Comments on: Nullification

By: Cartman

Cartman — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 15:06:10 +0000

Thanks Grift. I feel much better now that I know it’s just politics.

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 20:32:55 +0000

I’m shocked! SHOCKED! that there is politics going on here!

Whatever.

By: Cartman

Cartman — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:32:30 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:52:08 +0000

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.

By: griftdrift

griftdrift — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:12:02 +0000

“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.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:32:26 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:18:28 +0000

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.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:17:39 +0000

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.