The Age of Ignorance – Nullification Deniers! — from To Be Right!

constitution1.pngThe Age of Ignorance – Nullification Deniers! by is something every good Conservative needs to read. Here is how it begins.

This is The Age of Ignorance. Our “intellectuals” can’t think. Our “scholars” parrot each other. The self-educated fixate on idiotic theories. Our People despise Truth and disseminate lies.

Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett, David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

  • States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
  • Nullification is literally impossible;
  • The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
  • James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.

Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said. (continued here)

The Age of Ignorance – Nullification Deniers! is a relatively long post, but the subject is important and the post is well written.  It is the best explanation of nullification I have seen.

Why is The Age of Ignorance – Nullification Deniers! important? We are in a fight for life of our republic. If America loses its Constitution — if we allow our leaders to render that document meaningless — America will exist in name only. Tyrants will crush what made our nation great, the founders’ belief that our rights are God-given. Only a wistful few will remember the America of old, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

To win the fight for our God-given rights, we must study and understand the tools given to us by our nation’s founders — and GOD. We must study the Bible, and we must study our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence, and our nation’s history. We must know both our rights and how to use our rights. For the sake our children’s souls — and our own — we must pray, and we must fight for our rights.

We must understand what nullification means in practice. It is a form of civil disobedience. As individuals and as states, we will have to disobey what Federal authorities insist is the law. To their faces — whether the Supreme Court backs them or not — we will have to call Federal authorities wrong (or liars), and we will have to accept the consequences.

When enough of our fellow citizens join us in the fight, then we will succeed, but popularity will not win the battle. What is required now is resolve.

These are the times that try men’s souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it Now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. (from here)

Like Americans in the great conflicts of the past — the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement — those who take a stand now may often find themselves few in number.  Only when they smell the fruits of victory will those less brave join the fray, but the greatest rewards in heaven go to those who take heart when the conflict is hard.

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in Constitution, Culture War, history, VA-Blogs and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Age of Ignorance – Nullification Deniers! — from To Be Right!

  1. novascout says:

    Nullification is a long discredited, left-wing, anarchist, anti-constitutional concept launched by Democrats who were long ago placed outside the American mainstream. The doctrine is repugnant to conservative constitutionalists, particularly those in the Republican Party.

  2. novascout says:

    excellent counting job, there, Tom. Not so good on the reading side.

    Of course, I do disagree, but I am saying something more. Nullification is a pernicious relic of a sectional past. It is an early 19th Century anti-federalist notion that is inherently destructive of our constitutional system. Given the origins and founding principles of the Republican Party, it is impossible for neo-Nullificationists to find fertile ground within the GOP. Whatever this stuff is, it is neither conservative nor Republican and it merits stiff opposition from our side of the aisle. (not sure of the word count, but have at it).

  3. novascout says:

    Publius Huldah is still way ahead of me in the word count. Huldah is covering old, discredited ground and better conservative thinkers than I (modern and in the past) have countered him effectively. He cites a few. No reason for me to say these things again. Webster’s 1830 refutation of nullification defies improvement.

    I do think it important for conservatives to take a strong, united, vocal stand against this liberal Democrat, anti-federalist relic that, in significant ways, fueled the Civil War.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      novascout – Publius Huldah is also way ahead of you in content. He actually presented some ideas, and he explained why he believes those ideas are correct. Whereas, you have only expressed disagreement without any serious attempt to explain anything.

      Why don’t you just provide us a link to Webster’s 1830 refutation, summarize what Webster said and explain how it refutes the argument for nullification?

  4. novascout says:

    Everyone knows Webster’s refutation, Tom. Some of us were required to memorize great swatches of it as schoolboys, so central is it to the core of the Nation (“Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever . . .” etc). Anyone who is familiar with American history has it in their heads, on their bookshelf or can find it quickly on their computers. If they want a more modern treatment, the Huldah article itself cites to several good sources. My favorites are Barnett, Spalding, and Professor Guelzo. The first two particularly are persons of excellent conservative credentials.

  5. Publius Huldah says:

    Novascout is breathtakingly shallow!

    Daniel Webster’s famous speech was against S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine of nullification. As I pointed out in my paper [and I do try to write so that just about anyone can understand], S. Carolina tried to “nullify” a constitutional act! Specifically, the Tarriff Act of 1828! Congress has specific delegated authority to impose Tariffs. Furthermore, the Tariffs must be uniform in all the States (See, Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1) [Note to Novascout: “uniform” means the tariff has to be the same in all the states.]

    So that is why James Madison opposed it. As my paper makes clear.

    And Publius Huldah is a woman. The “Huldah” is a clue. But the photos should be a dead giveaway.

    • Citizen Tom says:

      Thanks for your comment.

      Novascout is a puzzle. He is obviously smart, and he will take a position, but he won’t really explain himself. He just takes what passes for the “moderate” position and calls himself a Conservative. So he ends up sounding like a conventional politician.

      Pictures! Darn I knew they were good for something. :lol: There are so many good blogs on the Internet, I cannot visit all of them or any of them often enough. However, I obviously need to check out some pictures.

      • Publius Huldah says:

        No, Novascout merely chants the prevailing dogma about nullification.

        He apparently has never read the original source documents on nullification. He just repeats the lies spouted off by the 3 he named. And I expect he has no idea that what he says is false. And that the 3 he named and whom he apes are not telling the truth.

Comments are closed.