constitutional amendments given the difficulties and uncertainties of calling an Article V convention. To get around this, I have proposed an “amendment amendment” which would allow states to initiate constitutional amendments without the cumbersome procedure of a convention, and would bypass a Congress which balked at amendments restoring federalism with a national referendum. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com for more on these proposals.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    have the votes to fix all the things that need fixing and so wouldn’t need to use the nullification tactic to concentrate the minds of those that dodn’t get the message in November when we caused the largest turnover of eats from one party to the other since 1948.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    although since the continuing resolution expires in March, I doubt it is the quickest, BUT I think it would be better to have a Selective Shutdown, without having defaulted on US debts abroad which could trigger a devastating financial crisis worldwide, cause a true double dip recession and forever ruin America’s 200+ year streak of always paying our debts.

    It would be reckless and unecessary.

    The better strategy is obviously Hewitt’s described above.
    But if you have a step-by-step description of a debt-default strategy and how it could work, please share brother.

  • JSobieski

    Our current revenues are more than enough to pay the interest on the debt and the truly legitimate aspects of limited government. The government prioritizes from there, and doesn’t pay for what is not essential.

    Why do you assume that Treasury will purposely destroy the country?

    A failure to raise the debt ceiling will be seen for what it is—a serious attempt to get our debt under control.

    Failure to raise the ceiling is not reckless. It may be necessary.

    We have had too many the sky is falling arguments in the past 3 years. TARP. Stimulus. GM bailout. Obamacare.

    This version of the “sky is falling” argument is less persuasive than all of the above exept for Obamacare.

    The ONLY risk to not raising the debt ceiling is political. If our guys decide to stick to their guns, they need to stick to their guns. Folding like a cheap lawn chair would be a disaster.

  • acat
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I have specifically qualified my remarks in several places to say that I mean that we should only raise the debt ceiling if we reach the point where the only funds left in the treasury are not enough to pay the debt and that I am for the priority payment bill.

    I oppose ACTUAL default on debts as that would be a disaster, no matter if the GOP gets an “issue” even if we can make it clear that Obama/Geithner are responsible.

    I do think it is a tough choice to play chicken and risk that Obama will not let the debts default. After all, he wants this country cut down to size. He might intentionally not pay debts first.

    It may be the best thing, in the end, that the GOP be Obama’s daddy and protect the country, if we get to that point of actual default, and NOT any fake date that the Dems declare.

    Plus, ‘ski, ever notice how your subject lines seem to be more about reading people’s minds and motives rather than the issues.

    You don’t know what damn memes people are buying. Stick to the issues and don’t be such a pompous ass, cool?

    smile friend

    I hate unnecessarily rude subject lines. You and many at Redstate need a lesson in Southern Hospitality…back to work…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    to call out the MSM on same years ago!

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/10/31/cockstradamus/

  • JSobieski

    Well A guarnteeing B is the meme propagated by the MSM.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Try again

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    or that actual default would not be a disaster, then fine, but let me be your lawyer and boil down your position for you, since you have such a fear of actually taking a position on anything…coward

    You favor a GOP House policy of chicken that would, EVENTUALLY, risk actual default on debts. Don’t you? You just want to be able to say, when it happens, that the GOP gave Obama the power and opportunity to pay the debts before default? Right?

  • acat

    because A only guarantees that O needs to decide what to do. Can’t vote “present”….

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I reject the presumed linkage that failure to raise the debt ceiling results in default. You either buy into that presumption (or at least communicate as if the presumption is valid), a presumption that is not questioned in any way in the MSM.

    I am not questioning your motives or reading your mind—I am disagreeing with your written words.

    I choose NOT to raise the debt ceiling and NOT to default. Those are my positions, positions given absolutely no voice in the MSM.

    You suggest that Obama may default on the debt on purpose. That is a fair question. I would suggest that it would require purposeful malfeasance by Obama to have a failure to raise the debt ceiling trigger a default. The debate on that topic should be framed accoridngly.

    Just as you do, I call them like I see them. I didn’t use any profanity. I I didn’t say anything about you that you haven’t said about me. I took it all in a spirit of fun and competition.

    The sentence below means you actually agree with me, since interest on the debt on a monthly basis is actually far less than the interest payments on the debt.

    “I have specifically qualified my remarks in several places to say that I mean that we should only raise the debt ceiling if we reach the point where the only funds left in the treasury are not enough to pay the debt and that I am for the priority payment bill.”

    When the monthly revenues come close to the sum total of debt interest, defense, and entitlements, we can revisit the issue should you wish. Until then, I guess we agree without realizing it.

    There is a lot of ground between opposing raising the debt ceiling this Spring and a default. You don’t plan D-Day with the logic of, ok, when we fail to hold the beach, after we gather our forces for another year, what beach to try for next.

    At this point, there is a lot of mis-information on precisely what happens should the debt ceiling not be raised. Our time would be best spent defeating that misinformation, not acquiesing to it or planning what to do after acquiesing to it.

    If not wanting to cede the beach makes be rude, than I am rude. I don’t take the things you say about me personally, so I am sad to see you take my comments so offensively.

    You have made comments about my judgment, outlook, and personality before. Many of those comments were placed in subject lines followed by an NT. I took all that stuff in stride. Not sure why this string of comments pushed your buttons, but I shall alter my conduct in the future.

    I came to this diary because you asked me to. You asked me to speak my mind. I did. Now you don’t like my behavior?

    Good day to you, and God Bless!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    force Treasury priority payments, given the entitlement laws and present state of debts/interst, then the day will come that we would actually not have the money pay debts.

    But you won’t even fess up to ANY position. You just attack all positions while pretending to have the high ground.

    But the way life is that things get done by folks that actually take a position and do things. This requires considering all scenarios and weighing the risks.

    You won’t get detailed for that would subject you to taking responsibility for those positions and risking being shown to have been wrong.

    We may have to impose self-imposed time management on Palin comments and those with the Obtuse?

    And really ‘ski, if you don;t want to write several paragraphs or, pray tell, even an actual ‘ski blog, (I will reco for discussion and get it to go viral – I have that power) to cover all the scenarios like I have, INCLUDING YOUR POSITION OF ACTUAL DEFAULT WHENEVER IT MIGHT OCCUR, don;t worry yourself. Keep having fun in the peanut gallery and playground sandbox.

    DeVine Law is hard on his won kind, i.e. conservative lawyers…smile

    Thus ends Gc;s indulgence in bashing ‘ski. This was a public service for all those that sent telegrams requesting same.

    Next, we skin acat?

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that its occurrence would not be catastrophic, when you say:

    “I choose NOT to raise the debt ceiling and NOT to default. Those are my positions, positions given absolutely no voice in the MSM.”

    Call CNN and lend them your voice, and also tell them that

    “I choose NOT to make my car payment and not have it repossessed.”

    Get serious man.

    That statement sounds like a child or hear no evil monkey.

    BTW, how do you like a taste of your own medicine not only on sig lines but that goes on for paragraphs?

    Thus ends GC’s indulgence of spoils before…smile

    we cool man

  • JSobieski

    you seem to be making quite a few non substantive comments about me.

    Your presumption that default is automatically or even likely triggered by a failure to raise the debt ceiling is the story I hear on TV all the time. If characterizing the similarlity between a specific comment that you made as adopting a MSM meme offends you, I apologize. I would even go so far as to say what I wrote was misleading in terms of degree.

    However, I stand by the point that there is a critically untrue assumption out there, and that we need to combat that assumption.

    In terms of what I would do, I have repeatedly embraced a Selective Shutdown approach (I commented as such in your diary on that topic which I recommended) However, to implement that approach one needs to apply leverage. The debt ceiling is the best leverage that we have.

    Zto lat!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    But my column and comments have explored all scenarios with specific reference to ACTUAL DEFAULT, whenever that would actually occur.

    Hewitt’s strategy on slective shutdown prepares the public months in advance of same with the leverage being all on our side since we would be passing a budget that SELECTS what conservatives deem necessary spending. That is the leverage, ie that the ObamaDems would have be seen as denying funds to necessary spending like the military etc rather than not have their big govt domestic crap.

    No debt ceiling battle assists that strategy. Rather, a debt ceiling strategy, AT SOME POINT ABSENT A SIGNED BUDGET CUTTING BILL, risks an eventually debt default disaster that gets pinned on the GOP.

    One of the keys to making the Selective shutdown work is TIME to sell it to the public.

  • JSobieski

    I will not be responding to your comments.

    If the monthly interest payments on the debt are 6% of monthly revenues, then it is not childish or indulgent to suggest that we can pay the interest payments without raising the debt ceiling.

    I am precisely saying that the car payment can be made without raising the debt ceiling. When people are under tight budgets, they pay the mortgage, the car payments, etc. and then live off of what remains.

    If I am guilty of not reading all of your comments on this topic, you are guilty of not reading all of the comments that you are in fact responding to.

    It its totally fair and substantive to point out that I wasn’t putting your comment into context. Instead of calling me a pompous ass, accusing me of climbing on a high horse, I would suggest saying something like “you are missing my prior comment” and left it at that.

    However, you did say a bunch of personal stuff that had no purpose but to be insulting. Not sure how I turned that on with my comment, but I am disappointed. If that makes me rude, then I am rude.

    Me: You are buying into the MSM meme

    You respond with phrases like: pompous ass, coward, child, pretending to have the high ground

    I apologized for what I said, but no we aren’t “cool”. I am disappointed. I misjudged you.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I apologize. I went too far. Forgive me?

  • acat