3 Reasons to Repeal 1913

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross-posted at

GreeneWave.com

This Saturday at a stump speech in Rochester, Minnesota Ron Paul may have outdone even himself.  Famous for advocating the repeal of many laws, the elimination of numerous agencies and substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government Ron Paul recently told the Wall Street Journal “I’d really like to repeal 1913.”  Why a whole year?  Three reasons:

·      On February 3, 1913 the 16^th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified.  The amendment allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states per the Constitution Article I, Sections 2,8, and 9.

·      On May 31^st, 1913 the 17^th Amendment was declared part of the Constitution by Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan.  It established the direct election of U.S. Senators by popular vote stripping the right away from the state legislators.

·      On December 23, 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed.  This act grants a consortium of private banks legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes.

These three events are barely discussed in today’s retail politics, but they are at the genesis of nearly every controversy the country suffers from today.  After 1913, the United States, once a grand laboratory of democratic experiments became irrevocably chained to the one-size-fits-all decisions of experts and special interests in Washington D.C.

The 16^th Amendment or the federal income tax created the IRS as we know it today and allows the federal government to pool national wealth and keep it without returning it to the states.  This allows Washington to create massive entitlement programs, go to war, prop up foreign governments, fund extensive bureaucracies and bribe state governments with their own money to accept federal regulation.

The 17^th Amendment, while affirming the redemptive qualities of popular sovereignty by instituting direct elections of U.S. Senators, removed the state governments from the federal process.  The bicameral legislature was originally set up to represent both the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate) as an indispensible component of federalism and an essential check on government overreach.

Prior to 1913 Senators gave the 10^th Amendment teeth by acting as jealous guardians of individual state rights.  Held to account by local legislatures U.S. Senators were charged with preventing unlawful federal encroachment upon those rights.  Any legislation that would emphasize the federal government over of the state governments or their citizens would be voted down.

The Federal Reserve Act also known as the Aldrich Plan effectively privatized what was otherwise a public utility, the nations money supply.  Handing monetary policy over to a fundamental conflict of interest is all that is important here.  The Constitution as originally conceived charged Congress with the public regulation of monetary policy, not private banks.  The Federal Reserve inherently desires our government to spend more and thereby borrow more at interest, whether it be for peace or war.

Few Americans appreciate the fact that while the last century is known as the “American Century” we began it already on top.   By 1906 the United States was the dominant economy in the world, enjoying the highest living standards and literally recreating the world in our image.  It stands to reason therefore that it is what we did (or better yet, did not do) as a country in the 19^th century, which led to our prominence in the 20^th.

With this in mind it strikes me as odd when someone praises what we “accomplished” during the last century when it in fact these accomplishments testify to where we are now – divided, decadent, laden with debt and in decline.   Nonetheless it has become a buzzword for some to claim the Tea Party movement, conservative leaders and libertarians want to “repeal the 20^th century” evidenced here, here, here and in this video:

This byword hides the fact that nearly all of the 20^th century’s legislative accomplishments and wars are predicated on the fundamental changes that literally ripped the heart and soul out of the Constitution.  Its a matter of perspective, does one measure accomplishments on what we are able to do through government namely by winning wars or passing laws?  Or does one measure accomplishments on our aggregate ability to progress and add value to each others lives, something government can never do?

These three pieces of legislation over the last 105 years acting in concert have effectively ended capitalism and replaced it with corporatism.  The year of 1913 was crucial in reducing a vibrant republic to one glacial organism monolithic in its agenda, pallid in its imagination, unresponsive to the needs of its people and growing in capacity to harm not only Americans, but others as well.  We must now ask ourselves: shall we like so many other nations succumb and be pulled back into the fog of history or are we to reclaim our culture of freedom and emphasis on the individual and resist the fate of so many nations?

Ron Paul's Liberal Honey

Topher Morrison

PurpleSerf.com

cross posted at

GreeneWave.com

   Now that everyone’s feet have hit the ground and Romney has reasserted his “front runner status” (as the mainstream media enjoys to browbeat) some like Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard are musing about another Santorum surge; praying, hoping for Bush 2.0.  There is only one problem.  Although the GOP is potentially dethroning one of the most radical presidencies since FDR or LBJ, as Kristol laments, their Florida primary turnout was actually down 12% from 2008. 

How can Barak Hussein Obama, the Premier of Polarization, not light a fire under the GOP?  They better figure it out.  In Florida, Mitt Romney may have been able to outspend Newt Gingrich by a 4 to 1 margin; that will not be the case against Barack’s billion-dollar war chest.  Romney will need a lot more than millions in milquetoast rhetoric to revitalize this evidently anemic party. 

To be fair, this may have merely been the Florida GOP, Iowa’s turnout after all was record breaking, but was that because of Romney or something else?  Maybe it was the ugliness of the campaign that kept Floridians at home, but that most assuredly will not change as the Democrats plan to make this election more about character than content.  Perhaps it was the nature of the caucus. 

While the Florida Slugfest was grabbing national attention Ron Paul as usual was quiet, but diligent.  He was the first to release ads in Minnesota and Nevada and able to stay clear of the mud he was left alone to continue his long-term caucus strategy, which is proving fruitful regardless of the what the Media Masters tell you.

Ron Paul claims he is 3^rd in delegate count and supported: here and here even though the MSM has him in 4^th: here, here and here.  Why the discrepancy?  Free information sites like Wikipedia and The Green Papers offer a little more insight into the fog that often surrounds the U.S. electoral system. 

There are, for example, differences in “soft” versus “hard” delegates and “pledged” or “bound” delegates versus “unpledged” or “not bound” delegates. It essentially boils down to reporting projected versus formally pledged delegates.  The MSM prefers the latter.  In the end it’s more than just the ballot box, as Politico’s James Hohmann points out:

The primary and caucus “…states don’t award delegates on the day they hold votes, instead apportioning delegates at local party meetings, where Paul’s camp believes its superior organization can help it capture a majority that their candidate may not have won outright on election day.”

Spontaneous organization and zeal as I have mentioned is the bread and butter of Ron Paul’s Guerilla Grassroots.

            As the Christian Science Monitor points out Ron Paul with this odd strategy may in fact win more delegates this coming month than Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich combined!  The reason?  It is what Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all lack and what Ron Paul is in large supply – liberal honey.    

As evidenced in Iowa, Ron Paul pulls from the top of the political spectrum.  This may seem odd to hear, however, many now understand there is a false dichotomy afoot when someone tries to paint another as either left or right.  It is why we see Americans leaving the GOP and Democratic parties in droves.  Fundamentally the real dichotomy is authority versus liberty, everything else is retail politics.

Ron Paul is above the fray in this respect pulling and converting ostensibly progressive and conservative independents into his libertarian coalition of sustainable governance.  The most attractive characteristic of Paul’s liberal honey is it’s cheap enough for a conservative, but sweet enough for a liberal. 

Take ending the War on Drugs for instance.  It promotes personal responsibility with respect to treatment and education while simultaneously emancipating billions of taxpayer dollars dedicated to massive incarceration, property seizures and interdiction from the grip of big government.  Legalizing and regulating drugs like alcohol and tobacco as they once were would serve the single biggest blow to drug cartels and inner city gangs sustained by the black market’s inflated prices.  Moreover, the Drug War disproportionally affects minorities whom notoriously side with Democrats.  Ron Paul’s plan fundamentally undermines this entitlement.

            Liberal honey most importantly allows a left leaning voter to swallow some of Ron Paul’s economic medicine some view as austere.  His stance on the Federal Reserve for example is as bipartisan as it gets, over 75% of voters want a full audit of the Fed.  The idea there is a coalition of private banks dictating how much money to print for themselves, leading to trickle down inflation, is appalling to most Americans.  Ron Paul retains nearly exclusive rights to this idea – End The Fed.

            Local governance looms large in our political future too.   The famous liberal idiom “think globally, act locally” is about to be fulfilled and added to the libertarian lexicon – “think globally, govern locally.”  For far too long central planning has concentrated the power of government in Washington D.C. at the expense of our states, counties and townships.  Ron Paul’s efforts to allow the states to decide on abortion, gay marriage and education allowing everyone to more easily vote with their feet by rekindling our 50 democratic laboratories.

            While the anti-war movement was eviscerated after the election of our Peace President Barack Obama, Ron Paul’s plans to close our foreign bases and return our troops home resonates with independents, paleo-conservatives and progressives alike.  Its police state ancillary, the technological and industrial blowback from our militant adventurism, is on Ron Paul’s chopping block too.  Ending the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, fusion centers, and curtailing Top Secret America appeals to social libertarians and liberals alike.

          When it comes to a head to head between Barack Obama and Ron Paul it would be a gas to see a 74 year old man run a hard right on economics all the while luring Obama’s base away from under him with all natural liberal honey.

A Magic Bullet Will be Needed to Kill the 17th Amendment

Paul C. Hansen 
Daily Paul

Image Source: LiveAction.org

  The U.S Constitution "originally" laid out the separation of powers
between the federal government and the State governments in the first paragraph of article 1 section 3. How this paragraph accomplished that goal will become clear later in this article. This paragraph states:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the LEGISLATURE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

Then in Article I, section 4 we also find this:

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the PLACES of chusing Senators."

Those places were to be in the State Legislatures.

This balance of power was then permanently locked in by the last clause of article 5. I call this clause the magic bullet because it can't be stopped by any means that I can see. Article 5 dealing with amendments to the Constitution clearly states:

"... and that NO State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal Suffrage in the Senate."

By including this in the section dealing with amendments, it is obvious that the sections of the Constitution concerning selection of Senators and the suffrage they provided was not amendable unless ALL of States consented and that this was to be a permanent provision. All of the above shows how adamant the founders were about this point by referring to the States representation on no less than 3 occasions.

If even ONE State objected to changes in an area that would affect their suffrage, that change would be invalid. The normal ratification process could not be used to alter this principle. Yet that is exactly what happened when the 17th amendment was adopted.

The father of our Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist 43, further supports this claim. He states that the Constitution was completely amendable with two exceptions only. One of the exceptions dealt with the importation of slaves and became moot after 1808.  The other was the State's equal suffrage in the Senate. 

It appears, then, that this all boils down to definition.  What is the definition of State suffrage? In Federalist 59, Hamilton explains State suffrage as the State legislatures having a voice in the Senate. The 17th amendment effectively canceled that voice and turned it over to the citizens of the States. I submit to you that now, however, this definition has been left entirely to the discretion of the States themselves. The courts have no say in the matter. I will explain this bold statement in detail later. Why do I feel this issue vitally important to restoring States rights? For the same reasons our Founders did, to support the concept of federalism and the balance of power between the States and federal government.

This concept strictly limited the federal governments powers to those specifically enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The People, through the Constitution, permitted the national government to exercise certain enumerated powers. By limiting the federal government's power and granting the States nearly unlimited power, the federal government would merely be protecting the States collectively and allowing the States to handle their own affairs.

Federalism allowed the States wide latitude to run their own affairs and by doing so, created 13 laboratories of freedom to experiment and formulate the best system of self-governance. This situation also created an atmosphere of competition between the States. When a State allowed its inhabitants to prosper and keep what they earn, The State would prosper and be allowed to continue governing its people. When the State government became a burden to them, the people could vote out the tyrants during the next election.  Another alternative was for the businesses and the people to move to a State that was more to their liking.  Business leaving the State would cause the tax base to erode and so would the peoples support of that government. Sooner or later, either the State government or the people would wake up and correct the problem.

The 17th amendment took away the States protection from the abuses of federal power allowing the federal government to get away with legislating in areas where they had no business doing so. This was a grave error seriously upsetting the balance of power so carefully crafted into our magnificent Constitution. The concept of Federalism was all but destroyed leading to endless abuses by the federal government from which there is no escape.

The enforcement mechanism against federal encroachment and the 10th amendment prior to the invalid 17th was the States' representation in the Senate. The "Peoples House" i.e. the House of Representatives amply represents the people, while the States were to be represented by the Senate.

The States now have no representation and we are experiencing the folly of this venture toward pure democracy today. We were founded as a Republic not a democracy and now we see why. All the States needed to do in the past was to recall or direct their Senators before a bad law made it to the floor of the Senate for a vote and the damage could be stopped in its tracks. Hamilton's Federalist essay 59 addresses this issue directly. This power has been unconstitutionally snatched from the States by the invalid 17th amendment.

Careful study of the 17th amendments ratification reveals at least 10 states or more that failed to do so. These were 10 that failed to "consent" FL, MS, DE, KY, UT, MD, RI, AL, IA and GA. The clear manner in which article 5 is written places the statement dealing with States equal suffrage in the Senate after the words: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made..." further showing that this was an exception to the rule regarding amendments.

With the failure those of 10 states to ratify the 17th, they were
denied their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent in
violation of Article 5, thus making the 17th amendment invalid.
However, once any state declares the 17th invalid, based on what
I have pointed out here, that State, even though it had previously
consented to the 17th can withdraw its consent anytime it so chooses.  Any State that previously consented can say "we no longer consent" because Article 5 mentions nary a word about the permanence of any such consent.  The right of the state to withdraw that consent is further fully supported by the clear wording of the 10th amendment:

AMENDMENT X (1791)

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to withdraw that consent is not prohibited by article 5
so the power to withdraw it is reserved and retained by the States. Fits like a glove. All the states need to do is select their Senators in their legislatures and send them to Washington. Simple. And what would the courts say about move such as this? No court can attempt to make the State comply with the 17th because they won't have jurisdiction to try the case. Here's why:

When a sovereign State declares the 17th amendment invalid through an article 5 challenge, the Senate would be unlawfully seated. It would then follow that the Supreme Court is also unlawfully seated as is the entire federal bench because the Senate approves those federal court appointments including the Supreme Court.  Anything decided by those federal courts would be
null and void. The State could simply refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of the court system. The States could argue that the federal judiciary has been confirmed by a Senate that did not have the states best interest at heart. These judges would also have a conflict of interest for which there is no resolution. They would be more reluctant to decide in favor of an article V challenge due to the fact they would be "deciding" themselves off the bench and out of a job.

The only other argument that could be made against the State would be the power of the Senate to be the ultimate judge of their elections and refuse to seat the Senators. However, how can an illegitimate Senate make such a decision? The answer is, they can't.

I have presented these facts in many forums over the years and they have never been successfully challenged. One argument that always seems to arise is this: "Well, all the states do have equal suffrage because they still each have two senators." This invalid argument comes from a lack of full understanding of what "suffrage" really stands for and by a focus on the first term "equal" while ignoring the second, "suffrage." The point of my entire article is that the States (meaning the State Legislatures) are the ones who have lost suffrage. The people of the State now elect Senators and are in possession of that suffrage. The real point is who do these senators now represent? After I make this point, I usually get this: "Well, the people ARE the "State." This is not entirely accurate either. In all instances I can find in the Constitution where it is speaking about the States, it is speaking of the Legislature of the States. The best example I can find that clearly delineates between the two is the last clause of that wonderful 10th Amendment again. That clause clearly lists the "People" and the "States" as two separate entities. If they were the same thing, there would be no need to list them both in the very same sentence.

There are other far-reaching implications of an invalid 17th and I'm
sure that opponents of what's been written here will use them to fight these truths. I will not give them ammunition by detailing what those far reaching implications are. However, I will say this: If we endeavor to rid ourselves of the invalid 17th amendment in the manner outlined above, be prepared for the fight of your lives because there are many entrenched interests that would like nothing more than to never have this information reach the light of day.

There have been many articles written concerning the "repeal" of the 17th amendment. While many of these articles correctly point out the folly of the 17th, they fail to realize that a movement to repeal is nothing more than a pipe dream. The only way to remove the 17th amendment is through outright repudiation using the method I have described above. My next paragraph explains why.

There are 2 methods laid out in Article 5 for amending the
Constitution. One of those methods is through a Convention of the
States. I will not go into details as to why this method should never be used under any circumstances other than to say that if you truly value your freedoms, this method should be avoided at all costs. The other method would be an exercise in futility. To use the method that nearly all the other amendments have used since the 10th would entail having to first convince 67 senators to vote themselves out of a job. Then 290 House members would have to vote for the repeal of an amendment which will make all the laws they want to pass much more difficult to push through the Senate. A senate which as a result of its passage would now be jealously guarding the rights of the States that the House laws frequently trample. If that isn't enough, you need to get 38 state legislatures to vote for repealing an amendment over the objections of the people who would feel like their right to vote was being stolen (a right which never really existed due to an invalid 17th). To educate the masses in 38 separate states that the 17th amendment was a mistake is an insurmountable task. To do it for just one, as would be the case in a move to repudiate it, Maybe. In a repudiation argument, it could be demonstrated to the people that the right to vote for their Senators should have never been theirs in the first place due to the fraudulent manner in which the 17th was adopted.

My first target for a move to repudiate would be done in a State that swings to the right most of the time and where the voters are well informed and leery of the feds. Utah would be my choice since Utah rejected the 17th outright and they have been stung recently by federal land grabs. Please join me in this endeavor to repudiate the 17th and get the concept of federalism firmly back on track.

We must educate ourselves and our posterity in the wonderful documents that founded our great Republic if we are ever to set it back on course toward freedom and prosperity. That is why I'm writing this today. My positions on the 17th amendment are supported by the Constitution of the United States including the 10th amendment and "The Federalist Papers", specifically Madison 43 and Hamilton 59.

Thanks for your attention,

Sincerely,

Paul C. Hanson

Here is a link to where the article permanently resides:

http://www.myspace.com/jimmy_madison/blog/306925433

And here is a link to a supreme court case that actually, as part of the majority opinion, stated that there were 2 exceptions to amending the Constitution and the election of senators was one of them. The case is Dillon V. Gloss. Although the case isn't directly on point, the court did state there were exceptions to the amendment process. Link:

http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/dillon-v-gloss-20019903

Scroll down to sections [Page 256 U.S. 368, 373] and [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374].

Here is the pertinent wording:

"An examination of article 5 discloses that it is intended to invest Congress with a wide range of power in proposing amendments. Passing a provision long since expired,8 it subjects this power to only two restrictions: one that the proposal shall have the approval of two-thirds of both houses, and the other excluding any amendment which will deprive any state, without [Page 256 U.S. 368, 374]

its consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The words "Passing a provision that has long since expired" (and spoken of in footnote 8) refers to sections of the constitution that dealt with the importation of slaves and direct taxes, and since it only held true until 1808, it had "long since expired" But, in the decision itself, it did not apply that year to the restriction on suffrage in the Senate. To the contrary, it said that restriction was still in force.

Again, Thanks for your time and attention

Paul.

Health Care Nullification on Governor’s Desk in North Dakota

The 10th Amendment Center
Michael Boldin
April, 22nd 2011

Nullification in North Dakota? That’s just what could be coming if Governor Jack Dalrymple signs Senate Bill 2309 (SB2309). This week, the bill passed the senate by a vote of 32-15 and the house by a vote of 69-24.

The bill, just one page of legislative language, states:

1. The legislative assembly declares that the federal laws known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Pub. L. 111 - 148] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Pub. L. 111 - 152] likely are not authorized by the United States Constitution and may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.

2. The legislative assembly shall consider enacting any measure necessary to prevent the enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 within this state.

3. No provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 may interfere with an individual’s choice of a medical or insurance provider except as otherwise provided by the laws of this state.

This is a modification of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Federal Health Care Nullification Act – introduced in more than ten states this legislative session. Click here to track progress.


NULLIFIED!

Nullification – any act or series of acts which results in a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable, within a state, is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as “the rightful remedy” to unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

Implied in any nullification legislation is enforcement of the state law. In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Interposition is explicitly stated in SB2309 through its requirement that the legislature to consider measures preventing the Affordable Care Act from being enforced within the state.

SUPREMACY

Opponents, however, claim that the law is “meaningless because state law can’t override federal law.” But, constitutionally-speaking, such a statement is dubious, at best.

All the founders agreed that the federal government would only be able to exercise those powers delegated to it in the constitution. It was clearly represented to the Constitution’s ratifiers that laws made outside those powers were not really laws at all – they were usurpations.

And, more importantly, such a statement is a direct reference to Article VI, the “supremacy clause” of the constitution. But, claiming that state laws cannot override federal law as a blanket statement is flat out wrong. Here’s the full text of the clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [emphasis added]

The key points:

1. For a federal law to be supreme, it must be made in pursuance of a power delegated to the federal government in the constitution. If not, it’s no law at all, and state law is supreme.

2. There is no number two, it’s that straightforward.

Read the rest of Michael Boldin's article with the 10th Amendment Center here.

Confederates in the Attic - Really?

Reason's Crier
by Topher Morrison

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Unlike many people I harbor a guilty pleasure while watching the Rachel Maddow show.  I enjoy the occasional cocktail she concocts if only because I wish I had a show in which I had an excuse to drink and drink well for that matter.  I find extraordinary eloquence in her perlocution, I enjoy her enthusiastic sarcasm and subsequent pause as if she's waiting for a laugh track that never comes.  She has a wonderful knack for talking right passed the debate by supplying her own self-contained argument albeit through abandoning the basic tenants of the opposition, but it is this frequently employed stratagem which allows Maddow to frame such an advantageous position.  There are rarely concessions in her take-no-prisoners approach to any exchange, therefore I find her to be a deft political pundit.

However, once her arguments are integrated with the facts  her self aggrandizing tirades are instantly dealt with as any pathogen would be within a body of truth.  


In Maddow's world:

- Nullification was used to support slavery and thereby claims only a nefarious history e.g. espoused by the likes of John C. Calhoun, vice-president of the Confederacy.


- The "nullification cause inspired a lot of anti-US militancy" ostensibly leading the South to war against the North.


- Nullification advocates "downplay" the Civil War being about slavery.


- "Confederate politics" are in fashion again 150 years after it lost on those ideas. 


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] Submits that confederate ideas moved out of the South during reconstruction and only thereafter the Civil War did it become a part of the national fabric.


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] In regards to the resurgence of these principles we would be "foolish to imagine this is uncorrelated with having an African-American president."


- [Melissa Harris-Perry] Having an African-American president brings up unresolved political baggage i.e. nullification, currencies based on gold/silver, etc. derived from the "confederate mindset."


- Derided are states who are "flexing their tenth amendment muscles, flexing their state sovereignty muscles, flirting with secession..." 


-  [Melissa Harris-Perry] posits that opposition to the recent Health Care Reform is based on an "others" i.e. latino immigrants, African-Americans, etc. anxiety where [white] people are made to believe they are going to be taken advantage of by minorities. 


- Almost out of nowhere Maddow concludes with: "There has never been a moment in US history where we would not have been better off with a bigger vocabulary for talking about class."


In the real world:


- The battle of Fort Sumter, which officially kicked off the Civil War is merely one event in a long chain of crises and confrontations between the North and South of which many rarely centered around the issue of slavery. 


- Abraham Lincoln heralded as the "Great Emancipator" used nullification to justify not returning slaves to the South after escaping to the North.


- Nullification has been used to extricate our states from the costly and futile drug war, however, Maddow's overtly Liberal audience wouldn't see too much red meat in the phrase “These neo-confederates are trying to destroy the union by refusing to comply with the drug war! Beware!!” 


- Nullification has also been used by half the states in the Union and is championed by the ACLU to reject Bush’s 2005 Real ID act.  Again no red meat there.


- While she did mention nullification of new "Food Safety" laws (as if simply pronouncing the contrived title forestalls the debate over its substance) she conveniently omits the fact that the recent "Food Safety and Modernization Act" passed by Congress creates yet another branch of government called the Food Safety Administration (FSA).  Isn't the FDA and USDA charged with the safety of our food and drugs?  Apparently more government is needed. 


- Maddow also avoids the fact that the 10th Amendment Center also advocates nullification of TSA pat downs and body scans which is definitely a sore subject for most Americans.  Maddow served herself well by avoiding that prickly issue, claiming that "Nullifiers want to inhibit the government from sticking their hands down your kids pants and radiating you with unknown amounts of radiation."  Wouldn't garner a whole lot of sympathy for her derisive argument. 


- In a classic Straw Man approach Maddow and Harris-Perry obfuscate the fact that principles of state sovriegnty, sound money, small central government (versus nationalist government), nullification of law, and secession from tyranny are part of our national tradition since the Revolution not merely that of the Confederacy which only thereafter bled into the national fabric.  


- Nullification is just one more weapon in the arsenal of freedom and something which our own jury system is charged with exercising if they deem state or federal laws to be unconstitutional.  Repeated repudiation of a given law by juries nullifies that law - this is constitutional. 


- The slave trade and its institutionalization in the South was deplorable, but to say the Civil War was predominantly focused on this issue is false.  The emancipation proclamation was delivered only well into the civil war, it had a strategic purpose for the North and is evidenced in the fact that over 1/2 a million slaves in Northern border states were not freed because of it until those states passed legislation to that effect.  The civil war was about the enlarging role of central government at the detriment of state government (this included the slave issue adding to the complexity of the debate), tariffs were an issue (what a surprise Americans fighting over taxes), a central banking system, standing armies, etc.  A significant shift from traditional mores was occurring in the 1860s some positive, but most negative in directions thereby leading to the Civil War.


It is in our best interest to emancipate ourselves from our oversimplified vision of American history and reclaim the truth about the Civil War and its legacy in American politics. 


For a southern libertarian view on the South and its secessionists tendencies here is the Southern Avenger.