A lot of talk has been circulating recently about nullification, the right of States to “nullify” certain Federal laws. (Though interestingly, no thought has been given to the rights of cities and counties to “nullify” State laws… but that is neither here nor there for the moment.)
Indeed, I first wrote about this subject this past April, when I learned that the GA Senate had passed a resolution supporting it. State Senator Chip Pearson then responded to my email with his own thoughts on the matter.
More recently, the issue has been gaining traction with the Ray McBerry, “States Rights”, and Tea Party crowds. Indeed, there is a Facebook group called “Georgia Nullification Movement” that has gained 150+ members in about three days.
I maintain what I said back in April, that nullification, if used today, will lead directly to war – a move I can NOT support.
At the same time, I feel some clarification is necessary on my exact position regarding defending our rights.
As I said in a comment on Peach Pundit, I am absolutely dedicated to working within the framework we already have, rather than seeking to pursue actions I believe will lead to ruin for us all. (More on that on Christmas Day, in a post that will be titled “Swinging Pendulum”.)
With that said, I also take a very Benjamin Martin-style approach to this. (Mel Gibson’s character from The Patriot). In particular, his lines towards the beginning of the movie when the Legislature is debating joining the War echo my own thoughts exactly. Specifically the lines “Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can. … If you mean by patriot, am I angry about taxation without representation, well, yes I am. Should the American colonies govern themselves independently? I believe that they can, and they should. But if you are asking me, am I willing to go to war with England? Well, then the answer is most definately NO!”
There is another line I thought was from The Patriot but doesn’t appear on IMDB’s site is “Make no mistake, this war will be fought in our cities, in our homes, and on our front lawns. Our children will experience its atrocities first hand, and there will be no winners.”
But the whole point of that particular movie is that the war DID eventually land in Martin’s home, and he became once again a man he despised in order to end it.
When it comes to defending our rights, I am very much like Benjamin Martin. I want a peaceful resolution, and that is the only resolution I will actively consider. But if it does come to war, and if my opponents do fire the first shot, then the Sexton Doctrine will come into full effect.
If it comes to war, I will win or die trying. THAT is the depth of my resolve.
However, I maintain that there is simply FAR too much that can be done peaceably to reclaim our rights. For now, the true battlefield is in the Legislative Chambers, the Judicial Chambers, and the Court of Public Opinion. Nullification says that we cannot win in those three arenas, and therefore we must seek unilateral action to “reclaim” our rights.
I say that we CAN win within the current framework, and we WILL.
I certainly understand how you feel about nullification, but I have to disagree with you a bit. I don’t think nullification is, necessarily, the way to go, but nullification doesn’t necessarily equal war. Instead, it could also trigger court challenges, or the federal government could back down, or the state legislatures could back down. None of those three are war, but all are possible outcomes from nullification bills being passed.
While I, like you, don’t support another civil war, I can see why the supporters of nullification can also be those who don’t favor war. They may well be banking on one of the other outcomes I’ve mentioned.
Nullification may lead to war, but I think it’s not necessarily automatic.
If this is truly based on principle, why would either side back down?
If it is not based on principle, why would either side be doing what they are?
There are simply too many things that can be done within the current system to even begin to consider nullification as a valid response. Those who do so have given up hope.
I haven’t.
Jeff, you and I both know how rare principle is in politics. One side may be operating off of principle, while the other isn’t, and that changes the whole dynamic of the situation.
Not only that, I’m not arguing in favor of nullification, just pointing out that it doesn’t necessarily equal war. In fact, a court challenge is pretty much the only guarantee.
“instead, it could also trigger court challenges, or the federal government could back down, or the state legislatures could back down.”
Much the same was said prior to 1861. I really find it unbelievable that this is even being discussed in any way, shape or fashion.
You’re right, it was. However, the world isn’t the same as in 1861. Of course, war makes just as little sense now as it did then, but there are still other possible outcomes that should at least be acknowledged.
Griftdrift sez: “I really find it unbelievable that this is even being discussed in any way, shape or fashion.”
I agree. It is unbelievable. However, it is also unbelievable that the U.S. Senate voted at 1 a.m. for cloture on a huge bill that will affect all of us and could not possibly have been reviewed. The 60th vote was obtained in part by agreeing to pay 100% of Nebraska’s Medicaid funding with federal dollars. They bribed Sen. Ben Nelson with our money.
Some Americans do not wish to idly watch the nation being looted from within. So it’s understandable. It’s disconcerting. But I agree. It’s also unbelievable.
I’m shocked! SHOCKED! that there is politics going on here!
Whatever.
Thanks Grift. I feel much better now that I know it’s just politics.