The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Just Say No

By on 7.20.10 @ 6:08AM

Author Thomas Woods pens the guidebook to nullifying federal tyranny.

Amidst economic collapse, Thomas Woods challenged readers in his 2009 book Meltdown, as TAS associate editor W. James Antle, III aptly put it, “to embrace fairly radical notions about the New Deal, the Federal Reserve and the government’s role in the economy.” Now, with a gonzo federal government nudging — someone send Cass Sunstein a quarter — ever-increasing numbers of Americans towards a serious apprehension of centralized power, Woods returns with Nullification, a provocative and enlivening new tome spelling out the historical, constitutional, and moral arguments for states simply rejecting unconstitutional laws the federal government attempts to impose. “I wanted to write a book explaining what nullification is and justifying what it does,” Woods explained to TAS during an interview at the Mises Institute booth shortly before he gave a rousing FreedomFest lecture on the topic, “and also to create a ready resource for people to combat the inevitable smears from the drones and zombies.” 

TAS: How did Nullification come about?

Thomas Woods: I’m interested in political decentralization as a way of bridging ideological divides, even if I realize that for most on the left federal supremacy is like their bread and butter.… Still, the Kirkpatrick Sales of the left do exist — people who favor farmers markets and say things like ‘Small is Beautiful’ — and there is a growing number on the right who also feel the political scale has gotten too big. That is what needs to be cultivated on both sides. It can be done. You know, I bet I could find some Vermonters who basically want to let Vermont be Vermont.

TAS: There is a pretty healthy, or at least brash and noisy, home-rule/secessionist movement in Vermont. 

TW: Yeah, they’re an example of it. And obviously in Vermont those ideas have nothing to do with racism or slavery.

TAS: It has to do mostly with big box stores and SUVs, far as I can tell.

TW: Right. So they have their priorities, I have my priorities. Why shouldn’t we each pursue our own priorities rather than clawing at each other every four years to see who gets to impose a single view on the whole country? That’s the idea behind nullification. It’s fascinating to me how easily demonized this position is. There’s nothing in the apportionment of powers that has any necessary connection with racism or oppression… but when you challenge federal power a lot of people who support that power want to shout at you about lunch counters and have that be the end of it. These aren’t left/right issues, though. It should be a structural question: Do you want to live in an imperial society or a self-governing one?

That’s not to say states can’t use power badly. Of course they can! But at least you have some recourse when they do. Nobody can control Washington, D.C. This is obvious. Everybody who voted for Obama thinking anything would change — it’s the same damn thing! State legislatures are not a huge improvement, but they’re some improvement.

TAS: Nullification, as you explain in detail, is not radical in a historical context, but would you agree it might seem radical to a lot of people in a contemporary context?

TW: Yeah, it does, because it is the excluded possibility. The possibilities we usually get are, ‘Should the federal government do this or should it do that?’ The question is never, ‘Should the federal government have a policy on this?’ or ‘Why can’t states set their own education polices?’ Everything in America is now immediately referred to people we have zero control over, civics text platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding.

TAS: At the same time, we have a bipartisan problem in this country whereby people are generally only interested in abuse of power and civil liberties when their party is out of power. Those who spent the eight years of the Bush administration praising dissent and obstruction did a pretty quick about-face once Obama was elected, and we could obviously have used some of this tea party skepticism much earlier in Bush’s term. In light of that, how likely really is a long-term, trans-partisan movement to decentralize federal power?

TW: It’s hard to say because there is some kind of psychological hold party affiliation seems to possess on the human mind. People want to be part of something. They don’t want to be on the outside or be viewed as outliers. There are people who are going to favor decentralization because Bush is in power or because Obama is in power, but not as a general way of living. Perhaps as a sense of political helplessness grows — the more people realize no matter how much they oppose some crazy thing the federal government wants to do the federal government does it anyway — they might come to the default position that living on a scale smaller than a single 309 million person unit might at least give them a prayer of influence.

TAS: There’s obviously some concern about this catching on when ‘tenther’ — i.e. someone who believes in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution — becomes an increasingly popular liberal slur.

TW: That’s so stupid. The historical record is 1000 percent on the side of people who support the Tenth Amendment. It just shows how out to lunch these people are. Thomas Jefferson was the original tenther. Is that really the argument they want to have? If you hate Thomas Jefferson, please, please, please come out and tell the country that. None of them have the guts.

TAS: Is the scope of what the federal government attempted under both Bush and Obama since this economic crisis began, often against mainstream public opinion, made people more open to concepts like nullification?

Page: 1 2  

About the Author

Shawn Macomber is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (83) |

Red Phillips | 7.20.10 @ 7:29AM

Thomas Woods is an excellent author, and I am sure this is a wonderful book, but the "drones and zombies" who attack him and the idea of nullification will not just be from the left. This will get the "conservatives" who think Lincoln is the embodiment of all things conservative, and they are a sizable contingent here in the TAS comment section, dander up as well. Just watch and see.

Vern Crisler| 7.21.10 @ 12:09AM

The problem is, nullification would take us back to the anarchic days of the Articles of Confederation. The whole point of the Constitution was to set up a mixed sovereignty, neither federal sovereignty by itself nor State sovereignty by itself. Nullification undermines this balance.

Lance | 7.22.10 @ 8:37AM

You're vastly oversimplifying the "anarchic days of the Articles of Confederation."

Frankly, the Articles of Confederation worked just fine.

We've come to find out that this "mixed system" simply doesn't work. The Constitution has not worked as intended since at least 1860, when Emperor Lincoln decided to violate it to "save it".

Louis Jenkins| 7.20.10 @ 8:33AM

Actually, nullification is a grand idea. Would Obama have the guts to invade a state with federal troops, and put puppets in power? A Reconstruction if you will? Would he do it to a dozen or so states? For that matter would the federal troops go along with it? It may come to that. Interesting thoughts here.

Petronius| 7.20.10 @ 9:02AM

Ask the people in New Orleans who will never get their guns back.

Ret. Marine| 7.21.10 @ 7:52AM

That's just plain and simple bull-shit pal, they in fact got their gun's back, unless of course they were using them in the commission of a feloney.

Len| 7.20.10 @ 9:29AM

We already have nullification going on; look at what happened to the real ID act, and the states that allow medical marijuana. We just need people to stop looking to DC for everything and rather push their state legislatures to resist unconstitutional infringements.

canuckistani| 7.20.10 @ 10:35AM

You mean like for issues that saw Wallace barring the door to a school? Then yes.
I think the American people know they have the option to vote every two years for what they actually want as a people. The knee-jerk habit of going to def-con 5 whenever Obama's black helicopters are flying overhead truly show the whacko right has lost their minds.
If the nation wants something, they vote for it, if they don't they vote for another option. If you hate America so much, just say it - but we got here honestly as a nation over 234 years, not less than the two since the Obama "coup" in 09.
As Gingrich was apt to say: "If you have the facts, pound the facts, if you don't have the facts, pound the table...."

Len| 7.20.10 @ 10:49AM

Actually the only thing people vote for every two years is for offices that are to enact the US constitution. There is nothing on the ballot for healthcare, medicaid, wealth redistribution or the like. This is why the states need to put the federal government on notice of it's myriad usurpations.

BTW, thank you for reminding us of the constitutionally illiterate idiots, such as yourself, that make up an unfortunately large segment of the population, and illustrate why democracy rather than true constitutional republicanism is so dangerous.

Adam Smith| 7.20.10 @ 9:31AM

A large Gov by it's very nature creates partisan conflict. Why? Because in a country with a limited Gov everyone is free to pursue their own interests and desires. You can be friends with anyone as their ideas do not impose on you. Not with a large intrusive Gov. now you have to fight for your rights and this only feeds the machine of big gov and pits you against your neighbor. Left or Right, it's time to stop playing the game. 67,000 pages of conflicting tax code is is not law it's a farce. There are only 17 pages in the Constitution and art 2 sec 1 is in open violation. It's time to proclaim that if The British Subject signed it - it's simply not law. Simple as that.

R Martin| 7.20.10 @ 9:37AM

We should all now be thinking of an overt act of nullification when the time comes: neither collect nor pay the hideous value added tax.

canuckistani| 7.20.10 @ 10:43AM

Like Rick Barber's plan?

http://www.rickbarberforcongre.....eform.aspx

Perhaps you can explain the difference from a consumer's standpoint. The G needs revenue, and they're going to get it.

Al Adab| 7.20.10 @ 4:54PM

The G needs revenue? And what they want they get? Is that the definition of a Constitutional Republic?

The very fact that the Federal G is suing a state over that states enforcement of federal law should tell us something. If the courts rule against Arizona ( and all the amicus states as well) suppose the sate G say so what? Do any of us believe that the Fed would roll the tanks to force compliance? No, they just cut off Federal funding and after all that is at the heart of the issue. Most of us don't need those funds nor want them and the attached strings. There is the battle line.

What will happen when the urban dependant class takes to the streets to demand their freebies? There, and not from the Conservatives, is the revolution.

Blackwatch| 7.20.10 @ 8:29PM

"The G needs revenue and they are going to get it."

No the "G" needs to be reined in and chopped with a hatchet.

Let's start with the Federal Department of Education. The only reason to have a FED "G" Ed Dept is too rest local control from the State "g." And the states can do education quite well when left alone. Education funding is a local responsibility and it should not have a federal component.

D. Singh| 7.20.10 @ 10:23AM

Sir

Mr Woods asks (and defines the problem that besets states on both sides of the Atlantic as): ‘Do you want to live in an imperial society or a self-governing one?’

For example, he asks the question: ‘Why can’s states set their own education policies?’

What the questions really point to is: which is superior, the federal or state governments?

This question has only arisen because the Left-liberal ‘federal class’ believes and acts as if it were sovereign, rather than the Constitution being sovereign.

What the left-Liberal ‘federal class’ has done is chip away at the authority of the Constitution; for example, the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision to liberalise abortion: Mr Justice Blackmun found the answer, at the heart of the decision in ‘the penumbra’ (the shadow) of the Constitution.

Once the left-Liberal ‘federal class’ stripped away the authority of the sovereignty of the Constitution, the sovereignty vacuum created had to be filled (as politics like nature abhors a vacuum); it was filled by the ideas and policies of the left-Liberal ‘federal class’.

Thus, the power struggle between Left and Right has no mediator (a role once fulfilled by the Constitution) and the struggle has become more serious, particularly in its foreseeable consequences.

To put it bluntly no imperial power or state can have two governments, or two supreme courts or two legislatures, or two presidents (as American history has shown).

The USA is a house divided. And a house divided cannot stand; and that may well be why the USA is missing from the ‘so-called End Times’.

President Lincoln may have been prophetic by warning those, like the left-Liberal ‘federal class’, not to tamper with the Constitution (originally built upon Judaeo-Christian ideas of law, justice and the balance between freedom and security):

‘I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules.’

And:

‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.’

President Lincoln (1809 – 1865)
First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Len| 7.20.10 @ 11:19AM

or their right to separate as stated in the Declaration of Independence, but then Lincoln didn't really believe what he said.

Talk about not getting it, Lincoln is the worst centralizer ever, and denied states their right to the ultimate nullification of leaving a government that they no longer saw as fulfilling it's purpose.

There are basically 4 options available when the US constitution has been discarded;

1) Just take it. Meaning that regardless of how many violations, usurpations and oppressive acts we allow them to go on.

2) Nullification. This is where the states tell the federal government to shove off, due to the fact that they are the parties to the US constitution (Article 7), and ultimately it is their right to judge whether the terms of the compact are being honored.

3) Secession. This is where the states take leave of those who are committing injurious acts and RETRACT delegated powers which are on loan for their good. As it is the people of the state whose powers/rights have been delegated, this is done in convention and can only be denied by those who ultimately deny that the people are sovereign, and it is they who have allowed government to operate on their behalf.

For nullification to actually have any meaning, then of course secession must be an option if the federal government (which includes SCOTUS) continues to act injuriously to the state.

4) Revolution. This can happen in more than one way. States may secede, and others attempt to force people to remain against their will (consensual union, DELEGATED POWERS anyone?), and thus force is necessary, though outcome is not guaranteed, see the difference between the revolutionary war and the civil war.

Another manner may be simply that of reinstituting the US constitution and meeting extra-constitutional acts with the always retained rights of self defense and restoring constitutional government by unseating those who have used their offices to commit acts never empowered.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 2:55PM

Here's a radical fifth idea Len: convince your fellow Americans that you are right, and they will elect people who conform to your views. But the reality is, you can't, because your fellow Americans don't agree with you. We admire our country and its system. We believe it works. We believe the system of checks and balances IS functioning. We don't buy your world-view that the rest of us are ignorant and evil, and have elected representatives who are ignorant and evil, who have appointed judges who are ignorant and evil. And because you can't convince your fellow citizens, they are NOT going to secede, or take up arms against the country they love.

Len| 7.20.10 @ 6:30PM

Secession is not taking up arms, unless those believing they have a right to compel others to remain in a VOLUNTARY (see Article 7 of the US constitution) union attempt to use force to keep others under their governance. That by the way is evil, so yes you are evil.

As for trying to convince others to good, that is absurd. History is replete with evidence that man is evil and this why we have government in the first place. If man were not evil we would need no laws, no courts, no armed forces, etc. That you deny this very obvious fact shows you to be unable of actually living in reality.

You are also incapable of acknowledging the myriad violations of the US constitution and the rights of the people in this country. There is no delegation of power for taking care of the people, for taking one person's wealth and giving it to another, for drug laws, for business regulations, etc. Yet the congress continues to make laws in violation of the EXPRESSED LIMITS of the US constitution, thus operating outside of the law and their authority and you idiotically continue to assert there is nothing wrong being done. You live in a narrative that exists only in your mind.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:52PM

...and in the minds of the vast majority of other people who live in this great Republic. It has endured through all you fringers and will endure for generations to come.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:55PM

By the way, what do you do on Lincoln's Birthday? Light candles in front of portraits of Jeff Davis and John C. Calhoun? Shoot off muskets in protest? Burn copies of the 13th through 19th Amendments?

Len| 7.20.10 @ 7:09PM

Another absurd argument that you make by implication is that the majority will do the right thing, or that the majority by virtue of being the majority have the right to rule over others.

Much of your argument is essentially this is the way things have happened, so thus what has happened is right. Idiot's logic.

Len| 7.20.10 @ 7:05PM

Way to respond. As you cannot refute the truthfulness of my comments concerning constitutionality or evil, you celebrate a "republic(actually not, and according to your own comments we are not, because a republic by definition must consist of individual components being represented. That you contradict yourself and don't even realize it shows your lack of critical thinking skills)" only based on supposed longevity as opposed to the integrity of it's people in doing right. Again demonstrating your love of evil.

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 9:37PM

What " We " LawBoy Bloviator ?

It only took a small percentage of continental American rebels to gain independence from a country that didn't represent their interests .

Jeremiah| 7.20.10 @ 9:52PM

You fail to discern the difference between nullification and secession. I am a 'state's rights' conservative in the sense that all powers not specifically granted to the federal gov't by the Constitution is reserved to the states.

Lincoln was, indeed, a great centralizer who forged this collection of states into a single nation. There was a great centralizer before him - a collective one, anyway; the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. I have studied Lincoln extensively and I see no evidence he wanted to undo the Constitution. To the contrary, he wanted to prevent the last, best hope for human liberty from dying a thousand cuts. Had the precedent been established that, whenever there was a serious disagreement the nation could divide itself, we would have become a western version of the Balkans - and liberty would have been unlikely to survive in most of the petty fiefdoms that would have resulted.

Democracy is the most unstable form of government ever devised. It has invariably degenerated into partisan strife, a war of all against all, then into chaos and then to dictatorship. That is why the founders adopted a very carefully crafted Constitutional Republic. It was designed to give us the benefit of self-government, without the incendiary and corrosive threat to individual liberty that pure majority rule brings. So the founders vested sovereignty in the people, but identified some rights which no state or individual could violate.

This did not come easily. Our system did not spring fully grown from the founders' heads like Athena from Zeus. They got it wrong the first time with the Articles of Confederation. It was not central enough and was crumbling, justifying the taunting jeers of the elite class of Europe. So they did a do-over and established the Constitution. In those few matters in which the federal government did have authority it was expected to act with vigor. In those it did not it was supposed to mind its own damn business.

Lincoln's issue was not over a matter of law so much as the fundamental question, did the nation have the right to self-defense or must it acquiesce in a sustained and serious effort at self-mutilation. Lincoln well understood the nation's imperfection (read the 2nd Inaugural again), but he also knew that if the US perished, the best hope of human liberty ever devised would perish with it.

For about 50 years after Lincoln, the nation grew as a confederation of autonomous states which ceded some of their authority to a legitimate national government - and a national government that did not significantly impose its will on those matters it lacked authority on on the states. But at the turn of the last century came the rise of the 'idealistic' intellectuals who thought government was too important to be left to those who were actually to be governed. Slowly things started to change - almost unnoticeable at first. Such things as the popular election of senators - a great democratizing movement, and the knocking down of one of the pillars of stability the founders had built into our churning system. Centralization sped up under Woodrow Wilson. It went to full speed under Franklin Roosevelt, then to warp speed under Lyndon Johnson. It is at crash and burn speed under Obama.

So now our problem is not an inability to project coordinated and unified power, nor to maintain a single nation. Now our problem is an overweening federal government that is hostile to the idea of self-government and wants to direct every aspect of our everyday lives - including intruding on liberties that the Constitution empowered the federal gov't to stop the states from intruding on.

The point of this very long post is that it is foolish to criticize Lincoln or the founders for not working diligently to attack an entirely different set of problems than we now face. Now we have to saw off some limbs from a gov't that intrudes in everything. It is foolish to criticize Lincoln for bringing a hammer and nails to bear to HIS problem, which was to keep the magnificent house that was the seat of liberty from falling apart. I admire Lincoln for forging this house together and keeping it from falling apart - as I will admire whoever rises to trim back the aggressive branches and roots that now attack its foundation and frame.

Vern Crisler| 7.21.10 @ 12:18AM

Dittos Jeremiah....

Boomerbabe| 7.21.10 @ 6:28PM

Wonderfully written, and thanks for mentioning the ill-conceived amendment to elect senators by popular vote. I believe that truly set our nation on its course to this current state of affairs. Our senators no longer vote with wisdom for the strengthening of the country or for their state's integrity - they vote to be re-elected only. They are beholden only to their re-election.

George S| 7.20.10 @ 11:03AM

The federal government has a built-in defense against state nullification: the federal Debt. Only the federal government can enact or affect monetary policy by issuing debt instruments that give the backing for printing money. Since state governments cannot print money, the interest on the debt must be borne by its citizens to back up the full faith and credit of the United States. By taking the hit, citizens of each state have that much less capital to fund the state government, resulting in the state government relying on Washington to subsidize their budgets. Couple that with federal law on everything from Medicare to transportation infrastructure to education and you get a state requiring to tax its citizens just to comply with federal mandates. Nullification would mean each state would have to fund the entire hit without federal aid; something that would be politically prohibitive after the first post-nullification property tax bill comes through.

That's why future elections may not matter with a multi-trillion dollar deficit as a President Palin would become a manager of a bureaucratic welfare state, constantly trying to figure out where to borrow money to prevent the inevitable: the collapse of the dollar and the evaporation of the wealth of all Americans with the resultant hyperinflation. This will force us to start over with a new economy, first based on barter then on cash. The lawlessness that would ensue as it becomes clear those who will survive are the ones who can self-sustain (i.e. access to crops, fire wood and potable water) will most likely create a massive panic that will overwhelm our Constitution, requiring martial law to abate. In addition, those who rely on the government -- the nearly half who do not pay federal taxes or are subsidized by the taxes of others -- will go Greece on the federal government in short order, further pushing us to martial law. I may be digressing a bit, but that's the only path leading from nullifying our debt, which means we are stuck with the power of the federal government's power to tax all citizens, to print money, and to issue more debt. If we nullify, we have to be prepared to start over. And everyone at that point in time will be on his own for his survival.

We can all thank our predecessors for allowing the Roosevelt Administration to plant the seed.

Adam Smith| 7.20.10 @ 12:37PM

A state based sovereign currency backed by the kilowatt redeemable at in state energy producers might be a solution. A kilowatt is a measure of energy which is applicable to doing some form of work and an economy is nothing but a societies work output. The kilowatt has none of the problematic issues you get with a debt based or fiat currency and its not vulnerable to manipulation/hording you get with rare commodities like gold. Energy production grows as the economy grows, matching the economy perfectly thus no inflation/deflation or credit crunches.

dcd| 7.20.10 @ 1:54PM

Interesting idea but the kilowatt is particularly vulnerable to technological inovation. How do I make a buisness plan if I have to predict the devlopment of nuclear fusion?

Adam Smith| 7.20.10 @ 3:36PM

It's remains to be seen if that's what fusion energy is "think 100 -200 billion dollar plants if it's even ever possible" but lets just assume your pretext that at some point in time something very cheap comes along. Well it only means greater economic growth with the reduced production costs which requires more currency in circulation which higher kilowatt output and consumption provides. Note: this is a historical a weak point for rare commodities like gold which can't grow along with the economy while not going down the disastrous road of adopting the trouble of a fiat or debt based currency which has no check on its scarcity. Think Timmy G at the presses.

Adam Smith| 7.20.10 @ 3:36PM

It's remains to be seen if that's what fusion energy is "think 100 -200 billion dollar plants if it's even ever possible" but lets just assume your pretext that at some point in time something very cheap comes along. Well it only means greater economic growth with the reduced production costs which requires more currency in circulation which higher kilowatt output and consumption provides. Note: this is a historical a weak point for rare commodities like gold which can't grow along with the economy while not going down the disastrous road of adopting the trouble of a fiat or debt based currency which has no check on its scarcity. Think Timmy G at the presses.

John K| 7.20.10 @ 12:06PM

George:

This is so true. The effect of the welfare state is to cement left liberal policies in place forever (or at least until economic disaster cannot be avoided). The 60 year legacy of the National Health Service in Britain is that Conservative politicians cannot voice one word, and I literally mean not one word, of criticism of it. Even in our current economic plight, the NHS will not be cut by a single penny piece, it is deemed to be politically impossible. Mrs Thatcher never dared to do it, so you can be sure Mr Cameron, who is in fact a squishy, soft, quasi-liberal, will never face up to this reality. The welfare state moves the terms of political trade to the left, and entrenches them there.

Mr Cameron's latest idea is to recruit an army of community organisers! Really, I am not making this up, he announced it only yesterday! Now he is what we have as a so-called conservative, so you can see how deep the rot goes. I don't think there is any way out of it, until there is total economic failure, which, given the literally unaffordable costs of the welfare state, are bound to come at some point, maybe sooner than people think.

cavalier973| 7.20.10 @ 12:25PM

*If we nullify, we have to be prepared to start over. And everyone at that point in time will be on his own for his survival.*

Right. Because the ONLY THING that is keeping us from screwing each other over right now is the power of the Federal Government. Churches? Family? General feelings of Humanity? They're all illusions. If the FedGov collapses, there's no way that people will figure out how to cooperate, since everyone everywhere secretly desires to kill his neighbor and take his stuff.

Sorry, but the only place where I see people who seriously harbor the "kill my neighbor" philosophy in their hearts are the people in the FedGov that you claim are keeping the rest of us in line.

George S| 7.20.10 @ 1:19PM

First National Bank
Your Town USA
Account# __________

Dear cavalier973:

This is to inform you that your account balance of $52,500.00 has been reduced to zero. We had to appropriate the funds of our valued depositors in order to pay the debt resulting from our Credit Card Debt Nullification Program.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, but you can always lean on your church, family and General Feelings of Humanity; so all is not lost.

We value your business and thank you for being a customer. Please let us know when your are going to make an additional deposit to your account as we have a lot more interested credit card issuees that want to take advantage of our program.

Regards

Louis Jenkins| 7.20.10 @ 1:55PM

Dear George S:

This is a lot closer than you may think.

Best regards

cavalier973| 7.20.10 @ 2:18PM

Dear Sirs:

I thank you for your letter. I had forgotten about the balance still left in my account with your bank, since the $52,500.00 is in Federal Reserve Notes, and has the purchasing power of about $5.00 in 2010 dollars. I do my business in gold and/or silver coinage nowadays, and use a competing bank which does not engage in the fraudulent activity known as "fractional reserve banking." Nevertheless, since you have confiscated from me the price of a couple of candy bars, would you do me the kindness of closing my account?

Your Obedient Servant,
cavalier973

Blackwatch| 7.20.10 @ 8:43PM

well played.

REB| 7.20.10 @ 10:05PM

Touche'....excellent comeback!

ds80| 7.20.10 @ 1:17PM

What a sad, sad state of affairs this inexperienced President had brought us to. He's already practicing nullification: nullifying the will of the majority of We The People:

* passing a healthcare bill We oppose
* trying to nullify Arizona law We support
* funding abortion with federal dollars, a policy We have long opposed
* voting for and administering TARP, which We adamantly opposed
* nationalizing GM & Chrysler, which We opposed
* destroying the US-UK "special relationship", weakening Our support for Israel

November 2010: Time to refresh the Tree of Liberty

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 3:16PM

What I find "sad" is the repeated exaggerations and outright misrepresentations the right makes about our President, who was elected by the American people:
* President Obama ran on a platform that promised enactment of health care reform, and he was elected. Those of us who voted for him did so because we supported health care reform. If anything, the bill that passed was too watered down with compromise thanks to GOP opposition, and we will continue to work for expansion of that reform;
* Many of us believe that the Arizona law is unconstitutional. Our courts will ultimately make that determination as provided for by our system of checks and balances. No one doubts our immigration system is broken, but we need national immigration reform.
* The law prohibits federal funding for abortions, and that has not changed.
* GM and Chrysler weren't "nationalized"; they were given federal loan guarantees to help them survive and save American jobs. It was a smart idea.
* The US-UK special relationship has hardly been "destroyed". We today welcome British PM David Cameron to Washington, and that relationship continues to be strong and vibrant. Nor has US support for Israel been "weakened" as Israeli PM Netanyahu reaffirmed just last week. Our bond with Israel is unbreakable.

Len| 7.20.10 @ 6:35PM

A vivid illustration of why it would be a waste of time trying to convince others of doing the right thing. You are saying that you voted for a man who promised to violate the US constitution, under which he is to operate. Healthcare was on no ballot, only those to be elected to enact the US constitution, and strain and contort as you will, there is no grant of authority, particularly for the executive who can only carry out the laws the congress passes, to legislate for healthcare.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 7:11PM

Ken - Nobody's accepted your interpretation of the Constitution's grant of powers to the federal government since John Marshall shot it down in McCullough v. Maryland.

Len| 7.20.10 @ 7:23PM

Doesn't matter how many accept something. Again man being evil will continually justify doing wrong. So your continuous reliance on a majority accepting something as fact is meaningless. Even then Marshall would find little constitutionality in most of what the federal government does today, not that I care for his sophistry or rely on him in any way.

You do realize it is an idiotic argument to say that because "most" assert something to be true, then something is true? Probably not,because in your world absolutes are something to be avoided at all costs.

Blackwatch| 7.20.10 @ 8:51PM

RCV,

Most persons do not believe as you claim. And your Kenyan Liar In Chief was not elected to reform health care.

There is nothing wrong with the quality of Health Care in this country. The problem we have is how do we pay for insurance for the millions of persons who free load or who have a disease/condition that the insurance companies choose to exclude from coverage.

You are so loose with the terms of the debate on almost every topic--it's almost like you do it on purpose. Or are you thick? Fess up please as I really enjoy the challenges you post, but since I question your motives/integrity I hardly ever accept your reasoning at face value.

RCV| 7.21.10 @ 2:27AM

You are absolutely right that there is nothing wrong with the quality of health care in America, and that the question is how do we provide access to the millions of who are uninsured and incapable of paying for that quality care. My preference would have been the public insurance option shot down in Congress. I also don't see how you can argue that Obama was not elected with a mandate to reform health insurance -- it was a centerpiece of the national Democratic campaign and occupied a good portion of the debates throughout the primary and general election cycles.

It's also hard for me to take seriously on an intellectual level anyone who spouts birthed nonsense.

RCV| 7.21.10 @ 2:32AM

The "most" I was referring to were legal scholars and respected judges - respected by those of us in the legal profession. John Marshall is indeed one of those most respected, whether you respect him or not. Then again, you don't respect Abraham Lincoln, so what can I say?

darcy| 7.21.10 @ 4:29AM

"We will LET you keep your doctor."

LIE

"No one making less than $250,000 per year will see their taxes raised . . . "

LIE

But I suppose that for people like RCV, the ends justifies the means.

You are so full of BS, RCV, it's a wonder your head doesn't explode.

darcy| 7.21.10 @ 4:34AM

Oh, and RCV, it's hard for me to take seriously -- on an intellectual level -- anyone who continues to give cover for the lies that are the modi operandi of this administration.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 1:58PM

CaVALIER,
Your post only reveals your own filthy heart.

As an "ant" who has scraped up provisions for an emergency...I can only help a limited number of "grasshoppers". Otherwise, to mix a metaphor, my own lifeboat sinks and we all die.

Sooner than later...nullification WILL take place, de-facto or dejure.

When the overwhelming majority of tax-payers decide to go "under the radar" or take a "sabatical", nullification will BITE the non-tax-payers...in the stomach....their empty stomach.

This does not have to happen, but if we fail to hamstring all this communist crap, (pardon the shorthand), in November...or the Republicans fail to step up to the plate...I see no other future for us.

God bless Texas

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 3:18PM

God Bless America.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 4:10PM

RCV,
God does not grant prayers to unrepentant thieves and communist, (pardon the shorthand), liberty murderers like you and Mr. Obama.

You are obviously in bed with these scumbags, so enjoy the fleas. What happens when my taxes, and the tax money of millions of of us quit supporting you?

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 4:33PM

Ken, God is more charitable than you and hears the prayers of all his children. When you stop paying your taxes, I imagine the IRS will come after you and the rest of any scofflaws who don't follow the law. And as I've told you before, this is a free country so you're welcome to go on strike any time you wish. If you'd stop being such a blowhard and drama queen, you might realize what a lucky man you are and start enjoying your privileged life.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 5:35PM

RCV,
Bless your heart.

I honestly cannot decide if you are evil...and paid by evil men...or if you are simply stuck on stupid.

...Of course you will never be honest here. I understand that. You will NOT engage in honest dialogue. I understand that as well.

Your corrupt bosses will hide in the shadows...but THEIR bosses already know who I am, so nothing is lost by my saying...I am the author of several world-wide best-sellers...most of which are under a pen name.
One that is under my own name is "Bean's About Baseball" (amazon.com). A parent's guide to teaching baseball softball success to their kids.
(Look it up, loser)

My wife is THE premier children's medical specialist in the whole world in her specialty. I shan't involve her here. It might hurt the children.

Scumbags like you would drag her through the mud just to prove your 'betterness".

She took care of so many children over the last 25 years...pro-bono.....
Well... I won't throw pearls before swine. You do not deserve to know who she is. Hundreds of thousands of folks here DO know who she is.

They know I have laid down my career to help her serve those children for the last ten years.
(Folks, please be silent.)

RCV,
A little over a year ago, I hugged up my wonderful wife and asked her permission to lay our very lives on the line on behalf of a free America. She said OK....and she loved me.

Sir, ma'am, every post I write puts me closer to a gulag...or a pistol shot behind the ear. I understand that.

Wimpy, stupid, or paid minimum wage liars like you just make me proud to laugh at you. You certainly will not show up on my front porch.

You are too cowardly.

You will pass my thoughts to your boss's boss's boss to order it.

One final thought:

If I go silent here and a couple of other places...in the gulag...several million patriots will avenge me.
Fool!

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:36PM

As Sam Houston himself once said, "All new states are invested, more or less, by a class of noisy, second-rate men who are always in favor of rash and extreme measures, but Texas was absolutely overrun by such men."

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:44PM

Seriously, Ken, I would be delighted any time to have an honest discussion with you. What I don't enjoy is your tendency simply to call anybody who disagrees with you names. Nothing you say puts you any closer to a pistol shot, or a gulag or any other danger. You live in a great, great country. You are free to express your opinion and vent your spleen to your heart's content. Nor, despite your belief, is everyone who has a different opinion a "minimum-wage" lowlife. I'm a preofessional man, 63 years old, high-end taxpayer, and my wife is a school teacher who has spent every moment of her waking hours the past 35 years helping children.

Al Adab| 7.20.10 @ 6:04PM

RCV is correct about one thing, the Obama voters got exactly what they asked for. Many of them were not astute enough to realize it at the time.

Now however we face the consequences of those unfortunate votes. Whatever motivated the voters in 2008 they have sown the wind; with the predictable whirlwind results.

The revolution will come not from Conservatives but from the urban dependant class who, when their freebies (bread and circusus) are taken away will take to the streets in anger. Add to that the collapse of SS and Medicare and the increasing failure of infrastructure and a painful vision emerges.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 6:44PM

RCV,
Your masters already know my phone number.
(713-569-3896)

My email ...one of them...is kbjudgeroybean06@gmail.com

Come on, coward/fool!

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 9:52PM

What's a " preofessional " man ?

Could be a Public School Teacher ?

Obviously , you don't have to spell well.

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 9:55PM

Sam Houston:
“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”

REB| 7.20.10 @ 10:22PM

Jefferson said that the law was often but the tyrants will and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
We are supposed to be living under the rule of law(the republics constitution) not under "laws" decreed at will by persons who disregard that republics law! If 50,000,000 believe a lie its still a lie,so what part of the consent of the governed do we not understand here? Its bammas job to represent us via the constitution,not to institute a program he or Bush and others see fit,we have had a slew of presidents and govicorps people who have decided they are in charge,well hello they are not and when the consent of the governed is no longer given then revolution of some kind can not be far behind! Study the decision in Mabury VS Madison to start,it says in part that any law / decree that is hostile to the constitution has no standing or protection fron the constitution and is invalid as soon as it is written,not when it is finally overthrown. We are not obligated to let this govt destroy our libertys and be forced to just sit back and say "Oh well they were elected so they can do as they please" NO SIR, not on your life!

darcy| 7.21.10 @ 4:55AM

You are so predictable, RCV.

"Enjoy what you have." "Count your blessings."

Honestly, RCV, you remind me of the rapist who just before ravishing his victim says, "Relax, you're going to enjoy this."

Tim*| 7.20.10 @ 9:46PM

RCV is a self-demonstrating proof of Samuel Johnson's observation , " Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel .

cavalier973| 7.20.10 @ 2:11PM

*Sooner than later...nullification WILL take place, de-facto or dejure.*

A situation I could not applaud more heartily. The problem I have is the idea that when nullification takes place, then society will descend into violent chaos. I disagree.
Take, for example, the idea that without the Federal Government managing it, money will disappear. Money is a tool of the market, created by the market, and usurped by government for its own purposes. The Federal Reserve Notes we use today may disappear, but people will figure out--pretty quickly, too--some other item that can be readily traded for goods and services. This new form of money will be superior to what we use today, because it will be much more difficult to erode its value than the government-mandated fiat currency so popular today.

james| 7.20.10 @ 5:03PM

Canuckistan,
The trouble with people like Obama is that they change the playing field, so that "voting them out" becomes difficult. If you think that, say, Al Franken was elected honestly, then you're going to love 2012. And of course Obama's DOJ refusal to purge voter rolls of dead people is a really good sign that we can all be happy about. And whatever your gripes are with normal people, which you, of course, being a leftist, call right-wing crazies, there is not a single incidence - not a single one - of republican voter fraud. You will call me a knuckle-dragging racist, but I'll wait for you to enumerate them.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 5:32PM

Just type "Republican voter fraud" into any search engine and you'll be able to find dozens.

Ken (Old Texican)| 7.20.10 @ 5:38PM

RCV
See above.....Fool.

JimE| 7.20.10 @ 7:21PM

Dozens compared to the over two thousand links listed under demoratic voter fraud. hit the road obama boy.

CallMeIshmael| 7.20.10 @ 6:29PM

For this idea to work juries have to nullify all prosecutions against people who run afoul of Obama's dictatorial "laws." When the Injustice Department learns that they can't convict anybody they'll have to resort to summary "justice." Then it will really get interesting.

Al Adab| 7.20.10 @ 7:18PM

"...and all, save one, shall follow."

Blackwatch| 7.20.10 @ 9:03PM

Yes I have already stated that I will not convict a person of my race nor belive the testimony from anyone who is not of my race while Eric Holder stills runs the Non-Whitey Department of Justice.

How many persons out there are going to do something similar I don't know. But once racial politics is institutionalized by our own Attorney General I feel that I have no other choice to assume that any and all prosecutions are being done for politcal reasons.

RCV| 7.20.10 @ 6:48PM

Good luck with that plan, Ishmael!

Blackwatch| 7.20.10 @ 9:13PM

Really? It only takes one or two hold outs to vote no in a criminal matter to hang a jury. A clever person could easily defeat a jury foremans complaints to a judege about a recalcitrant juror. It's quite easy to hang a jury if you have thick skin or are committed to your agenda. All you would need to do is state that you are acting in good faith and are not swayed by the state's evidence. reasonable doubt will be planted in your mind by the defense attorney, so just tend to it and it will grow. It will up to a prosecutor to unveil his/her opponents in the jury box prior to the trial. He/she will need the luck, RCV, not Ishmael's comrades in the jury box.

Welcome to the Balkans my friend. It's all about protecting your tribe from outsiders. The dream of America has been killed--we are now arguing over the disposition of the body.

RCV| 7.21.10 @ 2:43AM

You are right that dishonest people like yourself could lie to get themselves on a jury and then lie again to the judge during deliberations - but most people take their oaths seriously and choose not to commit a felony by perjuring themselves.

Boomerbabe| 7.21.10 @ 6:53PM

You mean like on the OJ trial jury?

RCV| 7.22.10 @ 1:29PM

Even our jury system isn't perfect - it's just the best anyone's come up with to date.

D. Singh| 7.21.10 @ 3:46AM

Sir

With respect.

Jeremiah| 7.20.10 @ 9:52PM

Thank you for your implied correction of a point I made in my post at D. Singh| 7.20.10 @ 10:23AM.

Mr Jeremiah states:

‘So the founders vested sovereignty in the people, but identified some rights which no state or individual could violate.’

You are correct: sovereignty, ultimately, does lie within the people. This would be in accord with President Lincoln’s statement:

‘This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.’

President Lincoln (1809 – 1865)
First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Boomerbabe| 7.21.10 @ 6:58PM

RCV and others of your ilk -
How long do you think that those of us who are being taxed to support those who pay no taxes will continue to "count our blessings" before we opt out? We are not stupid, and even now we are enacting our own self sufficient lifestyles for the coming temper tantrums your friends will have as soon as the tax base they are counting on disappears. We are not afraid of hard work, in fact, we've been working hard all our lives. We're just tired of working hard for the benefit of others. We'll be counting our blessings in private, thank you.

RCV| 7.22.10 @ 1:27PM

Boomerbabe: I'm glad you've been working hard and paying your taxes all your life. I have too. And those taxes have been spent on you, too. Paying the defense department for wars you've supported (I haven't been happy about the billions wasted on GWB's sorry exercise in Iraq); building the roads and infrastructures which you and I use; paying the police and firefighters who protect OUR considerable property. That's part of living in a complicated, urban, modern society.

If you're tired of it, well do whatever you choose to do. Move to a mountaintop in Idaho and live a self-sufficient live. Hoard your money and barter with other survivalists. Move to Mynamar or Singapore or Costa Rica. I genuinely don't care. Just stop whining like you're some persecuted serf living in a hovel. You're one of the lucky ones in life, Boomerbabe, and it's time you realized it.

ds80| 7.21.10 @ 8:50PM

RCV, ... Wesley Mouch, James Taggart .. what's the difference? Except deciding if he's a "looter" or a "moocher" -?

God Bless ya, Boomerbabe

More Articles by Shawn Macomber

More Articles From Special Report

Disabling American Sovereignty

May 22, 2013 | Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

May 21, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

May 20, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

Not Ready for Primetime Players

May 17, 2013 | Daniel J. Flynn

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

May 16, 2013 | Jeffrey Lord

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/20/just-say-no

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|135 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|75 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|12 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|29 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

State Department: Iran Has Soldiers in Syria

Kaylin Bugos | 3:12PM

Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong

Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.