Bottom Line: Joni Ernst Is a Constitutional Law Scholar
You know we have talked about this at the state legislature before, nullification. But, bottom line is, as U.S. Senator why should we be passing laws that the states are considering nullifying? Bottom line: our legislators at the federal level should not be passing those laws. We’re right…we’ve gone 200-plus years of federal legislators going against the Tenth Amendment’s states’ rights. We are way overstepping bounds as federal legislators. So, bottom line, no we should not be passing laws as federal legislators—as senators or congressman—that the states would even consider nullifying. Bottom line.
— Christine O’Donnell*, er, current Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, Sept. 13, 2013. H/T Paul Waldman, linking to a Daily Beast article by Ben Jacobs.
Personally, I think she’s right. Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island should have total veto power over the portion of the Farm Bill that gives subsidies to wheat, corn and soy bean farmers. And I know that James Madison would agree.
Bottom line: Ernst, unlike O’Donnell, is a witch.
*Corrected link to “Christine O’Donnell Finally Discovers Constitution’s ‘Religious Freedom’ Part,” Gawker, Oct. 19, 2010. 7/29 at 11:06 a.m.
Can we please call this what it is? She is advocating treason. A number of Southern states experimented with this in the middle of the 19th century. It didn’t go well, and lots of Americans died. This is not some silly game. Don’t play with my country. Don’t lie about my country.
“Well, she turned me into a newt!”
No, actually they are not witches.
They are just assholes, living in a country where you can actually survive being assholes.
Two of the founding fathers believed that nullification was constitutional.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolution concerning nullification and the Kentucky state legislature passed it in November 1798.
James Madison wrote the Virginia Resolution concerning nullification and the Virginia state legislature passed it in December 1798.
Both resolutions were made in protest of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
For a discussion of other attempts at nullification:
See especially that In 1832, South Carolina attempted to nullify the Tariff of 1828 and the Tariff of 1832. James Madison seems to have pulled back from nullification then. These tariffs helped the manufacturing north but hurt the south which exported a large quantity of cotton to get cash. Regional differences were increasing in the run up to the Civil War.
But the Civil War ended any possibility of debate on this issue. After that war it was plain that states had only the rights allowed by the US Congress and/or the US Supreme Court.
Therefore if you want to seriously argue states’ rights then the first thing you have to do is amend the constitution to allow them.
“But the Civil War ended any possibility of debate on this issue. After that war it was plain that states had only the rights allowed by the US Congress and/or the US Supreme Court.
“Therefore if you want to seriously argue states’ rights then the first thing you have to do is amend the constitution to allow them.”
Well, that or continue for another two or three years to have five-members of the Supreme Court amend the Constitution all by themselves, in the name of the Constitution’s pre-Civil War “structure”. These folks recognize the Reconstruction Amendments when it’s, say, a white high school senior from an upscale suburb of Houston whose 14th Amendment right to equal protection has been violated by the Texas legislature’s and the University of Texas board of regents’ UT freshman admissions policies. Or by, say, the Wichita, KS-based Koch brothers’ free-speech rights (via the so-called “incorporation” doctrine of the 14th Amendment) as a “constituent” of every state and every congressional district and every state legislative district in every state, to buy favorable legislation. Or by an upstate New York town’s governing board’s right to exercise the town’s freedom-of-religion rights (also through the incorporation doctrine—and a newly established local-governments-are-people-my-friend doctrine) to open board meeting with Christian prayer.
But most definitely NOT the last section of the 15th Amendment—the section that allows Congress to enact legislation to enforce and effectuate the rights of members of racial minorities to actually vote and to have their vote actually matter. Uh-uh. No, Sir. No how. No way. Something about the constitutional “structure” of American government, y’know—which negates Amendments and laws to the extent that the Conservative Movement wants it to.
I try not to think about the US Supreme Court, but with only limited success. When I do think of them, I use the term Nonumvirate to describe them. All the power of the Roman triumvirates, and none of the risks. Emperors extraordinaire.
Our Nonumvirate has the absolute power to interpret the constitution. Nothing in the constitution gave them that power, John Marshall just took it! It should require at least two branches of our government to interpret the constitution. The Nonumvirate could still strike down a law on constitutional grounds but then it would have to get either the Congress or the President to agree.
Now they can issue any nonsensical constitutional ruling they desire and it will become the law of the land until a constitutional amendment is passed. (Or until they reverse.)
I am probably a little more conservative than you but tinkering with anyones right to vote scares me. Our single vote is all the control we have, no one should be denied that right without a lot of due process. ‘Accidentally’ denying someone the right to vote should never be an option.
“Our Nonumvirate has the absolute power to interpret the constitution. Nothing in the constitution gave them that power, John Marshall just took it!”
That sounds familiar and I believe it to b e correct. Maybe Beverly can address that point. And if it is the fact of the matter when will our so called “originalists” start following the letter of the law and forsake the error of Mr. Marshall’s ways?