A crazy, neo-Confederate, or as the GOP calls him: "The Base"
The article could almost be in The Onion. Here's my favorite excerpt:
In 1799, Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions that "nullification ... is the rightful remedy." Jefferson created the doctrine to express his disgust with the Alien and Sedition Acts that were enacted by then-President John Adams during the war with France.
Idaho Republican Sen. Monty Pearce said the then-future president's words underpin nullification advocates' chief contention: States never relinquished final say over federal matters.
"He was at the Constitutional Convention," Pearce said. "He understood how this whole thing was going to be set up."
Actually, Jefferson was far away, in France, as the framers met in 1787 in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation.(italics mine)
You can see here the full range of GOP stupidity on display. The stunning lack of understanding of both constitutional law and history, combined with the pig ignorant certainty that they are right.
First, the Sedition Act was unconstitutional. It made it illegal to criticize government officials in print or speech. It was a clear violation of the First Amendment.
But in 1799, the Supreme Court had not yet acquired for itself the power of judicial review. The question of who had the final say as to whether a law was unconstitutional or not has yet to be decided. Most presidential vetoes up until Andrew Jackson's day were based on constitutional principles, rather than whether a president agreed with a law. James Madison famously vetoed a public works/infrastructure bill that he thought would be a great thing for the country, because he felt it was unconstitutional.
So, Jefferson's assertion in the Kentucky Resolution was just his opinion. When Madison penned the similar Virginia Resolution, it was much less strident. And tellingly, not a single additional state signed on to the idea of nullification. While it is important that their be a final arbiter of the constitutionality of something, having the states decide is not feasible.
Four years later, John Marshall created the power of judicial review in Marbury vs Madison, and fleshed out the idea of federal supremacy in McCulloch vs Maryland. Those two decisions are the underpinning of most constitutional law. In his own way, John Marshall was just as important a founder as Jefferson.
But Marshall doesn't sit well with the reactionary historical illiterates that make up the current GOP.
Here's another gem:
In Alabama, a version of nullification sponsored last year by Republican Sen. Scott Beason passed the Senate, but died in a Democrat-led House committee. He'll resurrect it this year.
"A lot people say, if the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional, you have to live with it. My feeling is, the people should have the final say," Beason told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Frankly, the only recourse people have is for the states to try to flex some sovereignty muscle."
In this one, we see Hofstadter's paranoid style in American politics in full flower. Those "activist" judges shouldn't be allowed to interpret the Constitution, the Murican peeple should. The problem is, as we have seen from Mssrs Pearce and Beason, most Americans know sh** about the Constitution.
Judicial review and the idea of common law precedent extend back BEFORE the founding of this country to England and the creation of representation government and the rule of law. You don't get to nullify a law you don't like.
The people ARE sovereign. But they have also created a constitutional framework to run a large and complicated country. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That has to be, or the whole system, the whole country breaks down.
The story ends with Idaho Republicans brandishing a book written by a neo-Confederate who has urged a second secession movement.
I have written about this before. I guess I will have to keep writing about it.
The "Tea Party" is the conservative wing of the GOP and that's being charitable. They aren't conservative, they are reactionary. And they are fundamentally at odds, ironically, with the Constitution. The document that they all claim to revere and cherish, is actually something they don't really understand at all.
We tried a loose confederation of states, where the states were sovereign and independent, if confederated. It failed. Miserably. They tried a similar confederation scheme in the South from 1860-1865. It proved almost impossible to run, too. That's why they created the Constitution.
But the historical record or even centuries of constitutional law has no bearing on them or their arguments.
They like Jefferson, because of the offhand quip about "the blood of patriots and tyrants" watering the "tree of liberty." Forget that Jefferson was a physical coward for a second, let's also remember that as President, Jefferson bought Louisiana in direct contradiction to his constitutional principles.
He then imposed a devastating embargo that crippled New England and American commerce in general. He did so to keep us out of war, but the constitution had to be stretched in a very Hamiltonian/Marshallesque way to accommodate it.
See, that's the problem with taking Jefferson as your political guidestar; he's too erratic. Good luck keeping up with the various Jeffersons running around the historical record. But that turns out to be OK, since the Tea Party doesn't actually care about the historical record.
But ultimately, the Tea Partiers are really only interested in the fact that there is someone they didn't vote for in the White House. And that makes that person illegitimate and a tyrant. Distorting the history and traditions of this country is but a small price to pay, if you believe Obama to be illegitimate. Or Bill Clinton, for that matter. Race enters into it, but really there are a bunch of people in America who can't stand to lose an election.
The people ARE sovereign. They spoke. They elected the skinny guy from Illinois handily.
That doesn't give anyone the right to secede or nullify anything.
Whether his name is Abraham or Barack, you have to abide by the results of elections.
No comments:
Post a Comment