Thanks again, this explains so much for anyone who is not familiar with the progressive's work that's been going on for years now.
Posted by Barbara Davis on 04/30 at 02:15 PM | #
I just want to say thank you for sharing your knowledge of our Constitution and its original meanings. Your blog provides me with a keen insight and Hope!
Posted by Michael on 04/23 at 08:50 PM | #
Thanks PH, I appreciate your insight and rebuttal to Allen Guelzo’s misguided interpretation and understanding of the Constitution. As my favorite 18th century British Tory observed: “Almost every man wastes part of his life attempting to display qualities which he does not possess.” – Samuel Johnson. I believe this definitely applies to Guelzo!
Back to the subject: Guelzo statement that “Nullification collides with more than just the letter of the Constitution. It also assaults its spirit” is just plain foolish. He is obviously oblivious to what the founders believed and what they expressed quite succinctly!
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying to determine what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." – Thomas Jefferson
“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson also said, "Whenever the General Government (Washington) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
What is especially weak and asinine, is his argument is that “Nor is it really persuasive to claim that the Tenth Amendment’s reservation to the states of powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” was intended to include the power to nullify. It would be strange that the Framers spelled out an amendment process but not a process for nullification.” What did he expect the states to do when the Constitution was violated; just sit there? No, they would just say “NO”(as Jefferson recommended) which would amount to “nullification.” Now that isn’t difficult to understand, is it?
He also makes the mistake of lumping a “law that a state may not like” with a “law that is unconstitutional.” There is a big difference.
The Constitution is not and was not intended to be Esoteric! The Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution; the People are! Also, we are supposed to have the “rule of law”, but not be “ruled by laws.” I suggest everyone read Bastiat’s essay “The Law.” The Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land!
I will send an email to Florida Governor Rick Scott to encourage his support of the nullification of “Obamacare.”
Thanks again PH; please keep providing us with your intellectual and perspicacious insight!
Posted by Lakewood Bob on 04/20 at 02:12 AM | #
One of many worthwhile reasons for the excellent article by PH is frankly contained in her quote from the Federalist - referring to the illicit assumed powers not signally included in the Constitution - "These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such". It is no stretch to add that the presence of a Fraud and tyrant in the White House should be treated no differently, and in a manner as Thomas Jefferson very clearly subscribes in his reference to the "Tree of Liberty".
Posted by T Childs on 04/19 at 02:16 AM | #
Nothing I like better than seeing a pompous college professor smacked down with the truth. PH, you did a great job.
Posted by Frank Oak on 04/18 at 01:50 AM | #
Thank you for a five star article.
Again, you leave no stone unturned (references). Thank You.
Posted by Ralph Bunch on 04/17 at 11:48 PM | #
The people are coming to appreciate States more and more....the orderly barrier between the people, and "the enterprises of ambition."
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." --Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 46.
Posted by Sapient on 04/17 at 08:47 PM | #
Tom Paine put it this way:
"A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either."
No employer who has delegated authority to a subordinate would tolerate usurpation, and especially after it has been discussed, and the subordinate, without apology, stated it was deliberate and would continue.
They almost certainly would not allow that subordinate to remain in their service. They certainly would not allow that subordinate to take over and start giving unlawful orders to them....and in particular plunder the treasury.
That becomes a simple matter of self defense.
Posted by Sapient on 04/17 at 08:23 PM | #
Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smack Down The Constitution
Posted by Publius Huldah on Apr 17, 2011 at 12:02 PM
Supremacy clause, Supreme Court, States
In response to a recent article in the National Review by Allen C. Guelzo, a nullification denier and history professor at Gettysburg College, and two responding letters to the Editor,1 one “Celticreeler” posted an astute rebuttal you can read here.More...
Post a Comment on: Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smack Down The Constitution
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Next entries comments: Is this The Donald’s business deal of a lifetime?
Previous entries comments: House GOP Has Plan to Cut Spending $6 Trillion Over 10 Years; Dems Want to Keep Spending
Note from the Editor:
This section is for comments from readers of canadafreepress.com.
Please don't assume that Canada Free Press agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand.