What about Guatanamo? The Patriot Act? What about Tim DeChristopher? Or the Muslims that have been detained in secret detention centers since 9/11? What about the spying that the government has been doing on peace groups, pro-Palestinian groups since 9/11. Ever hear of Sami Al-Arian? Ghassan Elashi? Animal rights activists who have been placed in detention centers and have not been given due process? Look how the US government wants to have Julian Assange extradicted to the US to stand for trial when Assange does not live in the US and is not a US citizen and is a journalist who posts top-secret documents that were given to him by various sources, including Bradley Manning, who was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by being forced to sleep naked in a cold jail cell. Obama publicly delared him guilty

As a left-wing anti-Stalinist socialist, I do NOT support the Teabagger movement or this far-right “Patriot” movement, but this description that Robert Steinbeck posts,

“Catherine Bleish, founder and former executive director of the Liberty Restoration Project, railed against so-called “fusion centers” – terrorism response centers developed after the 9/11 attacks that are meant to help the FBI, CIA and other federal law enforcement services sift through domestic intelligence. For many nullification extremists, fear of terrorism has been eclipsed by fear of an overreaching government. The Department of Homeland Security, Bleish exclaimed, “needs to be nullified.” (Bleish was profiled by the SPLC in 2010 as a leader in the revitalized Patriot movement).”

I see nothing wrong with abolishing Homeland Security considering the many lives that are being destroyed because the power of the government is becoming so centralized.

SPLC: shame on you! I do not know your reasons for this blog post, I do not know who you are trying to curry favor with, but you are targeting those who are criticizing the government in a time where our rights are truly being eroded. I suggest you get your priorities straight, since many of the people that I listed ave been harrassed and detained by the government for practicing their first Amendment Rights.

However, I am not surprised to see such rubbish from a group that will target loony militia men in the woods, but does not have the temerity to stand up to hate groups that actually have power, like the Republican Party, ADL (Anti-defamation League), or AIPAC, one of the nations most powerful lobbies. And do not even try to throw the anti-Semitism label in my direction. Most of those in the US who are offended by the hate speech and hateful actions of ADL and AIPAC are Jewish.

Are you under the impression that Thomas Jefferson was a dangerous man who had dangerous ideas? Because, as I am sure you are aware, he (Jefferson) is so to be the “creator” of the nullification doctrine.

Only the last five paragraphs? Wow, thanks, glad you approve of all the rest of my comments. And that was really cute the way you made up a little phrase to go with my initials. Sorry to have to say it, though, but everything else you wrote sounded like pure drivel straight out of the reactionary reader, which is sort of ironic for someone who wants to talk about innovation and freedom and stuff. Anal Jackasses substitute dogma for thinking.

As deputy editor of the Hatewatch blog, and also as the writer of the above story, I extend a welcome to the many unfamiliar names who have joined the comment thread on this issue. Although I am not one of the screeners of comments, it sure looks to me as if a lot of critical commentary is being posted — evidence that SPLC does not seek to suppress opinions for content alone. If you had a comment blocked, e-mail me at robert.steinback@splcenter.org, and I will find out why it was not published and inform you.

To gstear: No comment I made suggests that I reserve to myself the power to decide what language is potentially dangerous, although I, individually, or SPLC as an organization, may very well have a view on that — which I am sure you would recognize as our right. Our right to criticize certain ideas is equal to your right to express them. Again, I reiterate that criticizing a point of view is not the same as advocating its suppression, which SPLC does not do. You may not agree with our view that certain language might be potentially destructive to the domestic peace of our land, but the fact that we are both entitled to our side of the disagreement cannot be — if you’ll pardon the term — nullified.

There are too many other intriguing points expressed by our pro-nullification commenters for me to respond to all, but I will note two others.

In response to Eric Owens: Your comments about my freedom to move to a state more in line with my beliefs makes me wonder whether or not you consider the United States a nation at all. As you know, at any moment in time, we are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction where we are, not those of the jurisdiction of our domicile. As a U.S. citizen, I want absolute assurance that my right to equal justice under the law will not vary whether I am in Minnesota or Mississippi. I want assurance not only that I will be served in any restaurant open to the public, but that the food and water in that restaurant is safe for consumption. I want assurance that I will not be stopped and questioned by police in any state just because of my race. I want my money to be honored in every state. These are among the many citizenship rights I demand as an American (not as an Alabaman or Texan or Alaskan) and they must be protected by federal law. While there can and should always be a debate about federal vs. state jurisdiction, I find many nullification supporters loathe to recognize the need for national uniformity of certain laws and governmental obligations. I am as much an American here in Alabama as I am in each of the 49 other states I visit. And regarding those who endorse secession: Does a Texan have a right to deny me access to that state simply because I live in Alabama, given that we both, equally, are Americans? Suppose my mother lives in Dallas — do you have a right to force me to obtain a visa to visit her, thus depriving me of an absolute right I now possess?

Regarding a point raised by several commenters: I am surprised by the downplay I am reading here of the supremacy clause of the Constitution’s Article VI, which expressly states that where federal LAW (not just Constitutional provisions) and state law conflict, federal law prevails. The Tenth Amendment does not, at least as I read it, give the states the power to unilaterally decide that a federal law doesn’t apply to them, nor does it say that the legal process of passing federal laws (stipulated in the same Constitution) can be summarily voided by any state legislature that chooses to. Any state that feels a federal law is unconstitutional can sue — that’s the process provided for in the Constitution.

Again, welcome to this blog. Feel free to return and participate.

Robert Steinback
Deputy Editor, Hatewatch blog

“The Mineral Rights Management Service (EPA) was partying with BP et al and ignored while spending their bribes to do so until the Gulf of Mexico became toxic. I’ll let you determine the number of U.S deaths specifically related to the FDA failing to do its job and subsequently killing 1000’s of people–or is it 10’s of thousands since its inception (not to mention, one drug–20 patents, one at a time). Or perhaps you’d like to look at the SEC and how fond of Bernie Madoff they were? Personally, at this particular time in our history, I’d like to think of how Unions allowed 2 of the 3 largest automotive manufacturers in the U.S. to become bankrupt and dependent on 300million Americans. They are, after all, private corporations–bad business plan, deserve-to-go-extinct-and-allow-other-business-plans-to-become-reality business plans.”

Thanks for helping make my case. All of these examples date from the post-Reagan era of deregulation and privatization and starvation of our regulatory agencies, and all are examples of how the wealthy and powerful have succeeded in manipulating politicians (and some of the public) for their own selfish benefit.

The mineral rights office scandal was under oilman G.W. Bush’s appointees, the FDA became useless because of drug-industry pleas for “fast-tracking” and congressional cuts to the enforcement budget under Newt; much the same with the SEC.

And you want to blame the unions for destroying the U.S. auto industry instead of the corpocrats who’ve been busy shipping manufacturing offshore ever since Bush I made China the home away from home for American businesses that resented having to pay their workers a living wage? Aren’t these the same unions that agreed to deep pay and benefits cuts to try to keep the plants open?

And don’t let’s forget the total non-enforcement of the antitrust laws over the past 30 years and the wrist-slapping regulation of the coal miners and the non-prosecution of the mortgage brokers and the judges taking bribes to throw juveniles into privatized prisons and and and ….

But when faced with these obvious and unrelenting assaults on our rights to a fair wage and safe job conditions and decent living conditions and poison-free air, water and food, etc. etc. etc., you want to open the gates even wider by turning over the protection of our well-being to the even smaller, worse-funded and more easily manipulated state regulators? Brilliant.

And how do they rank in performance on the kinds of indicators most of us would consider significant? Among the lowest in the nation on median income, educational attainment and health, and among the highest on poverty, teen pregnancy and infant mortality. Etc. etc. etc. ”

Let us remember the 1 million + American’s who lost their land due to the TVA in many of those States. The very States that FDR punished for voting against him. Had those people–the poorest in the nation at that time–not had to move to the 2nd and 3rd poorest regions at that time and bankrupted those regions, not had to have done so, the South might well have been an economic farming wonderland for this country. But we’ll never know now–despite every effort by FDR made to save this country failed. And don’t pretend–WWII was the only thing that saved the U.S. from the Great Depression–not one single attempt by the at-the-time-most-racist Party did. You can look that up yourself. Look up the data yourself. The GAO is a good place to start.

To continue busting your bubble:

“On the other side of the coin, it’s plain silly to deny that numerous federal laws and programs were part of “what made America great”: things like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, child-labor laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week and mandatory overtime pay. Etc. etc. etc. In short, all the things the neo-feudalist corpocrats have fought against for generations.”

Which of those are going broke less than 50, 75 yrs after being enacted? Here’s real news (aside from the fact that since their inception this country has faced every economic catastrophe in half the time it took the last one to occur):

The Mineral Rights Management Service (EPA) was partying with BP et al and ignored while spending their bribes to do so until the Gulf of Mexico became toxic. I’ll let you determine the number of U.S deaths specifically related to the FDA failing to do its job and subsequently killing 1000′s of people–or is it 10′s of thousands since its inception (not to mention, one drug–20 patents, one at a time). Or perhaps you’d like to look at the SEC and how fond of Bernie Madoff they were? Personally, at this particular time in our history, I’d like to think of how Unions allowed 2 of the 3 largest automotive manufacturers in the U.S. to become bankrupt and dependent on 300million Americans. They are, after all, private corporations–bad business plan, deserve-to-go-extinct-and-allow-other-business-plans-to-become-reality business plans. That coming from someone whose entire family has been in the cycle of UAW dependency for well over the 80 years–are we employed? are we not employed? Do I love being dependent or what? Personally, I would prefer my family to get work where they don’t have to question it, but you know…UAW…the promises they make to their *dues* payers. And yet you declare the only way to stop corruption and unethical behavior is to have more of what is unethical and corrupt…the SEC, FDA…hows that Department of Education thing working out since Jimmy Carter and the failing U.S. standard of Education when graded against other superior scientific countries? Oh…did we steal scientists from other countries after WWII to make you think we were superior?

Which brings me to this: Republicans & Democrats. Which is the less evil? Neither. They both want you to give up your rights. They both want the money that goes with Big Government–socially or militarily. The issue is: you are too willing to give up too many of your rights to feel protected by a Police force that will arrive 30 minutes too late to defend you from a racist stomping your skull on curb. And you will deserve it for pretending that anyone other than yourself can defend you from such an act.

I’ll try one more time to break the illusion; the cause of all the world’s problems is NOT that America did something wrong and the stock remedy for them is not continually more government. America did not invent slavery. Slavery has existed from time immemorial and still exists in most of the world, in one form or another and to some degree. In ancient Rome it has been reported that fully 93% of the population were slaves at one point of measurement. What America did was to abolish it because we came to understand that it is wrong, so if you want to denigrate this great country because the institution existed here for some days, then you are obligated in the same breath to commend her for abolishing it. But by your logic, if it was then “self-evident” (by your reasoning, although not declared to be such) that slavery was correct in principle at the time of our founding, then it is even more so self-evident (having been so declared) that the sole purpose of government is to secure our God-endowed rights and that the people have an unalienable right to alter or to abolish it when it becomes destructive of this purpose and authority. This was my point (for which you asked) in explaining why it is not prima facie wrong or destructive to argue a principle that someone might want to allege to be “anti-govermnent” (sic).

It appears that there are numerous individuals (here and nation wide) who entirely ignore the simple fact that it is the Constitution *for* the United States, not the Constitution *of* the United States. The former, and the document itself, tells us that we are 50 individual, sovereign governments with the exception of specifically granted powers and rights that the Federal government has; the later pretends to say there no limit and is a figment of post FDR fantasy (you can do your own research).

The commerce clause does not, however much the Fed would like to otherwise believe, extend to my door step. The drug war is far from within their scope and as well the Real ID Act–to name just a few Federal laws that *expressly* target minorities and that are extremely pertinent to the current day discussion of nullification (yes, liberal, thank nullification for the Real ID Act *not* being enforced anywhere but Florida). The Underground Railroad could not have existed without nullification (yet the SPLC would have us believe it’s racist to believe nullification is legal), the “South” failed in their attempts to undermine the Constitution via nullification for several reasons, the largest being, simply that the terms “People” and “Citizen” are not decided by individual States–despite how much gun control advocates would like us to believe. So, in like terms–if it is racist to believe that nullification is an act that is legal and important in our country–then it is racist for supporting the drug war and are you not one of the “People” if you don’t believe in the distinct right to own firearms without infringement (you are completely able to give up your U.S. citizenship and move elsewhere for believing so).

But back to States rights–if you don’t like the laws a State creates, you have 2 options: move to a State that does have laws you can live with or work to change the laws of the State in which you live. If neither of those options are palatable to you, then obviously the issue is not really that important to you except in social conversation.

The simple fact that the SPLC, according to this article, fails miserably to understand that there is a double edge sword in nullification does not mean that the People will tolerate the very things the SPLC works to end. The SPLC works to end what most People will not tolerate–what excuse does it have in working to end the other things the People will not and do not tolerate? The SPLC is already there in ending discrimination–so are (L)libertarians. The difference is, the SPLC sees the issue as a Federal responsibility with which to hold the entire country hostage, while libertarians believe you can only hold those responsible for discrimination hostage. After all, theft, rape and murder is not tolerated, but only those we believe to be responsible for it go to trial–not everyone in the household, neighborhood, town/city, county or State where the accused lives.

Until today, reading this article, I had much higher respect for the SPLC’s work. In seeing that the SPLC would rather have enslaved the People in Federal debt, I no longer have that level of respect. As for libertarians being “fluff”–look up the Free State Project. Those folks don’t mind moving to a State that most exemplifies their beliefs to start changing this country one State at a time. In the end it is about principle: the principle of freedom and equality, or the principle of excessive force and power. The SPLC seems to prove it believes in the later.

But back to States rights–if you don’t like the laws a State creates, you have 2 options: move to a State that does have laws you can live with or work to change the laws of the State in which you live. If neither of those options are palatable to you, then obviously the issue is not really that important to you except in social conversation.

You people are pathetic and the antithesis of a free society.

While it’s fair to point out that some southern states argued for nullification during the civil rights era, etc., why do people neglect to point out that nullification was used to fight the immoral Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. These Acts made it mandatory to capture runaway slaves and return them to their owners. Naturally, states like Wisconsin and Massachusetts told the Federal government to mind their own business, and rightly so.

Those who call for nullification of certain laws should not be deemed “racist” or “anti-government” as a blanket rule. To do so would be academically dishonest, though I see how it can be easy for those who haven’t educated themselves about nullification to make that mistake.

For starters, if the federal government hadn’t intervened, the South would still be home to segregated schools and neighborhoods, separate-but-grossly-unequal public facilities, anti-miscegenation laws, unpunished lynchings and all the rest of the apparatus of Jim Crow. So no one should act surprised if their secessionistic talk gets them accused of being racists; if you really aren’t one yourself, you’re helping enable those who are.

It’s also true that socioeconomic conditions in the anti-federal South supply a strong argument against easing central government oversight over those states.
Just as a reminder, the 11 states that seceded from the union in 1860-61 were South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina. They’re also the places that did the most bellowing about states’ rights during desegregation and continue to do so today.

And how do they rank in performance on the kinds of indicators most of us would consider significant? Among the lowest in the nation on median income, educational attainment and health, and among the highest on poverty, teen pregnancy and infant mortality. Etc. etc. etc.

On the other side of the coin, it’s plain silly to deny that numerous federal laws and programs were part of “what made America great”: things like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, child-labor laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the minimum wage, the 40-hour work week and mandatory overtime pay. Etc. etc. etc. In short, all the things the neo-feudalist corpocrats have fought against for generations.

In case you didn’t notice, America managed to rise to superpower status both militarily and economically with these laws and protections in place; some would say, because of them.

It’s worth noting in particular that the Glass-Steagall Act kept the banking industry safe and profitable for decades, but as soon as the anti-regulation zealots were able to dismantle it, the whole banking system ran lemming-like straight into the toilet and had to be rescued by (gasp!) the federal government.

The reality is that the tenther or state’s rights or nullification movement is just another tactic being organized, funded and exploited by economic warlords like the Koch brothers, the Scaife/Mellons and the Coors family to divide and conquer the population, demolish all worker and consumer protections, and stack the deck even more heavily in favor of the wealthy and powerful, in the name of deregulation and privatization. We’re seeing the payoff now in the form of, for example, Wisconsin’s anti-worker governor and Virginia’s anti-sanity attorney general, both of whom have been recipients of sizable Koch campaign donations.

If you’ve been fooled, it’s no reason to feel ashamed, but it’s not something to brag about, either.

All IMHO, of course.

The problem with this approach is it created an illiterate society. Since everything is shouted and meaningless nothing will ever be taken seriously. Those who are willing to take things seriously are beginning to read for themselves. The Sokal Hoax proved that the Intellectual Left has left itself with no intellect.

SPLC only knows that Nullification threatens their power since it takes away their Federal Funding. That’s all they need to know. To the Old World intellectual they’re the ones to decide what is valid or invalid, what is right and wrong, and what is good or evil. The Old World intellectuals are the arbiters of truth. In order to have these self-appointed powers they must have a system of government who defends them. Nullification takes away this authority. It threatens the Ivory Tower by giving the people a can of paint thinner and allowing them to strip away a veneer of lies and propaganda.

Thanks for trying to shut this down! You did everyone a big favor by exposing who you really are.

Why should we not be all fired up? Is that only the proper province of the left? If so, why? For the record, I am NOT a “Bircher”, never been a member, although I know that John Birch was a Christian missionary martyred by the Communists in China. And I do not know what a “neo-Confederate” (sic) is. I am simply an un-modified American. Or is this blog only intended in reality to be a province of the left that somehow “got hijacked”, which seems odd given that your moderator declared it to be “four-squared” in support of free speech? Hmmm?

I do not find anything like that in my copy of our Declaration. Show it to me where it says that it is self-evident that people can own people. It does not. That said, the weaknesses of individual men cannot translate logically to infer weakness in principle. The Declaration elucidated principles in clear and unambiguous language. It is wise to read it and to re-read it from time to time.

They also found it self-evident that people had the right to own other people as property. Point?

The American philosopy of liberty was based, according to Thomas Jefferson, upon John Locke, not Rousseau, whose philosophy is incompatible with Locke’s. Locke asserted that man’s natural liberty was not merely limited by his strenght, but the “law of nature,” which is the natural limit of human action. ““The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.”

According to Locke, man gives up only his authority to prosecute crimes after the fact, and that the law of nature still applies to the elected legislature, regardless of any “general will (which doesn’t really exist anyway).” When the elected legislature begins violating the law of nature, i.e. passes laws that invade, rather than protect the life, liberty, and property of the people, it is the right of the people to resist and if necessary to dissolve the government and reassert their natural rights, which they have not given up. That is why the Declaration of Independence says, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Locke’s philosophy is the philosophy of liberty. Rousseau’s of socialism and tyranny. The American revolution was based upon Locke, the French Revolution upon Rousseau. Judge the results for yourself.

You speak of respect for free speech but then seem to denigrate anything YOU deem “anti-government” (sic) as being potentially destructive or otherwise inappropriate to be said. Respectfully, since you are not the arbiter of the first amendment, permit me a few thoughts to place some perspective on what is and is not proper to be considered, respecting “the government”, and what is or is not properly “anti-government”:

First, please consider the third and fourth truths in our Declaration of Independence, which the founders held to be SELF-EVIDENT. Considering the linguistic distinction between the third self-evident truth and the one immediately preceding it, one can only conclude that the SOLE purpose of government is to secure those rights that are the endowment of out God and Creator (If they did not consider it thus, they would have included language suggesting that “among the purposes of government . . .”; also, by logical inference, when government thus constituted denies our God, it has abrogated its authority! I further suggest that the taking of wealth from one citizen by government and the giving of it to another who did not earn it is NOT within the purview of securing those rights.) Similarly, if they did not know that governments in all ages tend to exceed their authority, it would have been unnecessary to include the fifth self-evident truth, “that when governments become destructive of these ends it is the RIGHT of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation upon such principles and assuming such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”. (Did I get it about right, from memory?) So there are times when it is proper to criticize the government, and the right to do so is enshrined in our first amendment.

Secondly, there is a quote attributed to Teddy Roosevelt (you can find it on the frontispiece of Robert Welch’s book on Eisenhower, to which you alluded above, but that book was written several years before the JBS was even founded) in which he said: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree to which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth …” The same sentiments seem appropriate when it is the government itself that exceeds its lawful or Constitutional bounds and limitations. That is what the whole 10th Amendment, and the historical concept of nullification, is all about.

Thirdly, Paul Johnson, in his excellent 1977 book “Enemies of Society” admonishes us to “beware those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language, for the fact that they do so is proof positive that their argument is false and proof presumptive that they know it is . . .”

And fourthly, in his book on the fall of Cuba, Mario Lazo reminds us that, “An ideology, as I understand it, is a habit of thinking and feeling so ingrained and compulsive that it functions independently of reality. It involves such a strong commitment to a doctrine that if empirical truth conflicts with dogma, it is truth that becomes distorted.”

We are unfortunately living in an age characterized by irreconcilable and opposing views of all of reality (or of ‘truth’?) which divide the people in significant proportion, and it is not the proper province of the one to declare that the viewpoint of the other is destructive when that conclusion if predicated on the worldview of the one accusing. Whittaker Chambers in his autobiography Witness speaks of both worldviews, having experienced them both in succession and concluded that one had to be both wrong and evil. Until our gentle republic gets on the same page respecting our understanding of all of reality, and until we restore an obligation to individual honor among the predominant consensus of the people, we cannot rectify the structural excess of government. If that does not happen before the tax consumers can consistently outvote the tax producers, the collapse of the United States and all that we hold dear is inevitable. The concept of an enfranchised entitlement class was alien to the founders and to the endowed rights from our Creator, and it is never wrong to argue that this kind of concept and governmental structure is wrong.

Some years ago, I recall a survey which concluded that 85% of the people would do something wrong if they thought they could get away with it. That speaks mountains about the casualty of honor that we are living under, but there is an even greater admission by such a conclusion, that I doubt the surveyor even considered: By their very admission, that same 85% of the people are acknowledging that there is a common standard of right and wrong. We need to get back to it as a nation, and, when we do, we will have no trouble acknowledging that there really is a Power higher than the state, from whence cometh our rights.