Hatewatch Tweets
Hatewatch is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center.
Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Amendment to Reject U.S. Laws
The antigovernment “Patriot” movement is big on the U.S. Constitution. Except when it’s not.
For some reason, the far-right politicians who identify with and promote the Patriot movement can’t seem to get over the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government primacy over the states – even as they wrap themselves in the American flag. It’s a contradiction that, apparently, only antigovernment extremists can understand. Others, who study such things, call it cognitive dissonance.
Thumbing your nose at the federal government has a long history in American politics, of course. George Wallace ran an entire presidential campaign on it in 1968 – five years after he made a big show of “standing in the schoolhouse door” to block the entry of black students at the University of Alabama. Perhaps he was still peeved about being pushed out of that doorway by President John F. Kennedy and the National Guard.
Even today, a lot of Southern politicians remain upset at the federal government over that little thing called the civil rights movement, though most of them try to cloak their extremism in the rhetoric of “states’ rights.”
But, come on, haven’t we settled this question – after two centuries of jurisprudence, not to mention a bloody civil war that wrecked the South and cost more than 1 million American lives?
Nope. At least Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves doesn’t think so.
Nieves has proposed an amendment to his state’s constitution that would prohibit all branches of state government in Missouri from recognizing, enforcing or acting on “certain actions” of the federal government. It’s called “nullification” – the idea that states can simply ignore federal laws they don’t like – and it’s all the rage on the radical right, pushed by the likes of the John Birch Society and the Tenth Amendment Center.
What’s astounding is the traction the idea is getting among people who ought to know better. Nieves’ amendment, which would have to be approved by Missouri voters, is still alive in the legislature four months after it was proposed. It’s even been approved by the Senate’s General Laws Committee.
Nieves, a Tea Party favorite who has described himself as a “Patriot candidate” and who has appeared in a film produced by Patriot conspiracy-monger Gary Franchi, is nothing if not extreme. He’s previously shown his disdain for the Constitution as a leading member of State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a group of state lawmakers that is working to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to all people born within the United States. Apparently, the 14th amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, really bugs him.
Nieves is also, apparently, something of a bully. In August 2010, after winning the Senate primary, he pulled a gun on a man who worked for his opponent’s campaign. According to news accounts, he threw the man against the wall, threatened to kill him, head-butted him, slapped him and asked if he was wearing a “wire.” Then he made the man call his [Nieves’] wife and apologize for things that happened during the campaign.
His proposed amendment goes much further that some other nullification efforts. It specifies a laundry list of specific actions that Missouri would be required to reject: any federal actions to “restrict the right to bear arms; legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage; require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions; involve certain health care issues; mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions; increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator’s thoughts or designate a crime a hate crime; interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state; or restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.
The forbidden federal actions presumably include any federal court orders, even when they come from the Supreme Court.
So, in other words, it’s not really about preserving the legitimate rights of states under the Constitution. It’s simply a subterfuge to reject federal laws that aren’t conservative enough – even when they have been enacted by duly elected representatives of the people or interpreted by the very judicial body created by the Constitution to determine their constitutionality.
What Nieves really is rejecting is democracy itself – and the U.S. Constitution. Funny thing for a Patriot.
on April 18th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
I’m currently debating an idiot (Freesk8) on YouTube over the constitutionality of NASA. He claims that anything not specifically laid out in the Consitution is outside the purview of the federal government and up to the states. (Ergo, if NASA isn’t in the Constitution, it is unconstitutional.)
I claim he’s an unbelievable fool.
on April 18th, 2012 at 5:05 pm
One-word rebuttal: Appomattox.
on April 18th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
There is no doubt that the atomic bomb is unconstitutional as is the purchase of those new-fangled automobiles by the federal government.
on April 18th, 2012 at 5:56 pm
It is strange, is it not, how so many of these so-called “patriots” don’t seem to like the US very much?
DanZ
on April 18th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Booth Gunter
Cognitive dissonance? You might also be able to call it hypocrisy.
on April 18th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
One of the goals of the nullification movement is to enact laws that they know would neither pass a legislature or would be declared unconstitutional. In short, we could call this the poor sport/sore loser position.
Given his laundry list of laws to be ignored, it is clear that this so called patriot legislator is neither.
on April 18th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Well, then, I believe I shan’t be visiting Missouri. Not knowing the law of the land, my black wife and my white me may just run into some legal trouble, i.e., I don’t know that race traitorship will legal there, or that religion traitorship (black Christian, white Atheist) would be permitted. That’s fine, I wish Missouri and its sovereignty the very best.
on April 19th, 2012 at 4:49 am
In that case, suggest that he find your right to privacy in the constitution. For that matter, discrimination is perfectly legal. Unemployment, social security, welfare, CHIP and any number of federal programs.
on April 19th, 2012 at 7:07 am
“I’m currently debating an idiot (Freesk8) on YouTube…”
Ok, I think I found your problem right here. Youtube is precisely the type of place where you find idiots of that caliber. I once had someone inform me that I was an idiot for saying the USSR collapsed(as in no longer exists). As he went on to explain, it was the Soviet Union, not the USSR Which was ended.
on April 19th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Bad move Mr. Nieves. Thefederal government should step to protect the rights of ALL PEOPLE, not just a few select
groups. God bless our dear beloves federal government. Their job is protect the rights of the oppressed and the hated by these socisl consertavies and right winged extremists.
on April 19th, 2012 at 8:48 am
Booth, you’re absolutely right that “What Nieves really is rejecting is democracy itself.” With his “laundry list” of policies and laws to reject, he’s simply trying to ram his own political agenda down the throats of Missourians without going through that messy process we call democracy. Nothing more un-American can be imagined. I suggest he be hauled before Congress and interrogated thoroughly about his ideas, activities and associates. (Irony alert.)
on April 19th, 2012 at 11:17 am
So what became of the incident with the campaign worker? Did no one file any charges, or was the matter settled out of court? Perhaps there were no witnesses?
Not that I am a legal expert, but it seems to me that Nieves should be facing some felony charges.
on April 19th, 2012 at 11:41 am
That is the kind of behavior that the Dept of Homeland Security should REALLY be checking on!!
on April 19th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
In the 1920′s Mussolini and the “Black Shirts” took over Italy first by taking over the local and state governments in Northern italy. Then working down to Rome and the Federal government. What we are seeing today is the “Business Plot” in reverse. In 1934 the take over of the US Government was attempted from the top down ie: The White House. Looks like the Right Wing Fascist of the GOP has done their research of history and home work. The same family’s , Wall Street banks,, and Corporations that funded the “Business Plot’ now fund the Tea Party.
on April 19th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Sorry guys, I misrepresented my interaction with said Youtube idiot. It’s not so much a debate as a discourse that began with my telling him to ‘go to Hell,’ as he wasn’t worth my time. Then I just proceded to troll him for laughs.
on April 19th, 2012 at 1:04 pm
These right wingers are still fighting the civil war. They are UnAmerican as an anti-American you can get. I don’t think they have really read the Constitution of the USA. If they had, they wouldn’t be fighting the US government so much and hating their fellow Black Americans.
on April 19th, 2012 at 1:40 pm
This article is filled with deliberately misleading information. Did you know the state of Wisconsin nullified the fugitive slave act, which is why the South opposed nullification? Do you support California’s medical marijuana? Then you support nullification.
Second of all, the Constitution is very clear – the people who wrote it discussed this at great length (see Thomas Jefferson) – that federal law supersedes state law if and ONLY if said statute is constitutional. If it is not, state governments have not just the right but the duty to refuse. If the feds passed a law to put Jews in camps, are you saying that would be the final word?? This piece is transparent trash and its author is being deliberately deceptive. This for yourselves folks!
on April 19th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
I saw reference to this site and decided to see what it was about and it’s exactly what I thought it would be. You would say I am a ‘right winger’ by your standards. I believe in almighty God, the creator of everything, even you believe it or not. Because of my beliefs, I have standards that are contrary to those who believe they came from slime and therefore have no moral standards or God’s law to abide to. I fully understand your position because you lack knowledge of the truth and therefore as Jesus said on the cross, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34)”.
What ever response there is to this post most likely will be based on lack of knowledge of who you really are and why you are here on this earth. The verse I think of that applies to most on this site, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1.22).
I must point out that it really doesn’t matter what I think about your standards or lack thereof that you have for your life, but what God says about it. He created us, like it or not, and we are accountable to him. We are all sinners and he sent his Son, Jesus who died to take our sins if we believe in him. If you don’t accept Jesus (it’s free) there will be a judgement day and you will be there and judged. Your judgement will be death in Lake of Fire which is called the second death. The alternative if you accept Jesus, is to live forever. Seems like a no-brainer to me. This life we have is here today and gone tomorrow. Eternity is a long, long time. I would like to see you there.
I do care for your salvation and have written down all the names I have read here and will pray for all them whether they are your real names or not, God knows.
From the past posts I expect there will be name calling which I haven’t done to you. I will come back on this site at least once and will look for any that wish to correspond with me about your salvation. God Bless, I will praying for you.
on April 19th, 2012 at 2:44 pm
Father, save your prayers. You are horribly offended by what we’re trying to do by bringing peace and equality? I’m horribly offended by the fact that a jerk like you thinks that our souls need saving. I’ve made my peace with who I am, and I don’t need some arrogant moron praying to the almighty spaghetti monster to save my soul.
on April 19th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
I wonder if Missouri state Sen. Brian Nieves and cohorts will opt not to receive Social Security and Medicare, or FEMA help when its needed. Likely not. Hypocrite, Appomattox, dummy, they are all appropriate.
on April 19th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Oh, Pastor Gary–you are indeed a delight. First off, you tell us that no matter what we say or think, we are not only wrong but ignorant. Great way to open communication.
“What ever response there is to this post most likely will be based on lack of knowledge of who you really are and why you are here on this earth.”
on April 19th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
In other words, Pastor, Supersonic is saying “They that are well need not a physician.” Perfectly scriptural.
on April 19th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Let us not forget the repeated manifestoes of the various Tea Party factions, and the constant which is a basis for Glenn Beck and his ilk: Nature, God’s Law, and Natural law:
“Cornerstone” speech, 1861, Alexander Stevens:
“our new [Confederate] government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea. Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. Slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great and moral truth.”
It’s always in there somewhere, just read them.
Horrifying to hear repeated again, and again by men of the cloth, and other seemingly good people.
The crux of the biscuit, and impossible to ignore.
on April 19th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Pastor Gary,
I respect your right to your views, but I do not feel you have the right to force your views on others. As a Jew, I care deeply about what should be right and just in this world. And I work to make our world that way. My religion is different from yours and I wish you would respect those of us who think differently and who do what we can to make our world, our country, our neighborhoods better places.
on April 19th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Well Pastor, if you are trying to save souls from Hell, why don’t you go there? (And take your brick chips and Wesson Oil with you).
on April 19th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Wing nuts have a problem with the Federal Government, soley because (as one poster pointed out) the Federals are known to protect those who can’t protect themselves from a powerful majority and elitists in the right wing of the political aisle. In many instances, the Federal Government is like a “big brother” to the minority, social and political entities. This is precisely why the racist WNs on the right turn towards un-ameriKKKanism and anti-government.
“When Fascism Comes To America, It Will Be Wrapped In The American Flag And Carrying A Cross.”—Sinclair Lewis.
on April 19th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Underwriter-
I’m an atheist too, so the act of praying for me is DOUBLY stupid. Plus, I don’t need Jesus. I’m a geek, and Superman died for my sins! :3
on April 19th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Oh, if the rapture would only come and take all the believers off and leave all us sinners below. It would be heaven on earth.
on April 19th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
HSkol-Please come visit us anytime in Missouri. Most of the residents, myself included, do not act this way. It’s always the extremist idiots who speak out and make us all look bad. I do hope that Nieves, along with a few others, will lose in their next elections. The last thing we need here is yet another idiot making us look worse than we are.
Pastor Gary-this liberal Christian residing in Missouri will be sure to add her to her prayer list. I will be praying for the Lord to bless you with the wisdom to recognize when you’re being pigheaded and unwilling to accept the wisdom that has been handed to us. You’ve chosen to judge all those who comment on this site and have also chosen to use Scripture out of context, for your own benefit.
on April 19th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
BTW, Pastor Gary is spam. Notice that he doesn’t address the topic of the article. Probably hates the US too.
DanZ
on April 19th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
“Your judgement will be death in Lake of Fire which is called the second death. The alternative if you accept Jesus, is to live forever. Seems like a no-brainer to me. This life we have is here today and gone tomorrow. Eternity is a long, long time. I would like to see you there.”
It seems the “no brainer” is that there is absolutely no evidence to believe any of this is true.
on April 19th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
Pastor Gary: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1.22).”
Interesting, but I think it can be applied another way. Before you accuse me of taking it out of context I know I am (I spent 4 years in seminary back in the 80s). You did not exactly put the quote in context either.
People who think they know the mind of God profess themselves to be wise. Sometimes the become fools by hearing their own mind rather than the voice of God.
Your whole comment expresses the attitude that you, and those who agree with you, are the only ones who know the truth. How do you know? Sure I know you believe the Bible is the Word of God. Mohammed believed an angel dictated the Qur’an to him. Is the Qur’an the Word of God? If not, how do you know it isn’t?
The only way you can knows that your belief that the Bible is the Truth and the Whole Truth is if you are God (or maybe a Fool).
on April 20th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Pastor Gary, you have every right to believe as you do as long as you don’t try to hijack the government to restrict mine. I am a Gay Christian deeply interested in getting Gay people to turn to Jesus before He comes back, and straight people who think they chose their gender make that process difficult.
Aron, ask your student about NACA. You know, they developed the cowling that both streamlines and cools a radial airplane engine, and their last achievement was the rounded triangular scoops on spacecraft mimicked on early ’70′s Mustang hoods, where they are commonly mistakenly called “NASA” scoops.
on April 20th, 2012 at 1:39 am
According to a recent documentary, Robert Kennedy, who was in charge of the operation, had enough sense not to “Push” George Wallace out of the way and create the confrontation that Wallace wanted. The US Marshalls simply escorted James Merideth around to another door.
on April 20th, 2012 at 4:09 am
The Federal Government ignores laws it should enforce such as immigration, then unequally enforces hate crime laws targeting only whites while ignoring the tens of thousands of attacks on whites via “flash mobs”, gang activity, etc.
on April 20th, 2012 at 4:18 am
MRJ said, Let us not forget the repeated manifestoes of the various Tea Party factions,
Uh, how many arrests and how much violence have we seen from Occupy Wall Street?
How many arrests of Tea Party members? Zero.
Why is Rev. Wight not listed on hate watch, but those with political views the Leftist SPLC disagrees with end up listed?
Ruth said, As a Jew, I care deeply about what should be right and just in this world…
Does that mean you believe in the G-d of Abraham or the secular humanism?
It’s not right that a bunch of atheists and Leftists with Jewish names claim to represent Jews. It simply feeds anti-Semitism and hurts the image of those that still follow the beliefs of their Fathers.
on April 20th, 2012 at 6:21 am
“How fortunate for the Government that the majority of the people do not think,” Adolph Hitler.
on April 20th, 2012 at 6:23 am
Funny how nobody addressed my comment. The South OPPOSED nullification because of state’s like Wisconsin nullifying the federal “fugitive slave act” purporting to (unconstitutionally) require states to hand over escaped slaves to their masters. This “article” is nothing but deception, and I noticed that not a single person has addressed my comments. The idea that nullification is not an inherent part of our Constitutional Federalist Republican system of government is either willful deception or terrible ignorance. Thomas Jefferson, one of the architects of the Declaration of Independence and most important Founding Fathers, authored the “Kentucky Resolutions.” This explains clearly that the U. S. Constitution is a compact among the states where a few limited powers were delegated to a federal government. Any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is therefore completely null and void. It’s a shame that our education system has failed so miserably that out of more than a dozen people commenting here, not ONE person understands or knows these obvious, well-documents historical facts. I would like the author of this deceptive piece to please address my comments or issue an immediate correction. Stop deceiving people.
on April 20th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Sam,
I actually did bring up th NACA, and he casually ignored it. I even offered to PayPal him two dollars if he could come up with evidence to support his claims.
I haven’t heard back from him in several days.
Historian of Technology: 1
Idiot on Youtube: -4
on April 20th, 2012 at 7:59 am
Truth, no one addressed your comment because you’re insane and we didn’t want to bother with you. We were more interested in the idiot pastor.
on April 20th, 2012 at 8:18 am
“Truth,”
Have a little patience. I didn’t see your first comment until just now.
The answer to your argument is simple: The Constitution’s whole purpose is to establish the procedures for governing and the ways and means to change things when the governing doesn’t meet the needs of the people. Nullification is an extra-Constitutional method that enables the chronically disgruntled to have their way without the consent of the rest of us, so it is inherently anti-democracy. In general, your interpretation of the Constitution is primitively anti-federalist, and so is just another complaint from the losing side.
on April 20th, 2012 at 9:41 am
“The Federal Government ignores laws it should enforce such as immigration,” < This is called ignorance.
" then unequally enforces hate crime laws targeting only whites while ignoring the tens of thousands of attacks on whites via “flash mobs”, gang activity, etc.""
Most "gang activity" is not inter-racial. You have no idea what "hate crimes laws" are. For one thing, they aren't laws. The hate crime bill is a statute which mandates enhanced sentences in cases where hatred was the motivation to commit a crime.
on April 20th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
MOGal,
Thanks, and I do know what you state to be perfectly true. I was just being a snot. Unfortunately, the extremists (in any state) are so very loud that a shout-back is often enough warranted. I should, however, have been more precise – MO is not an issue at all in my book, elected extremists (again, in any state) are the issue.
Take Care.
on April 20th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Did everybody here skip middle school civics or has our education system truly failed so miserably? First of all, America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (I pledge allegiance … to the REPUBLIC ….) The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy – and for good reason. A republic is based on the rule of law (in America’s case, the Constitution, which delegates specific enumerated powers to the federal government, being the SUPREME law of the land). A democracy is simply mob rule (think gang rape or lynchings). If you don’t like the Constitution, we have an amendment process to sort that out, but until it is amended, the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. Second of all, nobody has addressed the points I made exposing the blatant fraud in this so-called article. Finally, please answer this question: Would you have opposed Wisconsin’s nullification of the fugitive slave act? A yes or no answer will suffice. Thank you.
on April 20th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Well… Now, “Truth” we’re not going to GIVE you a yes or no answer, just because the more we don’t, the more annoyed you get. And the more you call this article fraud, and scream and rant, the more stupid you look. So, my answer to the question you keep posing is… Cheese. Thank YOU.
on April 20th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Truth, your specious argument has been seen before. A republic is a representative democracy. A lynch mob is not a democracy at all. However, if you hate democracy so much, there are plenty of places you can go, including the one I suggested to the Pastor. As for your question about Wisconsin, when its nullification law was overturned (and that was a far less settled point prior to the Civil War than now), Wisconsin did not secede from the Union. The Confederate States seceded and then fired on a Union outpost before any laws were even passed.
As for you, Lewis, the Teamobs have both committed and advocated far more violence, and right on screen, than OWS ever did. They are not touched out of fear of the spoiled squalls and lies of the Noise Machine and its plutonomic enablers. No leftist blew up the Murrah Building or killed a federal judge, a little girl, a congressional aid, several old people, and crippled a congresswoman for life. No leftist blew up a government building in Oslo, strafed a summer camp, or plotted to behead a former Prime Minister, and no leftist ever gave an incendiary speech to an NRA audience and incited them to do the same.
We are humanists. We are civilized. We are tolerant. And I devoutly hope we are never provoked into forgetting any of that.
on April 20th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Pastor Gary why not enjoy God’s gift of now instead of making yourself and everybody else miserable obsessing about eternity. Love your neighbor as yourself and enter the kingdom of heaven now.
One blue sky above us
One ocean lapping all our shore
One earth so green and round
Who could ask for more
And because I love you
I’ll give it one more try
To show my rainbow race
It’s too soon to die.
Some folks want to be like an ostrich,
Bury their heads in the sand.
Some hope that plastic dreams
Can unclench all those greedy hands.
Some hope to take the easy way:
Poisons, bombs. They think we need ‘em.
Don’t you know you can’t kill all the unbelievers?
There’s no shortcut to freedom.
One blue sky above us
One ocean lapping all our shore
One earth so green and round
Who could ask for more
And because I love you
I’ll give it one more try
To show my rainbow race
It’s too soon to die.
Go tell, go tell all the little children.
Tell all the mothers and fathers too.
Now’s our last chance to learn to share
What’s been given to me and you.
One blue sky above us
One ocean lapping all our shore
One earth so green and round
Who could ask for more
And because I love you
I’ll give it one more try
To show my rainbow race
It’s too soon to die.
One earth so green and round
Who could ask for more.
-Pete Seeger
on April 20th, 2012 at 3:44 pm
“Truth,”
Did you skip your meds? What else but hallucination would cause you to invoke the Pledge of Allegiance – composed in 1892 and not formally adopted by Congress until 1942 – as evidence of the fundamental structure of American government? Your characterization of democracy as mob rule is pure elitist dogma, not fact, and is irrelevant to my point anyway: in general, everyone thinks of voting as part of the “democratic process,” and that’s the sense in which I was using the word.
I will try to be a bit clearer so you won’t feel you have to keep repeating the same question: Nullification is advocated only by people who can’t get their way at the ballot box, so they decide to try their luck on the battlefield. It is anti-democratic, anti-Constitutional and anti-American. Period, without exception, so stick that in your Wisconsin and cheese it, along with any other extraneous hypotheticals you want to propose.
on April 20th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Personally, I think that local control is more democratic than the federal government imposing its will on everyone because it empowers communities to take power for themselves and truly have the “consent of the governed”. However, it has the potential to enforce tyranny (for example, banning gay marriage or using local government to censor books) and that is no better than federal oppression. If local communities’ populations gained consensus on their decisions rather than putting them in the hands of the federal government then democracy in action would be employed, so long as no human rights are violated by those decisions. Remember that the federal government is frequently wrong, such as the cases of invasive TSA “anti-terror” groping, or the repressive drug policy, or gay rights and marriage equality. The informed consent of the governed is not being enforced when federal laws are imposed without any public consensus and when affected communities and people are not the ones making the decisions regarding their lives. For example, the recent “war on women” controversy – women, and especially poor women, are not the ones making the decisions regarding access to birth control and reproductive rights. Instead, geriatric, rich males who sit in Congress are the ones entrusted with that ability, and they certainly don’t have the same interests as the people their legislation affects.
“Truth” here seems to be picking up on the right-wing claim that the US wasn’t meant to be a democracy but a republic. Those are not mutually exclusive, because a republic is just any form of governance that is not a kingdom. But does that mean the United States should have been like Iran, which, while a republic, is not a democracy? Also, his gang rape comparison is wrong because in a democracy, every decision must be made with the informed consent of the governed and not on the whim of a few leaders. That is where democracy (but not the United States government) differs from gang rape – the victim does not have consent.
on April 20th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
This Missouri law maker must be listening to way too much Coast to Coast AM and Alex Jones. I wonder if he invested all his money in gold and buried it in the backyard next to his bomb shelter that is full of freeze-dried food.
on April 20th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
Lewis,
Where have you been in the last 4 years? Though I myself am bitter about it, here is some happy news for you: Approximately 786,000 people have been ejected from the U.S. in the last 2 years alone. Even Roy Beck of NumbersUSA has praised Obama for the number of immigrants who have been deported during his administration.
Also, I take it that you have not heard of E-Verify, nor the Secure Communities initiative, nor that the number of Border Patrol officers has quintupled since 1993 (http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler....._92_11.pdf).
I take it that federal immigration laws have not yet made it to Nieves’ short list for nullification.
on April 21st, 2012 at 1:51 am
CM, Athens was a Democracy. This is a Republic. That is why the civil Rights Act was passed, when a majority of bumpkin America would have voted against it. They might still vote against it.
on April 21st, 2012 at 3:19 am
Hitler was elected democratically, so to defend “democracy” like its infallible is a bit silly and naive – to say the least. If you don’t like the pledge, how about the Constitution itself? Where do you find the word democracy? The word Republic, and Republican, is found throughout.
Here is what our Founding Fathers (the people who created the Constitution) thought about democracy:
John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.
Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
James Madison: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.
——-
Now, think this through folks. Since nobody will answer my question about Wisconsin and the fugitive slave act, let’s try another. If Congress passed and the president signed a “law” purporting to force state governments to censor newspapers, would states be justified in refusing? A simple yes or no will do.
The Constitution is a binding contract. If the federal government violates it (by, for example, restricting free speech), states have a duty to protect their citizens from a rogue entity acting under color of law outside of its rightful power.
By the way, I find the infantile attacks that completely avoid addressing my well-thought out argument to be amusing. Keep it up – it’s clear to anybody reading who is in the right here :) This article is blatant deception and its author either knows and is a liar or is so ignorant that he should laughed out of the room. I’m still waiting for a correction and apology for this absurd piece.
on April 21st, 2012 at 4:57 am
“Did everybody here skip middle school civics or has our education system truly failed so miserably? First of all, America is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. (I pledge allegiance … to the REPUBLIC ….) ”
Others have correctly poijnted out your idiocy for invoking the Pledge of Allegiance as though it were some kind of founding document, so I will only add a couple things:
-The Pledge of Allegiance and the acompanying ritual was designed by a Christian Socialist.
A REPUBLIC is a form of DEMOCRACY, under the comonly accepted definition.
“The Founding Fathers abhorred democracy – and for good reason.”
Yes, for a very good reason- they didn’t see landless workers, women, or black people as actual people. Hence they didn’t want to give them franchise. Good thing our country evolved from that stage, huh?
“A democracy is simply mob rule (think gang rape or lynchings). ”
Hmm…I think I’ll think “moron”. The Paris Commune of 1871 was probably the most democratic modern society ever created, and far from being full of gang rape and lynch mobs, it was more secure than Paris under bourgeois rule. The only raping and lynching came as the French government forces(commanded from Versailles) who crushed the Commune, murdering as many as 40,000 civilians.
Your comments about “mob rule” are typical of fascists. You praise the Constitution and Freedom on one hand, but you despise your fellow Americans and find them unfit to make the decisions which affect their own lives. Rather ironic, considering that little Pledge of Allegiance canard.
on April 22nd, 2012 at 11:11 am
“Hitler was elected democratically,”
Incorrect. Congratulations, you failed 20th century history and you don’t know how European governments work. Hitler was not elected at all.
“so to defend “democracy” like its infallible is a bit silly and naive – to say the least.”
You know what’s also “silly and naive”? Using straw-man arguments. Nobody is claiming democracy(a term with many interpretations) is infallible.
” If you don’t like the pledge, how about the Constitution itself?”
It’s not that folks here don’t “like” the pledge(typical backward conservative thinking), but the pledge has f-all to do with the US government. If you mention the Constitution at least you’re referring to an actual body of law that can be traced to the beginning of the United States.
” Where do you find the word democracy? The word Republic, and Republican, is found throughout.”
Again, a republic is a form of democracy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._democracy
Second, show me where the Constitution says you have the right to own a gun? 2nd Amendment? Nope, it says you have the right to bear arms. I guess that means that the Federal government can ban all firearms while still granting you the right to wear swords on your hip.
“Here is what our Founding Fathers (the people who created the Constitution) thought about democracy:
John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
This logical fallacy is known as appeal to authority.
“Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”
Jefferson had no problem with a handful of white men owning thousands of slaves.
” If Congress passed and the president signed a “law” purporting to force state governments to censor newspapers, would states be justified in refusing? A simple yes or no will do.”
They couldn’t pass that law because it would violate the US Constitution.
“By the way, I find the infantile attacks that completely avoid addressing my well-thought out argument to be amusing. ”
So when people demonstrate how laughably ignorant you are, you just laugh. Ok.
on April 22nd, 2012 at 11:50 am
By the way, little Rebecca has been seen elsewhere.
Rebecca, your arguments are only that: arguments, in the sense of quarrels. Far from being well-thought out, they’re preconceived talking points. You find them “irrefutable” simply by refusing to hear anything that contradicts them.
Hitler was never democratically elected, and in the last free election, his party was losing ground. He assumed the Chancellorship through a backroom deal brokered by Schleicher. After that, all he needed was Hindenburg dying and a most convenient Reichstag fire. He was so grateful to Schleicher he murdered him a year later.
I reiterate: there are many despotisms on earth. If you hate “democracy” so much, go there, and quit pumping for oligarchic tyranny here.
on April 22nd, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Also am I the only one who notices the irony of trying to use the Fugitive Slave Act as a justification for nullification(slavery at the time was legal according to the US Constitution), while at the same time quoting the same people who either owned slaves or protected the rights of slave owners?
on April 22nd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Ruslan, I notice it not so much as irony as one of the more disgusting facts of American history.
on April 24th, 2012 at 3:30 am
My work here is done :)
on April 24th, 2012 at 7:39 am
If your “work” was complete and utter failure, then yes. And not soon enough did it end.
on April 24th, 2012 at 10:25 am
I note I got a couple of these Emmenthalers confounded: possibly the same one writing under more than one name, or because it’s rare to find more than one at a time who kin reed an spel gud.
on April 25th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
@ruslan “Jefferson had no problem with a handful of white men owning thousands of slaves.” And THIS logical fallacy is known as “ad hominem”; the hypocrisy of a speaker doesn’t invalidate their argument. Its amusing the author mentions the “long history” of nullification and then starts his list in 1968. Nullification is not an inherently bigoted or even necessarily right-wing idea. Truth is right to mention that liberal gov’ts in California have nullified federal pot prohibitions, and the federal raids continue there despite overwhelming local opposition. Who thinks it is a good, moral idea for the federal gov’t to enforce prohibitions on victimless crimes that the residents of a state have explicitly repudiated? I don’t mean legally correct, I mean morally right. These arguments about the legality of nullification miss the point; obviously the legal consensus is that nullification is illegal, but the CA pot example shows that nullification still happens despite this. The question is: is nullification ever morally defensible, or does it just provide cover for racist laws? I think its clear that in some cases, like the Fugitive Slave Act, nullification is morally right and increases freedom. In fact, I would say that supporting nullification is morally justifiable if and only if it increases freedom for all of a state’s residents, and its a mistake for the author to act like the 10th amendment exists solely to give “color of law” protection to bigots.
@CM “Nullification… enables the chronically disgruntled to have their way without the consent of the rest of us, so it is inherently anti-democracy”. Why should voters in Colorado have to receive consent from Idaho’s senators if they want to decriminalize pot possession? Again, I mean morally, not legally. Imagine that you had voted differently in every election you’ve ever voted in; if you voted for Gore in 2000, imagine you had instead voted for Bush, McCain instead of Obama, etc. How would your life be different? The answer is it wouldn’t be different at all, because 1 vote has never decided an election. Voting does not = consent. Only about half of eligible voters actually vote. Of that half, only about 50.7% voted for Bush in 04. So a MO senator could receive 25% of possible votes in his state, vote to criminalize pot in NY despite NY’s objections, and if 50 other senators agree (and the house passes and its signed), that makes it OK to lock NYers in cages for breaking a law they opposed? What about elections in other states where you can’t possibly influence the outcome, but which could have drastic effects on your life? When did I, or anyone, consent to laws they pass? Consent implies a choice; when, exactly, was I presented with the option not to consent? Have you ever known anyone who has tried to renounce their citizenship? Its practically impossible. As is so often the case on this site, the writer would rather spout glib, ahistorical, party-line pro-wrestling conventional wisdom than delve into the murky reality of controversial ideas where things aren’t 100% good or bad.
on April 26th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
I am not sure where Yeah’s screed is headed, but the decriminalization of medical pot in certain states means: (1) the state sovereign will no longer prosecute the medical use of marijuana in the state courts; (2) the federal sovereign is still free to do so in its courts. No such state has physically opposed the exercise of federal jurisdiction, even when it has done so through litigation. Litigational opposition is a lawful and time-honored method of testing federal authority. Armed opposition, physical obstruction of justice, and secession are not. They are federal felonies, sometimes sedition, and, if grave enough, treason. That is the difference.
on April 30th, 2012 at 12:47 am
Litigational opposition, Armed opposition, physical obstruction and secession are not necessary nor sufficient conditions for the action of a state to qualify as “nullification”. Are you implying that I advocated any of these things? Are you suggesting that since the CA pot decrim. measures haven’t included these things that they don’t qualify as a form of nullification? Consider the wiki definition of “nullification” – “the theory that a State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional”. CA has in, in practical terms, invalidated federal law with their pot policies. Since I wrote about moral and not legal questions, quibbling about the procedure by which these laws were invalidated (e.g. through legislation vs. litigation vs. insurrection) misses the point. I intentionally avoided the kind of procedural/legal argument you’re making; in fact I specifically said I wasn’t concerned about legal correctness, but rather moral rightness: “These arguments about the legality of nullification miss the point; obviously the legal consensus is that nullification is illegal, but the CA pot example shows that nullification still happens despite this. The question is: is nullification ever morally defensible, or does it just provide cover for racist laws?” I argued that under the accepted definition, nullification can be MORALLY justified and has been used to advance moral goals; your reply didn’t address why or why not nullification may be morally justifiable, it just made claims about how nullification has and has not come about procedurally/legally. The point of my “screed” was to defend Truth’s posts – which contained very little to which even an average civil libertarian progressive would object – from the numerous unanswered criticisms on here. When the author of this article implied that the only reason someone would advocate nullification would be to provide legal cover for racism, they demonstrated either gross ignorance or intentional misrepresentation, and I wanted to point out (as did Truth) that nullification is not as morally or historically unambiguous as the author wants it to seem.
on April 30th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Yeah, you have done a confabulous job of muddling issues, because you are incapable of distinguishing them. Testing the constitutionality of a law through the courts and seeking injunctive relief pending a decision is not nullification exactly because it is lawful. Nullification is claiming that there is no law to test and/or no lawful jurisdiction to test it under, and consequently obstructing, ignoring, or defying it outside the legal process. It’s exactly a legal distinction, and those who can’t learn it had better look good in orange.
on April 30th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
I said “obviously the legal consensus is that nullification is illegal”, so hopefully at that point you understood I wasn’t making a legal argument, and that its necessary to distinguish between “nullification” as a legal concept, and nullification as a moral principle. E.g. We can talk about the MORALITY of, say, affirmative action (AA), versus the LEGALITY of AA, and these 2 constructs are completely separate and distinct. Just as someone can think AA is LEGALLY permissible but IMMORAL, I’ve argued here that nullification is ILLEGAL, but can be MORAL, and this non-trivial distinction is ignored by the author of this article as he paints the 10th amendment as exclusively color of law bigot protection.
To say, as I did, that a state has a MORAL right to invalidate federal law (when doing so increases freedom) is completely different from claiming that a state has the LEGAL right to invalidate federal law. When you make legal arguments against my moral claims, its like arguing that transporting your slave from GA to VT is wrong because slavery is illegal in VT. If you still don’t understand this distinction, contrast the wiki articles for “natural rights” (which is a moral category) and “legal rights” (which is a legal category). Your definition of nullification, “claiming that there is no law to test and/or no lawful jurisdiction to test it and… defying it outside the legal process” is so narrow that it excludes the 1st instance of nullification in US history: the KY and VA Resolutions. That’s “resolutions”, as in “things passed by state legislatures” (just like the CA pot laws). That isn’t “outside the legal process”, nor does it represent a claim “that there is no… lawful jurisdiction to test [a federal law]“, rather, it represents a claim that jurisdiction over federal law resides in the state’s legislature. Even though your definition fails, to be clear, I’ve said repeatedly that nullification of this kind is considered legally invalid, but my point is that, despite the author’s claims, nullification is not unambiguously IMMORAL. You imply that I said that “testing the constitutionality of a law through the courts…[is] nullification”. In fact, I anticipated this argument when I said “litigational opposition.. is neither… a necessary nor sufficient condition for an act to qualify as ‘nullification’”.
If you want to question my definitions, OK, but to claim I failed to define my terms is just false. I defined “nullification” in both posts, but instead of arguing against my definition, you claim that I failed to define my terms and gave your own (demonstrably insufficient) definition.
Someone is conflating terms around here, but its not me, and I stand by my contentions: 1) nullification can be morally justifiable under certain conditions, and is not, as the author seems to think, a categorically racist/conservative/immoral idea and 2) the author cherry picked instances of nullification to make it seem absolutely morally wrong and ridiculous, ignoring examples like CA pot decrim. which is, in both spirit and practical application, a morally good instance of nullification (though, as I have said, may procedurally/legally be excluded under some narrow LEGAL definitions of “nullification”).