Third District GOP takes a stand against unconstitutional acts of the Federal Government | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    At the Third District Republican Convention Saturday (4-20-13) in Morehead City there was an interesting discussion related to some of the resolution presented to the delegates for debate. While they pertained to different topics, there was a common thread among several dealing with the issue of "nullification." It is reported that they all passed, but not without some delegates, notably Rep. George Cleveland, R-Onslow, that nullification is "unconstitutional."

    Rep. Cleveland, for whom we have a high regard as a principled conservative, is simply wrong on this issue.

    His argument can be simply stated: The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled, in several cases, that nullification is unconstitutional. However, there is an abundance of evidence that this position is itself "unconstitutional."

    If one wants the thorough, historical and legalistic argument they can find all they need do is click here to read Diane Rufino's logical and scholarly persuasive argument in defense of the concept.

    But beyond the scholarly arguments, there is a simple common sense argument to rebut Rep. Cleveland's logically dogmatic argument that simply because the U. S. Supreme Court has ruled something constitutional (ex. ObamaCare) or unconstitutional that makes it so.

    That position flies in the face of history. The court has on numerous occasions ruled one way on an issue, only to reverse itself and rule exactly the opposite on the same issue. So which ruling was constitutional?

    A delegate at the convention also made a compelling argument that the very nature of the American federalistic system is based on a balance of power between the People, the states and the national government. While we will concede that if two laws, one state and one federal, conflict but are both constitutional absent the other then the federal law is supreme. But that is not what the resolutions before the group dealt with. They explicitly stipulated that the laws proposed for nullification by the states are themselves unconstitutional.

    Simply state his argument holds that only unconstitutional laws may be nullified by state action as that law applies to that particular state. And if enough states, presumably ľ of them, nullify a law, regulation or even court decisions then the issue is nullified as it applies to all states.

    The basic presumption upon which this proposition rests is that the compact created by the U. S. Constitution is just that: a compact, or contract, between sovereign states and the federal government. As such, if one party breaks the contract then that invalidates that part, at least, of the contract.

    Now some argue that some state constitutions, including North Carolina's, prohibit succession and by extension, nullification. We would contend that such provisions are for the most part invalid simply because they were entered into under compulsion when the Federal government forced these states to include such provisions in their post Civil War constitutions. But that flies in the face of the simple fact that contractual agreements based on coercion and compulsion are inherently invalid.

    But the heart of the nullification position can be more simply stated. That is, the United State Constitution means what it says and anything contrary to the meaning of the words in the Constitution is invalid. It is just that simple. That concept is a well established principle of contract law: That any court called upon to interpret a contract shall look to the plain language meaning of the words within the four corners of the document to ascertain its meaning. Where that document says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law it means just that, and it does not mean if an executive officials determines the person in the United States to be a sufficient threat that the executive official can order him assassinated without probable cause and a fair trial. Just because the Supreme Court has said an American citizen can be held without trial and the other elements of due process does not make it constitutional. And the examples of that logic are numerous.

    Yes, a state legislature does have not only the right but it indeed has a duty to nullify an unconstitutional act of the Federal Government.

    Rep. Cleveland is wrong and those who argue for the omnipotence of the national government are simply wrong.

    It is past time for the state legislators to assert their responsibility to preserve and defend the Constitution. And that is exactly what the delegates in Morehead City voted to ask them to do.

    They should not do their job.