Nullification

 

Bill Clinton earned nearly $18 million as an adviser and honorary chancellor for the international for-profit college network Laureate International Universities, between 2010 and 2015.It's reported that between consulting, writing, and speaking fees, Bill Clinton brought in $65.4 million during Hillary Clinton's four years as Secretary of State.

***

Trump is always accused of being under Russian influence but wasn't it the Bidens who got millions from the wife of the Russian mayor?

And wasn't it Biden who threatened Ukraine with canceling a $1 billion aid package if they did not fire a prosecutor pursuing Hunter?

And Musk is characterized as an unelected government influence but who ran the executive during Biden's long period of obvious incompetence? Hunter? And didn't Jill run cabinet meetings?

The Democrats will never escape the Biden legacy.

***

Nullification

The nullification doctrine is the constitutional theory that upholds the right of states to nullify federal acts within their boundaries. Essentially it was an effort to codify the notion of 'States' Rights.'

It had a history. Jefferson asserted that the federal government was the agent of sovereign states with certain specified, delegated powers and the states retained the authority to determine when the federal government exceeded those powers. States--not the courts--could declare acts “void and of no force” within their jurisdictions.

In 1828, tariffs, the so-called Tariffs of Abomination, were passed, designed to protect northern manufacturing, and incidentally negatively impacted southern cotton products. Enter South Carolina.

Vice President John C. Calhoun secretly drafted the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which argued the tariff was unconstitutional. When the tariffs were modified in 1832 but did not have much effect, the legislature of South Carolina called for a special state convention, and on November 24, 1832, the convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification.

The ordinance declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens.” It also forbade the appeal of any ordinance measure to the federal courts and required all state officeholders to take an oath of support for the ordinance. The state said it would not collect the tariffs and threatened secession if the federal government tried to collect tariff duties by force. In the meantime, Calhoun resigned from the vice presidency to speak for his state in the Senate.

President Jackson did not back down and passed the Force Bill, which threatened federal intervention. South Carolina's efforts to rally Southern support failed. Jackson, to preserve the Union, sent Federal troops to Charleston.

With the help of Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, a moderate tariff bill more acceptable to South Carolina was passed on March 1. The South Carolina convention responded on March 15 by rescinding the Ordinance of Nullification but three days later maintained its principles by nullifying the Force Bill.

When South Carolina threatened secession and passed the Ordinance of Nullification it set a precedent for future disputes between the Federal Government and the states. President Jackson’s handling of the Nullification Crisis also led to his political opponents forming the Whig Party. It is part of the answer Larson asks in Demon of Unrest: how could such a poor, backward, tiny, insignificant state have such an impact on U.S. history?

The potential for chaos exists within the federalism/states' rights debate. The founders anticipated this by carefully structuring options for minorities to slow majority enthusiasm and risk of tyranny. So, does the minority need extra help? Does it need the intervention of wild street demonstrators and embittered militias? Or should we rely on the insights of the minority-preoccupied geniuses like Jefferson and Madison who placed their safeguards in the Constitution?

Or, in the words of Lincoln, "...whether in a free government, the minority have the right to break up the government whenever they choose. If we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves."

In this vein, one could ask, what exactly are these people doing creating "sanctuary cities," coteries of people refusing to live by general, national laws? And, more importantly, what motivates these people? Power? Personal agrandizment? The fidelity to some faith-based social concept they hold above civil law like Mormons? 

Or do these people champion the very position Lincoln feared: the incapability of the people to govern themselves? 

Do they mistrust the country and its representative structure so much they must grab the reins?