Well.... When You Put It That Way...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

Hey, JP, allow me to beat a dying horse. I will share with you Madison’s final judgments on nullification, and while I am at it, secession.

"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of ?98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created. In the Virginia Resolutions and Report the plural number, States, is in every instance used where reference is made to the authority which presided over the Government. As I am now known to have drawn those documents, I may say as I do with a distinct recollection, that the distinction was intentional. …

“It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers who make the name of Mr. Jefferson the pedestal for their colossal heresy, shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have noticed what he says in his letters to Monroe & Carrington Pages 43 & 203, vol. 2,1 with respect to the powers of the old Congress to coerce delinquent States, and his reasons for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force; and moreover that it was not necessary to find a right to coerce in the Federal Articles, that being inherent in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim to secede at will should be put down by the public opinion; and I shall be glad to see the task commenced by one who understands the subject.”

letter to N. P. Trist, Dec 23, 1832

Edit: Yo, Push…this one was for you, too!

162

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Seemed a bit to fast for your own good - lets slow it down some more…

State: “We just passed a law prohibiting blacks from owning guns.”

Feds: “That is a terribly unconstitutional law. Your law prohibiting blacks from owning guns is hereby overturned.”[/quote]

As a matter of judicial review, a (modern) court would go through that exercise. That isn’t what JayPierce is talking about. He is supprting the simultaneous existence of a federal veto power and the state power to nullify a federal law. Even if we pretend they are individually viable, they are incompatible contemporaneously. That’s the point of the “dialgoue” - to demonstrate how dumb his position is.

Because JayPierce was endorsing Madison’s federal veto as a good thing consistent with his “libtertarianism” or whatever he believes and the right of a state to nullify a federal law. Read the thread.

163

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

No it isn’t. That’s “making a fallacious argument.” That’s not the way the nullification process works, and you can’t nullify a veto (a veto is not a law, it is denial of a law).[/quote]

Congress would have to pass a law to veto a state law - because Congress would have to present legislation and vote on it. Congress cannot take official binding action on a matter of law unless it submits the bill to act and votes.

This is basic stuff. And, no, it isn’t “fallacious”.

And think through how dumb your position sounds. A state passes a law, the federal Congress vetoes it, and the state legislators sit around looking at one another saying “damn, we have the right of nullification - a hugely powerful right to negate federal laws we find unjust - but Congress technically passed a veto, not a law, and because of that technicality, we are stuck with the federal government’s unjust action!!!”

Seriously. I’ve tried to be patient, but it has become a clown show here.

There couldn’t be one, genius, because the Supremacy Clause woudl negate any state “overriding” a federal veto.

Public library, but in my defense, I kept books overdue on occasion.

Who cares?

164

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Nullification is an absurdity, and James Madison and Andrew Jackson, among others, agree.
…
[/quote]

Ditto.

And among those others was…Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Kentucky Resolutions–at least according to Madison himself.

(refer to Brookhiser, again, pp 240-243)

When South Carolina proposed nullifying the tariff, Calhoun called on (Madison’s) Federalist #51, and the legislators reprinted Madison’s Repoprt to Virginia. But Madison himself, in a letter to the North American Review, specifically denied that the Report was pro-nullification.

When confronted by Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, Madison published two letters in apologia of Jefferson, explaining that long-lived men “without exception” show “apparent if not real inconsistencies.” Madison stressed all the times that Jefferson had called repeatedly for reining in the states, particularly when TJ was in the Continental Congress. Noted Madison, “It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers…shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them.”

So much for the historical basis of nullification.
[/quote]
LOL.

Nullification stood until Jackson struck it down with the Nullification Proclamation of 1832, enforced virtually at gunpoint with the Force Bill of 1833.

Not surprisingly, you two use Jackson, a wannabe tyrant in his own right, to bolster your argument. This is the man who said “disunion, by armed force, is treason!”. South Carolina did not threaten to secede by force. The feds enforced union by armed force.

Thus, the statement should have rightfully been “Union, by armed force, is treason!”

165

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…
Nullification is an absurdity, and James Madison and Andrew Jackson, among others, agree.
…
[/quote]

Ditto.

And among those others was…Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Kentucky Resolutions–at least according to Madison himself.

(refer to Brookhiser, again, pp 240-243)

When South Carolina proposed nullifying the tariff, Calhoun called on (Madison’s) Federalist #51, and the legislators reprinted Madison’s Repoprt to Virginia. But Madison himself, in a letter to the North American Review, specifically denied that the Report was pro-nullification.

When confronted by Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution, Madison published two letters in apologia of Jefferson, explaining that long-lived men “without exception” show “apparent if not real inconsistencies.” Madison stressed all the times that Jefferson had called repeatedly for reining in the states, particularly when TJ was in the Continental Congress. Noted Madison, “It is remarkable how closely the nullifiers…shut their eyes and lips, whenever his authority is ever so clearly and emphatically against them.”

So much for the historical basis of nullification.
[/quote]
LOL.

Nullification stood until Jackson struck it down with the Nullification Proclamation of 1832, enforced virtually at gunpoint with the Force Bill of 1833.

Not surprisingly, you two use Jackson, a wannabe tyrant in his own right, to bolster your argument. This is the man who said “disunion, by armed force, is treason!”. South Carolina did not threaten to secede by force. The feds enforced union by armed force.

Thus, the statement should have rightfully been “Union, by armed force, is treason!”[/quote]

Not so. I don’t need no Andy Jackson. Please read my last post…you may have missed it in the flurry.

166

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You cannot continue to only cite Madison in 1787 and ignore him in 1798. Stop the foolishness. Anyone with half a brain here can see what you’re doing.[/quote]

No, Push, nice try - I cite to Madison’s position after he drafted the Resolutions. He ran into this before - Madison in his own words refutes your position, but you insist that what Madison said he meant he didn’t really mean. That isn’t a serious position. If Madison says “no secession, no nullification”, he has to be taken at his word, and your pouting doesn’t change that.

No, I don’t - I go read what Madison had to say in his own words. You ignore his plain words because you don’t like the fact that Madison’s clear statements undermine your insistence on the Resolutions meaning what you want them to mean.

They aren’t my words - they are Madison’s. Asked and answered. Don’t like it, so what?

No, I haven’t. I’ve pointed you to sources which you didn’t even know existed. Madison was complicated, and I know more about that than you do, to be frank - but the point is and always has been that Madison does not support your lame, limited view of the federal government, secession, nullification, etc. that you have apparently convinced yourself of.

Or Washington. Or Hamilton. Or John Jay. Or Fisher Ames. Or Edmun Randolph. So? It’s not like you know what the hell anyone had to say about it.

Hilarious. Look, Push, I’m losing patience here. What is clear is that I have read far wider and deeper on these topics than you have or probably ever will, and it shows. Your knowledge from the outset has been limited and blinkered, and you’ve been exposed. I gave you chapter and verse on, for example, Madison’s opinions on nullifcation when you didn’t even know they existed.

I don’t say any of this to brag or boast, as volume of reading doesn’t win or lose policy debates - I say that to insist that I think we’ve had enough of comments like “do I detect a pattern here that you haven’t actually read the Virginia Resolution”? It makes you look silly. I read the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and related documents long before you even knew what the hell they were.

Between the two of us, if anyone is guilty of not exactly doing the homework, it’s you. And you know it. So stop trying to pretend you’ve “been there and done that” on all these topics when, to be frank, you are just now discovering historical materials that undermine all your claims about having the historical basis for your radical libertarian opinion.

Yeah, I’ve read the Virginia Resolution. Kentucky one, too. I’ve also read Madison’s other correspondence and writings on federalism. I’ve also read John C. Calhoun’s defense of nullification. I’ve also read the floor debates on nullification between Daniel Wesbter, John C. Calhoun, and Henry Clay. I’ve also read Samuel Adams’ - that revolutionary firebrand - critique of the kind of radical rebellion you think is American as apple pie and how he believes that as long as representative institutions and courts of law remain open, there is no justification for taking up arms against a democratic government. I’ve also read the Federalist Papers, and the Anti-Federalist papers. I’ve also read the correspondence between Adams and Jefferson, which addresses these issues and others.

You’ve read Unintended Consequences.

Enough, Push. You’re pride is getting in the way of good communication and debate.

167

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

LOL.

Nullification stood until Jackson struck it down with the Nullification Proclamation of 1832, enforced virtually at gunpoint with the Force Bill of 1833.

Not surprisingly, you two use Jackson, a wannabe tyrant in his own right, to bolster your argument. This is the man who said “disunion, by armed force, is treason!”. South Carolina did not threaten to secede by force. The feds enforced union by armed force.

Thus, the statement should have rightfully been “Union, by armed force, is treason!”[/quote]

There comes a point when posters more or less “out” themselves as unserious. JayPierce, I am afraid this is that post.

168

Heated jabs aside (come now boys, keep the gloves up) this is a fascinating discussion, I have very much enjoyed reading your opinions.

169

Ahhhh, yes, of course. My factual version of history doesn’t match up with your imaginings or cast the same feel-good light on Liberal ideologies, so I’m not “serious”.

Speaking of being “serious”, you’ll have to forgive me, gentlemen. I have important things to attend to and can’t be tied up with this argument anymore. As entertaining as it is to counterpoint Liberal distortion of history, we don’t have a lot of time, and I don’t need to spend it looking back through books fact-checking myself.

170

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

Ahhhh, yes, of course. My factual version of history doesn’t match up with your imaginings or cast the same feel-good light on Liberal ideologies, so I’m not “serious”.[/quote]

No, you aren’t serious because you make baffling, incoherent arguments and then when pressed on them, you resort to a bad recitation of history.

Yeah, looking through books can be a real drag when ideology calls.

171

Madison, rife with nested contingent clauses,
Allows interpretations, even of pregnant pauses.
Where his erudition condemns stark clarity,
There, lies a venue for our hilarity.
But in him, I read without intercession,
“No nullification and no secession.”

172

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Heated jabs aside (come now boys, keep the gloves up) this is a fascinating discussion, I have very much enjoyed reading your opinions.[/quote]

So have I!

I’m not NEARLY as versed on these issues; so I don’t have a lot of point and counterpoint.

But don’t we have a “modern” issue now that could very well “test” these opinions you all have…and that is the direct “violation” of Federal Law by some States to legalize Marijuana?

And in keeping with this issue, are we forgetting “Option C”…that is for the Feds to “do nothing”…or will we get to a point where the Feds will have to “get off the proverbial fence” and act one way or another?

Great discussion, guys!

Mufasa

173

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

Heated jabs aside (come now boys, keep the gloves up) this is a fascinating discussion, I have very much enjoyed reading your opinions.[/quote]

Agreed. Push and I agree on much, so the debate and difference in opinion seems more distorted than it really is. But, at the end of day, modern libertarians are better served by simply saying “look, I think my ideology is right, and the Founders didn’t exactly see it my way, but here is where I differ and I think they got it wrong,” instead of “oh yeah, no doubt, the Founders totally were radical libertarians and totally supported the brand of libertarianism I endorse.”

Perfect example, to borrow from another thread? Clearly, modern libertarians think the Founders should have instituted the Second Amendment to be applied versus the states creating an unambiguous universal right to owning a firearm. They didn’t, and they had their reasons. Well, modern libertarians need to say “well, the Founders got it wrong, and they should have absolutely should not have deferred to the states on gun regulation, which they did”, as opposed to torturing the history of the Second Amendment to try and pretend that, no really, the Founders really, really, really did mean for the Second Amendment to encapsulate a universal right to ownership of arms even against the states when they passed the Bill of Rights. No, really, they did."

There is nothing inherently wrong with taking the libertarian position, as far it goes. Just stop trying to pretend there is all this historical support for radical libertarianism among the Founders.

174

[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Heated jabs aside (come now boys, keep the gloves up) this is a fascinating discussion, I have very much enjoyed reading your opinions.[/quote]

So have I!

I’m not NEARLY as versed on these issues; so I don’t have a lot of point and counterpoint.

But don’t we have a “modern” issue now that could very well “test” these opinions you all have…and that is the direct “violation” of Federal Law by some States to legalize Marijuana?

And in keeping with this issue, are we forgetting “Option C”…that is for the Feds to “do nothing”…or will we get to a point where the Feds will have to “get off the proverbial fence” and act one way or another?

Great discussion, guys!

Mufasa

175

As someone who has done, and still does, a lot of historical research; I can tell you something that can “trip” one up;

Reading and referencing the actual words of someone…vs. reading and referencing someones interpretation of someones words and actions in order to “fit” ones personal narrative.

Just a point I wanted to make.

Mufasa