Two Constitutional Wrongs Don’t Make a Right: Why Conservatives Should Just Say “No” to Nullification

A number of states, including Missouri, Kansas, and Alaska either have passed or are considering state laws intended to invalidate federal statutes, most notably, federal gun laws. Many have modeled their bills on Montana’s “Firearms Freedom Act,” which was recently struck down by a federal appeals court. In so doing, they have drawn upon the political doctrine of nullification, according to which individual states have the right to pass legislation voiding any federal law that they believe to be unconstitutional.

Their inclination to do so is understandable since states are facing an increasingly overbearing federal government seemingly intent on infringing on state prerogatives and on the individual liberties of their citizens; however, this 

The History of Nullification

Historically, nullification has an ignominious lineage. Its chief architect was John C. Calhoun, former Vice President, Secretary of War and State, and U.S. Senator from South Carolina, who used the concept of nullification to defend states’ rights against federal tariffs and, ultimately, challenges to the institution of slavery.

The core premise behind Calhoun’s concept of nullification is that the states were, prior to the framing of the Constitution, independent sovereigns that consented to be bound by federal law only on certain conditions and that they retained enough of that sovereignty to “veto” unconstitutional federal laws. Yet the Constitution contemplates not a league of independent sovereigns but a federated republic. After 1787, the several states were not independent sovereigns in the same sense that Spain or France were independent sovereigns—for instance, they could not wage war, maintain diplomatic relations with foreign nations, or coin their own money. And, in the federated republic that was forged by the Constitution, duly enacted federal laws cannot be vetoed by individual states, even where they appear to encroach upon state prerogatives.

That is why James Madison, in opposing what he considered to be unconstitutional federal laws, did not press for legislation voiding those laws. The Virginia Resolution, which Madison drafted in 1798 in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts, were intended as “a legislative declaration of opinion on a constitutional point.”[1].

Via: Heritage Foundation

Continue Reading....

Republican National Committee alleges voting machine troubles in Nevada, other swing states

Secretary of State Ross Miller called claims of voter machine irregularities in Nevada by the Republican National Committee “irresponsible and unfortunate” on Thursday.

Miller, a Democrat, was responding to a letter sent to his office and election officials in five other states on Thursday in which the RNC alleged voting machines cast ballots for President Barack Obama, a Democrat, when the vote was intended for his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The RNC did not provide documented proof of its allegation aside from media anecdotes.

In Washoe County, a man reported a problem with a voting machine in which he tried to vote for Obama but the machine kept registering a vote for Romney. The machine was recalibrated by election officials.

Miller responded in a letter sent to the RNC on Thursday that said unsubstantiated allegations of voting machine problems based on rumor, media reports and hearsay, “undermine the public’s confidence in the electoral process.”

The RNC letter expressed concerns that the voting machine problems were the result of “miscalibration and hyper-sensitivity of the machines.” Letters were sent to officials in Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado, Kansas and Missouri.

The RNC asked officials to recalibrate voting machines on Election Day and instruct poll workers to remind voters to double-check their votes.

Eric Herzik, the chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, said the RNC needs to “put up or shut up.”

Via: RGJ.com

Continue Reading...

GOP Fighting Back in 'War On Coal'

Congressional Republicans are turning up the heat this week in an effort to head off EPA regulations and stop the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” voting on a package of five bills that would curb EPA regulatory authority and environmental rules.

“Affordable energy is critical for our nation’s economic future,” said Kansas Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, one of the leading critics of President Obama’s coal policies.

“President Obama’s War on Coal means fewer jobs and higher energy costs for Americans. Coal is a critical component to our nation’s energy future, and I am proud to support this legislation that will help preserve this vital energy source for future generations,” Pompeo continued.

The Stop the War on Coal Act of 2012 contains a bundle of provisions which the House has already passed.

One provision prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and restricts planned EPA rules regarding coal ash disposal and management.

The bill also restricts the Interior Department from issuing regulations regarding surface mining operations and limits the EPA’s ability to veto permits issued under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, while also promoting the cooperation between the federal government and the states regarding water pollution controls.

“The heavy-handed regulatory regime championed by this Administration and EPA is strangling the economy, driving up energy prices for consumers, and putting people out of work,” said Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John L. Mica, a Florida Republican who sponsored one of the provisions included in the bill.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading...