Heritage Foundation to Nullifiers: Drop Dead

Once again, the Heritage Foundation, pretending we hadn’t refuted its arguments last time, is adopting the establishment position against state nullification.  (It would violate “common sense,” the Constitution, and the “rule of law” for the states to fail to implement a law that violates the Constitution, Heritage tells us with a straight face.)

People are writing to tell me how surprised they are at this.  They shouldn’t be.  Heritage can always be counted on to take the safe, establishment-approved line on pretty much everything.  Sure, they’re for cutting spending (someday), but the New York Times will give you only a mild scolding for that, and perhaps even leave you alone.  The Times (along with the entire media establishment, as usual) also supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, so that doesn’t make Heritage particularly cheeky, either.  But when it comes to truly fundamental questions, like the structure of the Union and the proper understanding of federal-state relations, you can be sure it’ll be the Times and Heritage sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G.  Every time.

There is not an argument in the Heritage piece I haven’t replied to time and again, so I refer readers to my fairly thorough Nullification FAQ.

Share this post:Digg thisShare on FacebookGoogle+Share on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on Twitter
  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1622294237 Jaime Ⓥ Shizzle

    And….that’s why they dropped dead from my donor list!

  • Jack

    Your link for “Nullification: Answering the Objections” actually points to the Heritage Foundation’s article. BTW the few comments I read seem to support nullification and disagree with the author…which is nice to see.

  • Anonymous

    Thank you! Fixed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WKLPVTVEVBYJL7A5T3R6JEPAMY Joshua

    I’m reading the book now. Obviously they didn’t. Great case for nullification.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-Payne/100000101621834 George Payne

    What Heritage, as well as any congress critter, fails to own up to is that these 13 colonies created them not the other way around. So if we want to nullify an unconstitutional law or regulation we have the right.

  • http://twitter.com/FL10thAmendment FL 10th Amendment

    Real Liberty is feared by the establishment. Thanks for making so many begin to understand how comfortable they have become in their chains.

  • Publius1001

    “those who deny the possibility of a political system,
    with a divided sovereignty like that of the U. S., must chuse between a
    government purely consolidated, & an association of Govts. purely federal.
    All republics of the former character, ancient or modern, have been found
    ineffectual for order and justice within, and for security without. They have
    been either a prey to internal convulsions or to foreign invasions. In like
    manner, all confederacies, ancient or modern, have been either dissolved by the
    inadequacy of their cohesion, or, as in the modern examples, continue to be
    monuments of the frailties of such forms.”— Madison


    “It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make
    the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their
    eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically
    against them.”—Madison


    “The essential difference between a free Government and
    Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to
    which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have
    a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to
    hold them to it.”—Madison


    “To view the doctrine in its true character, it must be
    recollected that it asserts, a right in a single State, to stop the execution
    of a Federal law, altho’ in effect stopping the law everywhere, until a Convention
    of the States could be brought about by a process requiring an uncertain time;
    and finally in the Convention when formed a vote of 7 States, if in favor of
    the veto, to give it a prevalence over the vast majority of 17 States. For this
    preposterous & anarchical pretension there is not a shadow of countenance
    in the Constitn. and well that there is not; for it is certain that with such a
    deadly poison in it, no Constn. could be sure of lasting a year; there having
    scarcely been a year, since ours was formed, without a discontent in some one
    or other of the States which might have availed itself of the nullifying
    prerogative.” – Madison



    Note that Tom has engaged in the intellectually
    cowardice act of blocking my IP address for the ‘heinous’ act of posting facts
    like those issued above.

  • BillTheCat45

    Lunatic SEDITIONIST losers. Enjoy your pretend life.