REAL News for REAL People
NULLIFY NOW !!
There is a growing movement in my state of North Carolina, as well as other states, to Nullify the federal healthcare bill. The Supreme Court's disingenuous decision to uphold the Individual Mandate as a valid exercise of the Congress' taxing power has evidenced an unwillingness on any branch of the federal government to honor the sovereignty of the individual. The decision clearly puts our country on the dark path to government tyranny.
But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true. And I've been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:
"If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism - since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution....."
Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). He called Nullification the "Rightful Remedy" to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.
I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based. It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty. The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution's limitations.
Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800). It is an American remedy. Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it's not found in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook or in the Communist Manifesto. It doesn't further the concentration of government. Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.
And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country. The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government. At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills. Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession. I'd like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.
The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited") and Article I, Section 5 ("Allegiance to the United States). I don't believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.
Article I, Section 5 states: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2). State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.
Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns. With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are "few and defined" (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power. But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign. The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states. The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government's side. But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution. States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.
Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn't create them. The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.
Article I, Section 4 states: "This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State." This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence - "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."
Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government - the Compact Theory of the Union.
The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed. The Union was created by compact - or agreement (contract). They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact. The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it. The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.
The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract). And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into. It is only legally enforceable under such conditions. In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).
Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states. For example, South Carolina explained:
"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences." (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)
Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution - H.J. 26 - asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states. In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.
[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].
In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals. We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance. The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865. I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts. They are proud and patriotic.
There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.
The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided. Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state's right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.
In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof). Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority? (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?) Jefferson said there were three viable options: Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession. He didn't trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme. He concluded that the "rightful remedy" was nullification. If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.
John Calhoun, the famous
allegiance to the US Constitution. Senator from South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832, viewed nullification in the same way. Calhoun was a strong supporter of the doctrine and helped his state put forth an ordinance to nullify the federal tariffs ("Tariffs of Abomination"). The full title read: "An Ordinance to Nullify Certain Acts of Congress of the United States Purporting to be Laws Laying Duties and Imposts on the Importation of Foreign Commodities." Although President Andrew Jackson believed South Carolina was heading towards secession, Calhoun assured that South Carolina was committed to the Union and did not want to secede. It just wanted the government to stop using its power to inflict such economic harm on the South.
In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail."
He continued:
"So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government.. A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.
It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.
To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?
The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,--the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,--to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.
So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.
The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, -- State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, -- I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make 'its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;' and that, 'in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.' Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced."
Go Back
But there is no need to label me a fanatic or a right-wing alarmist. I only write about what I observe and what I know to be true. And I've been observing that Americans and state representatives all over the country are taking notice of the powerful State sovereignty doctrine known as Nullification. Although this doctrine is based on our founding principles, the term itself was not articulated until 1799 when Thomas Jefferson wrote a series of resolutions to address the unconstitutionality of the Alien & Sedition Act. Those resolutions, known as the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, state as follows:
"If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal compact (ie, the US Constitution), an annihilation of the state governments, and the creation, upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction, contended by the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism - since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the Constitution....."
Jefferson believed it was up to the States, the parties who drafted and ratified the Constitution and thus created the federal government to stand up to the government when it exceeds constitutional bounds. The states, he wrote, have the unquestionable right to judge whether the government has usurped power from the states or the people (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments). He called Nullification the "Rightful Remedy" to keep the federal government constrained by the limited delegations of power granted by the states.
I know this a concept which is foreign to progressives and something that liberal universities prefer to keep hidden in historical record or teach as an outdated, racist doctrine, but the fact is that it is as vital and relevant as any of the other principles of government on which our system is based. It is an important check and balance and it is inherent in the system of Dual Sovereignty. The guarantees of the Declaration of Independence can only be protected if the government operates according to the Constitution's limitations.
Perhaps the reason this concept has been receiving so much attention is because it was articulated by our most revered Founding Fathers - Thomas Jefferson, the author of our charter of freedom and James Madison, the father of our Constitution (see the Virginia Resolves of 1798 and The Virginia General Assembly Report of 1800). It is an American remedy. Perhaps the reason it is criticized is because it's not found in the Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" playbook or in the Communist Manifesto. It doesn't further the concentration of government. Furthermore, Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery so it was not, as liberals allege, a racist doctrine.
And so, nullification groups have popped up all over the country. The topic is spreading like wildfire. Nullification groups are even organizing in North Carolina, a state which has spent years sucking up to the federal government. At the meeting the other night, one person asked whether certain provisions of the NC state constitution might present a legal barrier to members introducing nullification bills. Another asked whether it was a dangerous remedy and likely to escalate to secession. I'd like to spend the rest of this article addressing these concerns.
The provisions in the North Carolina state constitution that the gentleman was referring to are Article I, Section 4 ("Secession Prohibited") and Article I, Section 5 ("Allegiance to the United States). I don't believe either provision presents a barrier to Nullification.
Article I, Section 5 states: "Every citizen of this State owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States, and no law or ordinance of the State in contravention or subversion thereof can have any binding force." This provision merely restates the theme of the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution (Article VI, Section 2). State laws must not challenge the federal government in those areas it is expressly permitted by the Constitution to regulate.
Our federal system of government and the Tenth Amendment tell us that there is a purposeful tension between two sovereigns. With respect to the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, which are "few and defined" (James Madison, in Federalist No. 45), the government is sovereign and the states must yield their power. But as to all other powers and responsibilities, these are reserved to the states and thus they are sovereign. The federal government, therefore, must yield to the states. The tension has always been palpable and almost always, the federal courts have taken the federal government's side. But just because the trend seems to show that the federal government is taking power it was not originally granted, or delegated, by the states, it does not mean that Article I, Section 5 of the NC constitution is a carte blanche allegiance provision. It is to be observed responsibly, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the original intent of the US Constitution. States are entitled to err on the side of their sovereignty. After all, they contemplated, drafted, debated, and eventually ratified the Constitution with specific designs for the Union. The federal government was THEIR creation.
Dr. Frankenstein and Igor created the monster; the monster didn't create them. The individual nations of the world joined created NATO and not the reverse.
Article I, Section 4 states: "This State shall ever remain a member of the American Union; the people thereof are part of the American nation; there is no right on the part of this State to secede; and all attempts, from whatever source or upon whatever pretext, to dissolve this Union or to sever this Nation, shall be resisted with the whole power of the State." This section is extremely offensive and is an insult to every North Carolinian who died in the Civil War believing in the sovereign right of self-determination and trying to preserve the notion that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence - "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."
Article I, Section 4 conflicts directly with the Declaration of Independence, as well as contradicts the very legal basis that underlies our government - the Compact Theory of the Union.
The Compact Theory was discussed even before the states ratified the Constitution. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote separately to propose that the Constitution be based on this principle. Under the Compact Theory of Federalism, the United States is made up of a voluntary union of States that agreed to a set of conditions on how they will be organized and governed. The Union was created by compact - or agreement (contract). They agreed to cede some of their authority in order to join the union, but that the states did not and could not, ultimately, surrender their sovereign rights. Under this theory, states can determine if the federal government has violated its agreements because they are the rightful parties who understand the terms and intent of the compact. The federal government was a CREATION of the compact and NOT a party to it. The compact theory states that our federal government was formed through an agreement by all of the states.
The Compact Theory is subject to the law of compact (or contract). And as with all contracts and agreements, the federal compact is limited by its language and by the intent when it was entered into. It is only legally enforceable under such conditions. In other words, the government is only legal for the specific purpose it was ratified for and under the precise terms (except for amendments properly adopted through the Article V amendment process).
Most states subscribe to this theory as the principle that underlies their bonds to the Union. Look at the articles of secession submitted by the southern states. For example, South Carolina explained:
"Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with definite objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or to the people, and rendered unnecessary any specification of reserved rights.
We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental principle, namely the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences." (the Supreme Court is not a neutral arbiter)
Also, just ask the state of Montana. In 2008, while it was waiting for the US Supreme Court to hand down its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (second amendment case), the Montana State Legislature passed a resolution - H.J. 26 - asserting its state sovereignty and announcing that if the Supreme Court failed uphold the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to have and bear arms, then the state of Montana would consider it a fatal breach of the Compact and therefore it would nullify and void its bonds with fellow states. In other words, it threatened secession if the Supreme Court took away gun rights.
[Heller was the first time in seventy years that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. The District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked. A group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The government claimed the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias, such as the National Guard, and is not an individual right. The federal district court in DC sided with the government and upheld the federal ban on private gun ownership. The Court of Appeals reversed. With four liberals on the Court who believed that the second amendment was only a collective right and Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice who sits on the fence, the right to have and bear arms was precariously close to being destroyed, and the state of Montana was not willing to take it lightly].
In short, Article I, Section 4 condemns the state of North Carolina to be a federal cling-on rather than a sovereign state, comprised of sovereign individuals. We are not wards of the state, eternally and perpetually bound to their schemes and design of governance. The provision declares in the loudest of terms that the issue of state sovereignty was settled at Appomattox in 1865. I would be surprised to find many North Carolinians who believe that in their hearts. They are proud and patriotic.
There should be no concern that either provision of the North Carolina state constitution would bar any state representative from rightfully interposing the state between the helpless citizens and a power-hungry federal government.
The second question asked was whether nullification is risky and likely to escalate to secession. Ideally, the purpose of nullification is to address usurpations of power so that secession could be avoided. Of course, that requires that the federal government respect the state's right to invoke nullification and enforce their nullification bills.
In 1796, in response to the Quasi War with France, Congress passed the Alien & Sedition Acts to quash any false, misleading, scandalous, hateful, contemptuous, or defamatory communication concerning the government, the President (John Adams), or Congress (or individual members thereof). Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that it was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment's rights of free speech and press. The question became: What can be done to protect the people from an act of government that exceeds constitutional authority? (What can be done if the government violates the very Constitution which defines it?) Jefferson said there were three viable options: Judicial review, Nullification, and Secession. He didn't trust the courts to interpret the Constitution faithfully and thought secession was too extreme. He concluded that the "rightful remedy" was nullification. If successful, there would be no need for the extreme measure of secession.
John Calhoun, the famous
Senator John C. Calhoun from South Carolina
In 1831, a year before the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun wrote: "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of the sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail."
He continued:
"So numerous and diversified are the interests of our country, that they could not be fairly represented in a single government.. A plan was adopted best suited to our situation and perfectly novel in its character. The powers of government were divided, not, as heretofore, in reference to classes, but geographically. One General Government was formed for the whole, to which were delegated all the powers supposed to be necessary to regulate the interests common to all the States, leaving others subject to the separate control of the States, being, from their local and peculiar character, such that they could not be subject to the will of a majority of the whole Union, without the certain hazard of injustice and oppression.
It was thus that the interests of the whole were subjected, as they ought to be, to the will of the whole, while the peculiar and local interests were left under the control of the States separately, to whose custody only they could be safely confided. This distribution of power, settled solemnly by a constitutional compact, to which all the States are parties, constitutes the peculiar character and excellence of our political system. It is truly and emphatically American, without example or parallel.
To realize its perfection, we must view the General Government and those of the States as a whole, each in its proper sphere independent; each perfectly adapted to its respective objects; the States acting separately, representing and protecting the local and peculiar interests; and acting jointly through one General Government, with the weight respectively assigned to each by the Constitution, representing and protecting the interest of the whole; and thus perfecting, by an admirable but simple arrangement, the great principle of representation and responsibility, without which no government can be free or just. To preserve this sacred distribution as originally settled, by coercing each to move in its prescribed orbit, is the great and difficult problem, on the solution of which the duration of our Constitution, of our Union, and, in all probability, our liberty depends. How is this to be effected?
The question is new, when applied to our peculiar political organization, where the separate and conflicting interests of society are represented by distinct but connected governments; but it is, in reality, an old question under a new form, long since perfectly solved. Whenever separate and dissimilar interests have been separately represented in any government; whenever the sovereign power has been divided in its exercise, the experience and wisdom of the ages have devised but one mode by which such political organization can be preserved,--the mode adopted in England, and by all governments, ancient and modern, blessed with constitutions deserving to be called free,--to give to each co-estate the right to judge of its powers, with a negative or veto on the acts of the others, in order to protect against encroachments the interests it particularly represents; a principle which all of our constitutions recognize in the distribution of power among their respective departments, as essential to maintain the independence of each; but which, to all who will duly reflect on the subject, must appear far more essential, for the same object, in that great and fundamental distribution of powers between the General and State Governments.
So essential is the principle, that, to withhold the right from either, where the sovereign power is divided, is, in fact, to annul the division itself, and to consolidate, in the one left in the exclusive possession of the right, all powers of government; for it is not possible to distinguish, practically, between a government having all power, and one having the right to take what powers in pleases. Nor does it in the least vary the principle, whether the distribution of power be between co-estates, as in England, or between distinctly organized but connected governments, as with us. The reason is the same in both cases, while the necessity is greater in our case, as the danger of conflict is greater where the interests of a society are divided geographically than in any other, as has already been shown.
The great and leading principle is, that the General Government emanated from the people of the several States, forming distinct political communities, and acting in their separate and sovereign capacity, and not from all of the people forming one aggregate political community; that the Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party, in the character already described; and that the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions; and in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have the right, in the last resort, to use the language of the Virginia Resolutions, 'to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.' This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may, -- State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name, -- I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system, resting on facts historically as certain as our revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and I firmly believe that on its recognition depend the stability and safety of our political institutions.
With these strong feelings of attachment, I have examined, with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question; and, so far from anarchical or revolutionary, I solemnly believe it to be the only solid foundation of our system, and of the Union itself; and that the opposite doctrine, which denies to the States the right of protecting their reserved powers, and which would vest in the General Government (it matters not through what department) the right of determining, exclusively and finally, the powers delegated to it, is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, considered as the basis of a Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give to the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make 'its discretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;' and that, 'in all cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.' Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced."
Comments
|
Yep, Canucks are the French Canadians. Diane, I'm no Mike Myers. That being said, I've never been accused of taking myself too seriously. That is an accusation which could be aptly applied to many if not all "avowed Socialists." I'm not one. I jokingly posted a link to the Socialist Party's fundraising website in a comment to Stan on BCN's facebook page. He took me literally and I can see why..it was sort of an inside joke which some of my friends who were following the conversation would get. But I doubt anyone else would.
Although I'm not a Socialist, I'm a strong advocate of social spending. The Marxist credo is something along the lines of "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs." Edit the latter half to "at least according to his needs" and I'd agree. The credo as it stands implies, or perhaps even outright demands, "no more than according to his needs." That is outrageous and an economic system designed on those principles will never thrive. See Venezuela and Cuba. There are many countries with high levels of social spending and relatively thriving (these are tough times!) capitalist economies and laissez faire policies related to commerce. When looking at unemployment rates in these countries, no correlation can be found between social spending and individual initiative. Unless Americans are inherently less industrious, I don't see why this would not be the case here as well. While productivity in these countries is on par with our own, they consistently rank ahead of us by many measures. Poverty rates, infant mortality, education, and "overall happiness" are a few which immediately come to mind. @Stan....Ironically, if Obama doesn't get reelected it will be because he made a lot of empty promises to "the left" and never followed through. Economies overseen by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Castro and others like them will always fail. And so will those that follow economic policies developed by Milton Friedman and those who have survived him in the Chicago School of Economics. Those in the middle will remain stable. And this is, in part, because they take care of their own. Diane, you are obviously a busy professional with a hectic personal life. Yet you've found the time to respond to each comment eloquently while making points which even a "venemous" and "avowed Socialist" with wolf-like tendencies doesn't care to disagree with. I have two kids (and a wife who hates housework) but I've tried to respond in kind. Take care, Diane.....I'm off to tackle a mountain of laundry and dinner prep for the week. Stan, you must have two households of kids to look after. |
|
On your receiving responses of the caliber of Diane: Don't have the time.
Anyway, that's why I have Diane. On matters of free men engaging in free markets, I always defer to Diane, unless I want to say it quickly, like now - Obama is a Communist Wannabe, and he should count his days in office, because they have a finite end, and the end will be soon. |
|
Canucks? Is that the term for Canadians? Very cute. Canada has given us most of the great comedians of all time !! Second City TV was Canadian and several members of the cast of Saturday Night Live! were from Canada, including Phil Hartman (one of my all-time favorites) and Mike Myers (Who can ever forget Austin Powers !! We quote from those movies every single day in my house !) Canadians must naturally have a helluva sense-of humor. And Canada gave us Bryan Adams, who I personally bumped into in a hotel elevator and is not much taller than me, and Alannis Morissette. For all those reasons, I LOVE Canada.
For a good chunk of my life, I've had nothing but great experiences with the healthcare in this country. I even volunteered in the emergency ward for several years when I was in my early 20's trying to decide if I wanted to go into the medical profession or into cancer research. I chose the latter. But there is no comparison to the emergency rooms of that era and now. And Americans in general have changed. They engage in more violence (emergency rooms are full of trauma patients; at least here in Pitt County), they eat a lot more fast food, they exercise less (because of the computer and video games), and they are larger now. Over 1/3 of all Americans are obese and a good chunk of them are hugely obese. Obesity has grown rapidly since the late 1990's, especially in the south and mid-west states such as Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa Missouri, Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas. In these states, obesity is the most prevalent. Obesity is highest among blacks and Hispanics are not far behind. These are the groups who are reproducing at the highest rates and those who make up the largest chunk of people living in poverty. Approximately 33% are Hispanic, 25% are black, and 9% are white. I agree with you that in an ideal world people, are concerned about the well-being of their fellow citizens and would gladly fork over more of their tax dollars to take care of them, but that's not the United States we live in anymore. The dynamics in the country with respect to population and status are changing (as I eluded to above) and there is no feasible way to expect that Americans who work hard can keep up with the demands this brings. This is where religious organizations and other charitable organizations come into play. Government should not legislate charity. It should not FORCE people to surrender their effort and reward to serve others. That is, and I apologize that I have to put it in such terms - slavery. Indentured servitude. Using one person to benefit the other. This is forbidden under the 13 Amendment. The healthcare bill (by its own stated goals) is the forced sacrifice of the young and healthy to serve the benefits of others and therefore legislative slavery. Of course, I exaggerate, but you get the point. We constantly hear that those who make enough should "do their fair share" and pay more and more taxes because too many people are doing without and living in poverty. But the government never asks the poor to do "their fair share" and stop over producing, stay in shape, stop smoking, stay in school, and go to a community college and get some kind of degree or training. If we are supposed to look out for one another, than both sides have to do so. I also believe as you do that most Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. I firmly believe that most Americans want earned success and want to feel good about themselves. But we all know there are many who feel no such shame. They feel a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of contribution. I've been in high schools where it is clear that students have no intention of trying to learn because they know that a job isn't required to get a check. It is indeed a shame that we can't do all the things we would like, but again, dynamics are changing. Also, and importantly, the nation was founded on INDIVIDUAL liberty and not on a "guaranteed standard of living." When government provides more than just a temporary safety net, it relieves the individual from his own responsibility over his life and success. It relieves people from the consequences of their conduct, whether it is in not taking education seriously, being sexually active while not married, doing drugs, smoking, or eating poorly and not exercising. I guess you can tell that I tend to write too much. But finally, I think I will have to agree with you for the most part in your statement that the healthcare decision doesn't really expand the taxing power as profoundly as I led on. Many legal pundits don't think it did at all. I happen to think it set a dangerous precedent to use the taxing power, per se, as Roberts set out, to force people to do as the government wants. I think the decision stands for the bright line rule that the government can do anything it wants, including anything it would have liked to do under the Commerce Clause, by using its taxing power. I also had an issue with him classifying the 'penalty' as an excise tax rather than a direct tax which as you know, would have required the government to apportion among the states according to population. And I was extremely disturbed that Roberts was able to classify the mandate as a tax for Article I purposes but not for the Anti-Injunction Act. It's such legal slight-of-hand that makes it almost impossible to have confidence in the opinion. But let me tell you why many legal pundits disagree with me (and I do see their point). First, remember during the oral arguments, there was the very brief exchange where all nine justices, and I think even some of the lawyers arguing against the healthcare bill, agreed that the individual mandate could be enforced under the taxing power. But the discussion after that stressed that the government intended the "shared responsibility" payment as a penalty and not a tax. And they went into all the evidence of that intent. Second, the dissenting justices even admitted that the "shared responsibility" payment could have been imposed as a tax. But the problem conservatives have with the decision is whether the Court had the responsibility to frame the bill in terms that the Congress expressly chose not to. Here is what the dissent wrote: “Of course in many cases, what was a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty could have been imposed as a tax upon permissible action, or what was imposed as a tax upon permissible action could have been a regulatory mandate enforced by a penalty. . . . The issue [here] is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so." In other words, the fight among the justices was not an epic struggle regarding the extent of the taxation power. It was a rather mundane fight over statutory interpretation, and whether the mandate, as written, could be construed as a tax or not. The problem with the Court trying to save the Individual Mandate by phrasing it as a "tax" is that the healthcare bill - and specifically, the Individual Mandate - would surely have never passed Congress if it had been expressly framed as a tax. Well, I think I've bloviated enough here. Cheers, Friend. By the way, being a Canuck, do you also happen to have a keen sense of humor? I can't tell from our discourse! |
|
|
Diane, I'm unclear as to how the court's decision has enlarged or broadened the government's taxing power. It seems to have simply confirmed this power and applied it to the "penalty" associated with Obamacare. I don't agree with the notion that our government is simply providing "free stuff" to its citizens through Obamacare and other social program. We contribute to these programs when possible and receive their benefits when in need. I realize this sounds remarkably similar to the Socialist credo of "to each according to his needs and from each according to his ability." However, it is not being applied to our nation's entire economic system. Rather, it is being applied in selective ways to ensure the well-being of the American people.
I also disagree with the notion that Americans prefer government "handouts" over contributing to society and supporting themselves. I believe Americans are an exceptionally industrious people who feel shame when they are unable to support themselves and their loved ones. With regards to Canadian healthcare, I come from a very long line of Canucks. We've had many discussions concerning the merits and deficiencies of healthcare in both countries. Among those who have lived on both sides of the border, a preference for the Canadian system was shared by all. Similarly, I have a friend (also an attorney) who married a French citizen. She lived in Paris for six years and developed a strong preference for their approach to healthcare. Your experiences with American healthcare have obviously been dismal. To be completely honest, I have never had cause for complaint. My oldest son has been to the hospital (Children's Healthcare of Atlanta) twice in the last three years, once for a broken arm and once for appendicitis. The treatment he received was excellent in both cases. While we paid next to nothing for medical procedures, I did have the opportunity to see the bills prior to payment by Cigna. They were astounding. I also want to make it perfectly clear that my reference to your "gray matter" was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Your article and all subsequent responses have been exceptional in every way and I applaud your reasoning and courtesy. The "venomous" tone was certainly uncalled for and was a holdover from my reaction to Stan's dismissive and condescending tone throughout our facebook discussion. You've done an extraordinary job defending your views. Now, if I could receive responses of the same caliber from Alicia and Stan we could actually move a couple of conversations forward. Cheers, Comrade. |
|
|
Now there you go. That's how we should all play in the sandbox.
|
|
|
Michael,
I wish it were as easy as you say. I wish Congress can just repeal the bill and this whole "universal healthcare" exercise can go away. But even if Congress were to repeal the bill or defund it, and we escape the "shared responsibility" payment, the newly-enlarged taxing POWER has been engrained in jurisprudence. At some point, the government will summon those powers to so something equally as insidious. Just look at the government's case on the Commerce Clause. It referenced a case from 1942 (Wickard v. Filburn), the case which took the most liberal view of the Commerce Clause possible. Look at the government's powers post 9/11 where it now claims the power to label Americans as enemy-combatants and therefore indefinitely detain them and even kill them (that is, deny them habeas corpus and other fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights). It reached back to an obscure case from 1942 (Ex parte Quirin) where the Supreme Court was made up of justices hand-picked by the ultra liberal FDR which gave the president that authority. Although the facts of that case showed that the accused were, for all intents and purposes, trained Nazi agents who infiltrated Long Island for the express purposes of blowing up strategic sites (one claiming to have dual citizenship though), the Bush administration sought to extend the power to American citizens. That was also the same court that upheld the mass internment of Japanese citizens during WWII (still good law, by the way, because it's still on the books and not overturned). 4 justices on the Supreme Court today want very badly to take away the second amendment rights to own and possess guns from individuals and hand the power of gun control to the government. Despite the volumes and volumes of direct authority to show the right has always intended to be an individual right (for both personal protection and to protect against a tyrannical government), those 4 justices have aligned themselves behind a totally obscure Texas Supreme Court decision (not even US Supreme Court !!) that says it is only a collective right - only when men are called up in a militia. That Texas decision, by the way, is merely the ramblings of the judge and is based on NO legal authority or historical record. My point is that no Supreme Court decision should be taken lightly. To get rid of them, the Court itself must over-rule them. You are right that we need to address the healthcare problem. But the problem is that fundamental reform is needed. Tort reform, for example, is one area that Congressional democrats refuse to entertain. Lawyers represent a huge lobby and donate lots of money to campaigns. I'm a lawyer and although it hurts me to say it, they notoriously look to financially benefit from other's misfortunes. This results in huge malpractice insurance premiums which not only limits the # of doctors in the particular specialty but forces doctors to pass those costs into his services. The huge numbers of immigrants and illegals that use the emergency room for basic health services are an enormous impact on our system. In the past 3 years, I've had to take my children on two occasions in the middle of the night to the emergency room - my eldest daughter felt intense pressure on her chest and couldn't breathe and my 8-yr-old son was doubled over in intense pain (it was a kidney stone). One occasion was in Greenville and the other when we were visiting in Wilmington. NC. On both occasions, not only did I have to be screened for guns and knives before I entered the emergency room, I had to wait for several hours. With my daughter it was over 5 hours. Both times the emergency room was overwhelmingly populated with Hispanics. (According to NC immigration groups, such as NCFIRE and Immigration Coalition, 1/2 - 1/3 of all Hispanics in the state are illegal). This is not to be mean or discriminatory, but just to make a point that there are factors within the power of the government that could be addressed to bring down the cost of healthcare. Another factor lies within the notion of personal responsibility. And let me reference what Chief Justice Roberts himself had to say in the decision. Roberts emphasized that many Americans eat fast food and otherwise have a bad diet. This group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance. The failure of this group to have a healthy diet increases healthcare costs to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. The data is clear that this group pays only a small fraction of the costs themselves associated with their behaviors. The point is that people often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society, as Roberts wrote, because they know they aren't forced to pay the consequences. Sure, those failures - joined with the similar failures of others - can easily have a substantial effect on heathcare costs. The sad thing, and the frustrating thing, is that the most "just" solution is never the one the government pursues because of political pay-offs and the need to "provide free stuff" to voting blocs. I imagine that you and I will continue to push our opinions so that, as Thomas Jefferson envisioned, the "marketplace of ideas" will be well-represented and people can make the most informed decisions. |
|
|
Diane, your response is thoughtful and eloquent. However, I believe it is you who fails to understand the enormity of the court's decision. It has clearly labeled the penalty as a tax. It can therefore be repealed by our elected representatives. As for the rest, you seem be saying that the states can't afford to not comply with Obamacare. They can, however, focus their efforts on it's ultimate demise through the repeal of the newly labeled tax. This is a cumbersome but democratic process. Should Obamacare ultimately be repealed, we will continue to pay for the uninsured through outrageously inflated medical costs. I don't believe your response addresses this issue. The young and healthy are already required to contribute to Social Security. I assume you are also opposed to this as it represents "big government's" intrusion into your personal affairs. I remember another individual who frequently spoke of the insidious federal government and its evil ways. His name was Timothy McVeigh. Diane, you are undoubtedly well-informed. Unfortunately, I question the integrity of the sources to which you obviously turn for information. As you undoubtedly question the integrity of those to which I turn. So we'll always be at a stalemate. We live in a democracy which continually tries the patience of both sides of this debate. Continue to participate and I will do the same.
|
|
|
Michael,
I'm very proud of my gray matter, thank you very much. And may I return the sarcasm by urging you to get your head out of the Communist Manifesto and socialism texts. I might recommend Ludwig von Mises' book "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis. You don't seem to have a grasp on the enormity of the Supreme Court's decision regarding healthcare. And you don't seem to have a grasp on the audacity of the federal government to propose a scheme that forces individuals to do what it tells them to do, with the money that they've worked hard for. The government's scheme ONLY works and only achieves its intended goal of universal coverage with controlled premiums if the government can force a huge chunk of Americans into the market FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of paying for other's coverage AND if all of the states take part in the Medicaid expansion program. If either cannot be achieved, then the plan fails. Then there is no way the government can afford to provide healthcare to all the poor, the people with serious pre-existing conditions, the union members, the ACORN volunteers, and illegal immigrants for free (yes, those provisions are in the bill). The Individual Mandate is the government's scheme to force those who least need health services (the young and healthy) to pay a monthly premium or else be penalized (ie, "taxed" according to Chief Justice Roberts). The money forced from the pockets of those young and healthy individuals, combined with the "penalty" payments (the "shared responsibility" payment) comprise a huge chunk of the funding for the healthcare scheme. The Medicaid Expansion provision forces - FORCES - all states to comply with the provisions of the government's scheme and expand the medicaid program and accept several groups that weren't eligible before or lose all medicaid funding completely. In other words, if the states don't go along with the government's plan, then the states themselves must come up with the funding to cover those medicaid patients already on the plan and that funding, conservatively, will consume about 10% or so of the state's entire budget. States can't sustain that. Florida would be bankrupt. California would be bankrupt the first day the government withheld funding. The Supreme Court upheld the Individual Mandate but struck down the Medicaid Expansion program. Therefore, states can opt out and the government can't penalize them. If states opt out, which is their constitutional right to do so, then the healthcare plan begins to fall apart. There will be a point when enough states opt out that the plan becomes a financial impossibility. Nullification is the legal step on the part of the states to make a statement about the constitutionality of the bill and to declare that the people of the particular state are legally protected from participating in the healthcare plan. Nullification combined with the "opt-out" option will, theoretically, render the healthcare bill functionally impossible. If the possibility exists, as you present, and it's a very real scenario for sure, that people may live in a state that participates but may move to one that has nullified the bill. So, using your hypothetical, if you move from VT (a participating state) to NC (a nullification state), the nullification bill will immediately protects you and you won't have to pay any longer. But yes, you will lose the money you have already paid, which, if a monthly premium, is just that. Look at it this way... if the government is so determined to move forward with its plan even as states opt out and nullify, then the premiums will be so high that you will either want to move to a nullification state or protest government as conservatives did. The goal is to render the federal healthcare scheme impossible so that individuals don't come under a new taxing power of the federal government. It's not to deny people healthcare. It's to force the government to recognize constitutional limits. What you think is fine and dandy today in the form of healthcare will be a nightmare tomorrow when you are fined ("taxed") for being obese, not installing solar panels, not owning an electric car, joining a fitness center, not carpooling, exceeding water usage, etc. That's the big picture. And that's the point here with the nullification effort to fight Obamacare. I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to the way you see this issue and I'm sorry that you don't see it the way I do. I have a houseful of kids and I hate the thought that they will be forced to pay for something they don't need and if they don't, the IRS will have direct access to their bank accounts (also in the healthcare bill) at a time in their young lives when they have to make decisions about what they need and what they don't because their first paychecks aren't going to be enough to do all they'd like. And with respect to other countries that have socialized healthcare, I'd ask you to take a good hard look at what's going on in Canada. The waiting list, even for patients with cancer, is a year - year and a half. Emergency room waits run several days. There are scores of stories of elderly men and women with fractured hips, in great pain, sitting on stretchers in hallways for days. Cat scan machines are regulated very heavily. They can only be used for patients from 8:00 - 4:00, even though patients are on long waiting lists for testing. Canada rations its healthcare very tightly. Bureaurocrats make decisions and not doctors. [See the documentary "Sick and Sicker"] |
|
|
No, Stan. It doesn't get confusing until conservative obfuscation comes into play. And yes, Diane. I think I have a pretty solid grasp on Nullification. So let's imagine this principle in play. I live in VT. I contribute to state-funded healthcare via the tax referenced in the recent Supreme Court decision and my medical expenses are paid by a state-administered program. My job relocates me to NC. NC has no such program. Now consider that this difference was made possible through your proposed Nullification scenario. How do I get my $ back? Your proposal is nonsensical. The ACA approach works very well in dozens of other countries with capitalist economies. Why not here? You and Stan need to step away from your daily dosages of Fox News and the National Review. It's eroding your gray matter.
|
|
|
You know ObamaCare, Nullification, the U.S. Constitution ... it just all gets so confusing.
|
|
|
I take it you you don't understand the concept of Nullification.
|
View All Comments| Speaker Tillis exposes his ignorance of House 6 issues | Editorials, For Love of God and Country, Op-Ed & Politics | Why Politics Costs So Little |
Home
Contact
About
Service Rates
Privacy Policy
Follow on Facebook
Subscribe to Newsletters
Rss Feed
Keywords
Eastern NC Now & ENC NOW © Copyright 1998-2024 All Rights Reserved.
Thanks for telling me exactly where you stand on social spending.
I just couldn't imagine all I've gone thru with education, the incredible school loan debt, so many all-nighters, having my long-time boyfriend dump me because he was fed up with my graduate program, missing my 20's because of gradudate school, losing friends because I didn't have the time to keep in touch, missing vacation opportunities, sacrificing time with my parents and my children, building a career, working 60 hours a week and sometimes week-ends, having my children and returning to work right away, putting them in daycare and missing them so much... if I knew I would have to give up what I earned to serve the needs of others. If that were our system, I would have never been as motivated as I was, as ambitious as I was, or willing to make the sacrifices that I did.
I know you've given me statistics to suggest that such a mentality and such a system offers many benefits, but I just don't understand how you advance as a civilization when you don't have a proper reward system.
Sorry you have a wife that doesn't like housework. I have a husband that spends too much time doing things that I should do - that a woman should do. He invades my domain. I'm not cool with that.