A slew of state legislators around the country, including in North Carolina, have got it into their heads that states can refuse to adhere to federal laws. They’re believers in the “Tenther” movement, whose members quote the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, saying that the powers not delegated to the federal government “are reserved to the states” or to the people. To put it very mildly, their argument is open to debate. The Constitution’s so-called “Supremacy Clause” in Article VI has long been held to mean that a federal statute voids state laws that contradict the federal statute. Moreover, there is an Everest-sized mountain of case law that overwhelmingly supports the view of federal law’s supremacy. In fact, no court has ever upheld a state effort to nullify a federal law.
At least 12 states are “opting” to refuse to go along with last year’s health care reform law, including North Carolina, and have launched a joint lawsuit to that effect. Other state legislatures have gone farther, including Texas and New Hampshire, where they would exempt locally made guns and ammunition made in those states from federal regulation. In Utah, lawmakers even passed a law declaring that the state can claim federal lands through eminent domain. In Arizona, state senator Russel Pearce, the guy who came up with that state’s infamous “Show Me Your Papers” law (now tied up in federal courts), wants to establish a panel that would review all laws coming out of Washington, and could “vote by simple majority to nullify in its entirety a specific federal law or regulation.”
North Carolina may have more “Tenther” legislation to contend with, too. According to the Associated Press, Rep. Glen Bradley, part of the new Tea Party wave that helped the GOP take over the General Assembly, is gathering co-sponsors “for bills that would exempt North Carolina farmers and firearm merchants from federal regulations if their goods are made, sold and used within the state.” Bradley’s actions came after Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) introduced a resolution that declares “North Carolina’s right to claim sovereignty over certain powers.” The AP story quoted Rep. Cleveland, who was busy channeling the spirits of secessionists past, saying, “The federal government should not be dictating what we do in the states.”
Now, if you have a grasp of American history, you know that these guys are, at best, pissing into the wind. What’s worse is that they’re on the verge of lighting a powder keg they’ve dug up from the cellar of U.S. history. For such self-declared students of history, these Tea Partiers don’t seem aware of how past efforts by states to overturn federal laws turned out. In the “Nullification Crisis” of the 1830s, during the presidency of Waxhaw native Andrew Jackson, South Carolina declared itself unbound by a federal tariff. Pres. Jackson, declaring that the Constitution “forms a government, not a league,” essentially told the South Carolinians that if they insisted on carrying out their “nullification” of the tariff, he would send federal troops to enforce the law, and would hang the nullifiers’ leader, John C. Calhoun. Soon, Calhoun & Co. agreed to a compromise worked out by Sen. Henry Clay. Late in his life, Jackson said the one thing he regretted the most about his days as President was that he “never got a chance to shoot Clay or hang Calhoun.” In addition, if memory serves me, there was another little set-to in American history that revolved around some states who disliked federal policies so much, they wanted to secede from the U.S. That one didn’t end too well for the nullifiers, either.
The point? The new nullifiers, including those in the N.C. General Assembly who voted to join the lawsuit against health care reform, are obviously historical ignoramuses, only a generation and a pressed suit away from the rednecks who spouted the same bogus arguments for states’ rights during the civil rights movement. These folks are playing with fire and don’t seem to give a damn that what they’re espousing has long been considered, at best, illegal, and at worst, treasonous. If they’re OK with the potential consequences of their actions, then, hey, go right ahead. If this new bout of “nullification” becomes a real crisis, though, and the state lawmakers who led the charge wind up in jail, here’s one writer who won’t miss them one bit.
This article appears in Feb 22-28, 2011.
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone truly enlightened in Constitutional matters such as yourself prepared a cheat sheet for the lesser informed of the population indicating which parts of this document are to be ignored and which adhered to. Maybe the odd numbered amendments are your preference so as to avoid pesky numbers 2, 4, and 10? Obviously Article VI, which you mention, precedes and supercedes the 10th amendment. I’m curious what the Feds cannot do or regulate in your vision of things? It seems you claim your vision is correct due to the ability of the feds to use force rather than winning the argument? You are correct, violence and mass murder have been a part of this disagreement, but almost exclusively from your side.
BV, I think Grooms was pretty clear by just stating some facts the constitutional “originalists” conveniently ignore, mainly this one fact: no court has ever upheld a state effort to nullify a federal law. Read it again, carefully: no court — that’s NO court — has ever upheld a state effort to nullify a federal law.
The Constitution’s genius is that it has been flexible enough in its language to be able to survive into modern times. If it was as cut and dried as “your side” says it is, the Constitution probably wouldn’t have lasted 50 years.
The tenther movement can go both ways and it can benefit those on the left side of aisle. The Real-ID act signed into law by Bush has been ignored by most States.
Any state could ignore federal drug laws since they are unconstitutional. That would put quite a damper on the federal drug war currently clogging up the courts and causing so much violence.
States could nullify or ignore all federal intervention into to healthcare and really free up the healthcare marketplace in their statem, not just the favored target of Obamacare but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. All of that is unconstitutional.
Since the overseas empire and wars are all undeclared, they are therefore unconstitutional so any State should try to re-call their national guards or refuse to allow deployment.
There’s a movement to have all federal taxes sent to the state first and the State determine the constitutional amount of taxation before sending the balance to the feds, if any, with the remainder refunded.
The Right isn’t the only side that can use the 10th amendment in its favor.
It’s nearly impossible to read the sort of tripe crazies like BV put out…
Such a scattered, disorganized, jumble of a post. Typical conservitard.
Wes, if you don’t understand it, you may be the problem.
Rick,
What part of the Constitution is surviving? It is ignored by both parties completely. If you think interpreting it to read that the Feds can do anything they want then I’d hardly call that genius.
Only “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance” of the Constitution are covered by Article VI.
Thus any federal law that is not made pursuant to the Constitution – which these days is most of them – is subject to state nullification.
http://www.InterviewWithAZombie.com
The author of this piece, as usual with opponents of nullification, has read none of the sources or the history, and merely repeats absurd arguments long refuted by people much smarter than he. See the link above, as well as http://www.StateNullification.com.
Hi John,
I just thought I’d like to give some insight and answers to some of your thoughts and objections to nullification, 10th amendment, and Supremacy Clause here:
http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/
Thanks,
Joe
So do you approve of President Andrew Jackson in the cartoon? Is the use of violence to determine political debate winners appeal to you? I would think those of you on the left would follow the appeal for civility a little more closely.
Rick, the genius of the Constitution is the fact that it creates a government of limited powers and keeps the power to change its meaning, via Article V, with the People not with politicians. I suggest you read some Robert Natelson to get an idea of original intent. The language used at the time of ratification had very specific meaning and has lost that meaning today. Changing its meaning is a usurpation.
Mr. Grooms does not know much history and does not get the point of nullification. It is a states responsibility to assess the constitutionality of a federal law and if it determines that it is unconstitutional, then it is the states constitutional duty to interpose itself between the federal government and the people and prevent enforcement of it in that state.
Also, the fact (I assume it’s true for the moment) that “no court has ever upheld a state effort to nullify a federal law” is absolutely immaterial. It does not matter what the court thinks in such matters. It is the state’s responsibility to make a constitutional determination and act accordingly.