“With the exception of a few really radical self-proclaimed constitutional authorities, state nullification of federal law is not on the radar scope,” the Cato Institute’s Robert Levy told the New York Times. (Emphasis added.)
I’m going to leave aside how unhelpful it is for libertarians to side with the New York Times on nullification and just focus on this: what, precisely, in the minds of a libertarian think-tanker makes someone more than just a “self-proclaimed constitutional authority”? I doubt he would describe law professors that way, even though 99 percent of them are clueless about the Constitution. Why should a libertarian — of all people! — buy into the Official Stamp of Approval version of who gets to comment on what?
(Expecting lecture on how I shouldn’t be divisive, delivered by people who for some reason do not urge Levy to cease being divisive, in 3…2…1….)