Steve Palmer

Steve Palmer

35p

43 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

164 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center... - We Already Have a Bala... · 0 replies · +1 points

I'm not quite ready to give up on Harrisburg yet. The Tenth Amendment Center has only been in Pennsylvania for a bit over a year. We're just getting started, so it's not time to throw in the towel just yet...

But, that doesn't let the people of the hook. With or without help from Harrisburg, it still falls to the people. Initiatives like "We Won't Fly" and "Lemonade Freedom Day" and numerous others will continue to be vital. The Whiskey Rebellion is a great example of successful resistance by the people from Pennsylvania's own history (http://pennsylvania.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/the-individual-and-the-tenth/). We all need to learn to stand for Freedom in the same way that those 1790s Pennsylvanians (and other Americans) did.

165 weeks ago @ New Jersey Tenth Amend... - Gene Hoyas Gets It Wro... · 0 replies · +2 points

I'm thinking we need a new name for a logical fallacy. The "time travel fallacy" or the "mind reading fallacy" or something like that. For people who argue that the states can't nullify because they imagine that they already know how the Supreme Court will eventually rule in the dispute.

Of course, your rebuttal is right, and the Supreme Court doesn't get the last word. But even if we imagine that the Supreme Court does get the final word, a state would still have a 50/50 chance of winning when the nullification dispute goes to court. If the state doesn't nullify, they've got a 0% chance of winning. I'd venture to guess that if 50 states all nullified the same Unconstitutional act, the court would take notice and their chance of winning in court would be well over 50/50.

Hoyas seems to think the states should just roll over and mindlessly obey an Unconstitutional action because of the mere possibility that the Supreme Court might eventually rule against them. Definitely a logical fallacy. Even coming from the erroneous perspective that the Supreme Court gets the last word.

166 weeks ago @ Pennsylvania Tenth Ame... - But It Is Personal... · 0 replies · +1 points

Thank you for the feedback Tracilyn, I think you're right. It certainly turned out that way in the conversation I mentioned in the article. I had a hard time getting a word in edge-wise.

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 1 reply · +1 points

I touched on this question briefly in an article back in December. Basically, I think that it's a self-correcting system.
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/12/27/does-nullification-lead-to-anarchy/ -

Similarly, if a small number of states incorrectly nullify a Constitutional power, they are unlikely to be able to maintain resistance over long periods of time. Eventually, the state politicians will change, and the federal government will pounce on the opportunity to eliminate the erroneous nullification.

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 0 replies · +1 points

lol. I'm amazed by the time stamps. Your comment wasn't there when I started typing. Looks like I was proof reading for 55 minutes!

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 2 replies · +1 points

I realize that the folks on this website like to expand the definition of nullification to include all those things. But I think those things are analytically different from legal nullification and it is not helpful to combine them and discuss them as a single concept.


Now that's progress! If you want to use nullification to mean, "legal nullification" elsewhere, please do (although I'd suggest that someone needs to do a better job defining that term 'cause as used by Spalding, it's very confusing), but here on this website, we can feel free to use the definition used by "the folks on this website" (and Jefferson). Under that definition, it now appears that we are in agreement that nullification is a valid recourse for the states when confronted with an unconstitutional federal action. Welcome to the resistance! So let's start talking about "when", not "whether" to use nullification. IMO, a much more useful topic of debate.

BTW, I note that you didn't respond to my earlier comment. If you still want to claim that "legal nullification" somehow violates the Constitution, you have to show us where it is prohibited. Since the Constitution uses black lists (as in article I, section X, for example) to restrict the states' powers, if a power is not explicitly prohibited, then it's not prohibited at all. So where in the Constitution did the states agree that they would not act to prevent the federal government from performing unconstitutional actions?

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 0 replies · +1 points

The edit worked and I saw it in the hotline too. Thank you!

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 2 replies · +1 points

Thanks Michael, but the link got cut off (at least in my browser). Possibly due to the length?

I'm guessing this is where you were pointing me - http://goo.gl/5oX41 -
"From Interposition to Nullification: Peripheries and Center in the Thought of James Madison, (# Recanting ’98), By Kevin Gutzman"?

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 0 replies · +1 points

As I said, Madison's Notes on Nullification, written almost 40 years after the Virginia resolutions, have already been adequately discussed by Woods and others and it's not really the subject of this article.

Anyway, we can toss quotes around in comments all day long and change no one's opinion. Let's try a different test. Elementary logic dictates that if the states are required to comply with unconstitutional federal actions, then that requirement can only be imposed by the Constitution. If the requirement is not in the Constitution, then the requirement doesn't exist. So, please show us where the Constitution requires the states to follow all federal laws and directives, whether Constitutional or not.

(note... Please don't try to retreat to supreme court precedent. It is an obvious fact that the supreme court cannot claim a power for itself that was not first delegated in the Constitution.)

175 weeks ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Heritage Foundation: J... · 11 replies · +1 points

Right, No support at all from Madison, like in the Madison report of 1800, where Madison wrote,

"The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, "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."

"It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated."

AND

It specifies the object of the interposition, which it contemplates to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to the states as parties to the Constitution.


(does "arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation" sound something like "to make nothing" of an unconstitutional federal action?)

You might also recall that Madison and Jefferson were collaborating by mail when they composed the Virginia & Kentucky resolutions, so it's clear that they were not in disagreement at the time.

Anyway, you're changing the topic. Your claims have already been adequately refuted in other Tenth Amendment Center articles and in Tom Woods' book, "Nullification". We don't need to rehash these in comments. If it's your claim that the Northern States should've complied with the Federal Fugitive Slave acts and forcibly returned escaped slaves to captivity instead of nullifying those barbaric laws as they did during the early / mid 1800s, we're not likely to make much progress anyway.

This article wasn't intended to justify nullification. That's already been done. The topic of this article was the puzzling position taken by the Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation supports the Firearms Freedom Act, the Lightbulb Freedom Act, Real ID resistance, Health Care Freedom Acts... things I would consider to constitute nullification, yet they reject nullification by name. The intention of this article was merely to shed light on this curious contradiction.