Since When was Nullification Unspeakable?

                         Since When was Nullification Unspeakable?

               Published in Marietta (GA) Daily Journal, 1/14/18

             “Nullification” has become an objectionable word.  It hearkens back to Martin Luther King’s description of George Wallace’s lips that were “dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.”

             King made a valid point about the confirmed but later repentant racist governor, but let’s not illogically leap to the position that nullification itself is evil.  Selfless men and women more than once have interposed themselves, risking life and possessions in order to advance freedom.  What were the founding fathers doing if they were not nullifying the harsh, legal power that England held over them?  Simply put, the colonies seceded, and with Jefferson’s ringing sentences in the Declaration of Independence, they set a new course which we now look back at and celebrate.

            Nor were southern states out of line when they took identical action.  Drawing from the Declaration’s very first sentence, the Confederates believed that “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, … a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.”  

            Only 85 years after the Declaration’s ink dried, Jefferson Davis declared his cause on the floor of the U.S. Senate which he was about to leave to lead the Confederacy.  A short time later, Davis would put it this way to one of Lincoln’s emissaries: “We don’t want your territory.  We care naught about seizing the government, or taking your capital city.  We only desire to be left alone.”

            Confederates were, in essence, nullifying the U.S. Constitution.  Their argument was “We joined, and we can un-join.  The Constitution was a compact.”  Many colonists opposed breaking from England and many southerners opposed breaking from the Union.  At any rate, we know the outcome of Jefferson’s actions as well as those of his namesake, Jefferson Davis.

            Such history, such uncertain moments in our past give “nullification” its scary overtones.  Even so, there is good reason today to consider the efficacy of nullification, that is, the right of states to nullify federal laws that clearly violate the Constitution, laws that produce federal overreach, strangling regulations, and downright tyranny.  That reason?  We are in a post-constitution era that ignores the Constitution.

            If the charming and persuasive Ronald Reagan couldn’t stop the federal government’s growth and increasing power, if Republican control of all three branches can’t or won’t, and if Donald Trump doesn’t, it’s time for the states to do what the Constitution clearly allows in Article V.  The federal government will never restrain itself.   From 1789 forward, federal power with its suffocating, unauthorized meddling in every area of our lives (see the 10^th amendment) has increased, despite the protestation of Jefferson, Madison, Calvin Coolidge, Reagan, and shamefully few others.

            Republicans are the best at lip service, but little better than Democrats at action.  Richard Nixon gave us the EPA.  George W. Bush pushed every school classroom closer to Washington, providing an example of the federal government’s seizing power not granted in the constitution (again, see the 10^th amendment, but first Article I, Section 8).

Does nullification sound radical?  No more radical than our unrelenting departure from Jefferson who first used the word “nullify.”  Ordinary citizens with small businesses can only watch in horror as the EPA and the IRS tighten their bureaucratic grip on businesses, families, and individuals.  I have a close friend who was badgered for years by the EPA over, among other things, the upkeep of a “beauty strip” (grass between the curb and the sidewalk) in front of his business. 

            As it turns out, our “checks and balances” have neither checked nor balanced.  Particularly is judicial power unchecked.  Need we mention government spending and bureaucratic fiefdoms in virtually every federal department and agency?  Think FBI for right now.

            There is help, but whether or not it’s on the way is the question.  Since 34 states are already preparing the way for a convention of states, surely one of their proposed amendments will clarify that the states do have rights. “States’ rights” is not a seditious term.  “Sanctuary cities” is.

            Probably what keeps us from reading our near-sacred Constitution is its ornate 18^th century language.  So sad.  So dangerous.  It paves the way to freedom, but we have allowed professional politicians to trash it.

            Again, read Article I, Section 8; Article V; and the 10^th Amendment if you doubt me.  I’m begging you!  Things are getting wobbly.  It’s time for ordinary people to do something.

Roger Hines

1/10/18