Monday, February 21, 2011

Nullification, Nullification, Nullification...

say it three times real fast with your eyes closed, click your heels together, and it may work.

Tom Woods answers all the objections to nullification as a viable resource.  I bought his book and haven't had a chance to crack it yet, but this is a good start. 

Nail Meet Hammer:

From Mind Numbed Robot:
Some Dare Call It Treason
Some would like us to entertain the idea that Barack Hussein Obama is an idiot. ‘He is just inexperienced.’ ‘Give him a chance, he’ll get it right eventually,’ they might say. Or some would say there is a puppet-master lurking in an anteroom of the White House, feeding the teleprompter.

Some would say such things, and they might be right in most cases. But the larger truth is, there can be no doubt of Barack Hussein Obama’s motives. He despises America and everything it stands for. His actions reveal his plan even though his words leave you with whatever impression you want to take away from his convoluted double speak. read the rest

More Nails and Hammers:

From Woman Honor Thyself:    No “Multi Culturalism” for Jews?

5 comments:

robot said...

Hi Adrienne. Thanks for linking!

Mark in Spokane said...

I am sure that Woods is very pleased that you have contributed money to his yacht and mansion fund.

Wood's rebuttal is filled with mischaracterizations and a misreading of the applicable law. He is not a lawyer, nor is he trained in legal analysis. His reading of Cooper v. Aaron is wrong -- the Court's ruling is far stronger than he is admitting. And the Court's point re: nullification is not "obiter dicta" -- by classifying it as such, he has betrayed his lack of legal analytical skills. The Court's discussion of nullification is related to the reasoning behind the Court's ultimate decision in the case, and as such it is not properly classified as obiter dicta.

He is plain wrong about the Union not existing before the current Constitution. That was Calhoun's view as well, and Calhoun was wrong on that too. The Union existed under the Articles of Confederation, and in fact pre-existed the Articles as well. The Articles and the current Constitution recognized a Union that already was in existence -- they did not create a Union where one did not previously exist. In fact, the Articles refer to the Union as "perpetual" (take that, neo-Confederates!).

Finally, Woods attempts to distance himself from the neo-Confederate aspects of his argument skillfully, he has endorsed and supported the leading neo-Confederate organization currently active, the League of the South. Here is Woods' own statement on the LOS: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/7450.html

Maggie Thornton said...

Interesting subject, Adrienne. I'll look forward to your opinion on nullification. Assuming this is on the subject of healthcare, if we can't stop it with the Commerce Clause, the America we have known is gone forever.

Maggie@MaggiesNotebook said...

Oh, I just see that I'm a featured blog today. Thank you so much!

Mark in Spokane said...

One question: can Mr. Woods identify any federal court decision that upheld the validity of nullification of a federal law by a state?