Idaho, 6 Other States, to “Nullify” ObamaCare

posted at 3:30 pm on January 22, 2011 by Howard Portnoy

Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over the health care overhaul, has announced plans to resort to an obscure 18th century legal remedy that recognizes a state’s right to nullify any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional.

The doctrine, known as nullification, has its roots in the brand of governance practiced by the nation’s founding fathers. It was used as early as 1799 by then-law professor Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in a response to federal laws passed amid an undeclared naval war against France that

nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts … is the rightful remedy.

As a legal theory, nullification is grounded in the assumption that states, and not the U.S. Supreme Court, are the ultimate arbiter in cases where Congress and the president have “run amok.”

In Idaho, use of the doctrine to invalidate the health care reform bill is being championed by both state Sen. Monty Pearce and Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter speech, who recently told Idaho residents, “we are actively exploring all our options — including nullification.” Pearce plans to introduce a nullification bill in the state legislature early next week.

Idaho is not the only state considering nullification as a remedy. Six others, including Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming, are also considering bills that would in essence nullify the president’s signature on the reform law.

Pearce, who has expressed optimism that the law will pass, becoming the law of the land in Idaho, is quoted by FOX as having saud:

There are now 27 states that are in on the lawsuit against Obamacare. What if those 27 states do the same thing we do with nullification? It’s a killer.

One potential fly in the ointment for Idaho and other states considering nullification is the 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision reaffirming that federal laws “shall be the supreme law of the land.” If nothing else, these moves will result in some interesting legal battles

Related Articles

Cross-posted at the Examiner. Follow me on Twitter or join me at Facebook. You can reach me at howard.portnoy@gmail.com or by posting a comment below.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

shazbat, states taking the feds to court is entirely different from nullification.

filing a suit in a federal court means something quite distinct from refusing to follow federal law.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 7:51 PM

What many fail to realize is that nullification is taking place today with things like medical marijuana laws. The states grant all powers to the Federal Govt, and when that Govt gets out of bounds, nullification is one of the few ways the States can fight back.

Plus, does anyone think that the Feds will send in the military to arrest State legislatures who nullify?

27+ States and counting! This is not a trivial matter. Can anyone recall such an action in the past? This thing WILL be found unconstitutional in any regard. And then crr6 can go back to school.

BierManVA on January 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM

I like nullification, but something better than that would be to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to restore selection of senators to the state legislatures. That said, however, doesn’t mean I’m opposed to nullification. We need both.

Woody

woodcdi on January 22, 2011 at 7:53 PM

It is imperative that we re-establish states rights and use any
non-violent means at our disposal to do so…including nullification if necessary.

VBMax

why? so that more easily erected petty tyrannies replace a large government representing many differing interests and regions?

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 7:55 PM

This is a very interesting and informative thread..however I want to remind those of you that are looking at this as an academic exercise…your future depends on how this is all pans out. If the Federal government is not brought to govern within its enumerated powers, we are going to be living in a police state and in very short order. It is imperative that we re-establish states rights and use any
non-violent means at our disposal to do so…including nullification if necessary.

VBMax on January 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Very well stated comrade… Couldn’t agree more.

Keemo on January 22, 2011 at 7:57 PM

The states can do nothing about it if they find these rulings to be unconstitutional because 9 5 people in black robes who are accountable to no one says so? Sorry. The founding fathers didn’t set up the system that way.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Mizflam98, I think that I fixed that for you :)

rgranger on January 22, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Spell cheq, anyone?

leftnomore on January 22, 2011 at 7:59 PM

From a prior part on the NC nullification and Jackson’s view on it:

In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation, for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union, is found an article which declares that “every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress on all questions which by that Confederation should be submitted to them.”

Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution, but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The Government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.

But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it.

The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is “to form a more perfect Union.” Now, is it possible that, even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived that an Instrument made for the purpose of “forming; a more perfect Union” than that of the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that confederation a form of government, dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man, of plain, unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it.

I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

Nullification rightly belongs to the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and by changing the mode of government there is also changed the formulation of entity that is brought into being. Under the weak federal system of the Confederation, nullification would be something that could be viewed as valid; under the Constitution the way to void out federal power for the States starts in the Senate…

One of the problems with Amendment XVII is that it removed the appointment of Senators to the Senate by the Statehouses so that the States, as entities, could have a say in the federal government directly. That is a vital check that is not addressed by Jackson as the issue of federal taxation is a part of the House of Representatives, but the House is seen as a vital part of the check on taxation power. Similarly the Senate is part of the States ability to be represented so as to ensure that their voices are heard. The States are the ones who are signatories to the Constitution as representatives of the people in the States: to bring the US together they must have the collective sovereignty vested in them to do this work. Without that part functional, at this point in time, that remedy is no longer available in the Senate.

That then brings the other notable piece by Jackson into play in the Veto of the National Bank:

If Congress possessed the power to establish one bank, they had power to establish more than one if in their opinion two or more banks had been “necessary” to facilitate the execution of the powers delegated to them in the Constitution. If they possessed the power to establish a second bank, it was a power derived from the Constitution to be exercised from time to time, and at any time when the interests of the country or the emergencies of the Government might make it expedient. It was possessed by one Congress as well as another, and by all Congresses alike, and alike at every session. But the Congress of 1816 have taken it away from their successors for twenty years, and the Congress of 1832 proposes to abolish it for fifteen years more. It can not be “necessary” or “proper” for Congress to barter away or divest themselves of any of the powers-vested in them by the Constitution to be exercised for the public good. It is not ” necessary ” to the efficiency of the bank, nor is it “proper” in relation to themselves and their successors. They may properly use the discretion vested in them, but they may not limit the discretion of their successors. This restriction on themselves and grant of a monopoly to the bank is therefore unconstitutional.

In another point of view this provision is a palpable attempt to amend the Constitution by an act of legislation. The Constitution declares that “the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever” over the District of Columbia. Its constitutional power, therefore, to establish banks in the District of Columbia and increase their capital at will is unlimited and uncontrollable by any other power than that which gave authority to the Constitution. Yet this act declares that Congress shall not increase the capital of existing banks, nor create other banks with capitals exceeding in the whole $6,000,000. The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation over this District “in all cases whatsoever,” and this act declares they shall not. Which is the supreme law of the land? This provision can not be “necessary” or “proper” or constitutional unless the absurdity be admitted that whenever it be “necessary and proper ” in the opinion of Congress they have a right to barter away one portion of the powers vested in them by the Constitution as a means of executing the rest.

On two subjects only does the Constitution recognize in Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges or monopolies. It declares that “Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” Out of this express delegation of power have grown our laws of patents and copyrights. As the Constitution expressly delegates to Congress the power to grant exclusive privileges in these cases as the means of executing the substantive power ” to promote the progress of science and useful arts,” it is consistent with the fair rules of construction to conclude that such a power was not intended to be granted as a means of accomplishing any other end. On every other subject which comes within the scope of Congressional power there is an ever-living discretion in the use of proper means, which can not be restricted or abolished without an amendment of the Constitution. Every act of Congress, therefore, which attempts by grants of monopolies or sale of exclusive privileges for a limited time, or a time without limit, to restrict or extinguish its own discretion in the choice of means to execute its delegated powers is equivalent to a legislative amendment of the Constitution, and palpably unconstitutional.

The question of the federal government imposing a singular system mandated by the federal government upon the States is one of the utilization of federal power without limits. In attempting to ‘regularize’ markets the federal government imposes its power upon markets and while making them a unity it also removes diversity via the mandates imposed within that system. Mandates are those things that must be done without recompense: they are orders, not requests. And yet the States have a guarantee of the ability to utilize their position for the people so as to ensure that the federal government does not impose solutions far beyond the few areas it is granted limited powers. To this day we still have not heard from the commerce clause twisters what is the practical limits of the commerce clause if it allows the government to tell you what to buy and sellers what to sell to you.

Later the question of taxation with banking strikes parallels with health care:

Upon the formation of the Constitution the States guarded their taxing power with peculiar jealousy. They surrendered it only as it regards imports and exports. In relation to every other object within their jurisdiction, whether persons, property, business, or professions, it was secured in as ample a manner as it was before possessed. All persons, though United States officers, are liable to a poll tax by the States within which they reside. The lands of the United States are liable to the usual land tax, except in the new States, from whom agreements that they will not tax unsold lands are exacted when they are admitted into the Union. Horses, wagons, any beasts or vehicles, tools, or property belonging to private citizens, though employed in the service of the United States, are subject to State taxation. Every private business, whether carried on by an officer of the General Government or not, whether it be mixed with public concerns or not, even if it be carried on by the Government of the United States itself, separately or in partnership, falls within the scope of the taxing power of the State. Nothing comes more fully within it than banks and the business of banking, by whomsoever instituted and carried on. Over this whole subject-matter it is just as absolute, unlimited, and uncontrollable as if the Constitution had never been adopted, because in the formation of that instrument it was reserved without qualification.

Note that the States reserve to themselves the majority taxing power and granted the federal government limited ability to tax… which has been unwisely expanded in our modern era… so where is the ability to tell the people and the States what to do in the realm of health care? Why was that not explicitly granted to the federal government? If it is a ‘right’ then it would have been seen as one at the Framing… yet there it is absent. What is present are Amendments IX and X reserving all rights and power not delegated to the federal government for the States and the people, respectively.

Again what is the practical limit of the commerce clause when viewed via the lens of history? This modern and expansive view was not the one created or put down by the Framers. Indeed the ability of the National Bank to purchase lands is cited by Jackson as running afoul of the Constitution in which any government created entity must ask, per property, of the respective State if it will relinquish the use of that property to the federal government. Yet now, with ‘bailouts’ the government becomes a stakeholder in businesses that have real property in the States… where did that power come from when it has an explicit outline within the Constitution that is strict and limiting? I am unaware of the federal government asking the States if it may have any say, whatsoever, in each and every dealership and each and every factory for GM and Chrysler. Ditto the banks that have been bailed out.

These two issues are not unrelated as they fall under the Constitution and yet only one of them, healthcare, has been examined because of the purchase and seller requirements via mandate… the other has flown under the radar and yet is just as much a palpable threat to the States who have sovereignty over their own land. Now the federal government can decide to tell you what to do with your body, and yet that must be the ultimate in ownership, no? If you do not have the right nor liberty to lead a civil life and decide your own path for health care, then what is the limit of what the federal government can and cannot do?

They now invest in companies to run them, contrary to what the States signed up to.

They now tell citizens what they must buy and what sellers must sell, which is contrary to what the States signed up to.

Where is the guarantee of liberty in this system? Is the federal government going to do it all? But then that one has been examined, also:

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law; but when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society-the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their Government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.

Nor is our Government to be maintained or our Union preserved by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our General Government strong we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves-in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the center, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper orbit.

Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy.

Would that our federal government keep to its proper orbit.

By not doing so it disturbs the States and the people.

And weakens the concept of federalism, which brings forth the question of nullification because of the reach of the federal government.

ajacksonian on January 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Plus, does anyone think that the Feds will send in the military to arrest State legislatures who nullify?

I believe that presidents in the 50s and 60s called upon the national guard to enforce the law when racist state governments insisted that they never would end segregation. the legislatures needed be arrested, they will just be ignored and made to feel foolish in consequence of their folly.

This thing WILL be found unconstitutional in any regard.
BierManVA

in may, in whole or in part be found to violate the Constitution in some regard. that will occur in federal court and the legislation likely will stand after being amended.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM

We, as conservatives, need to be super-credible and above reproach on ObamaCare. That means we fight for its repeal in Congress and to have its core provisions declared unconstitutional in the courts.

Outlander on January 22, 2011 at 3:44 PM

You know, I actually almost like the nullity better if it’s realistically possible (which I don’t have enough info on the process to make a valid judgment).

It fights not only the symptom of the problem, but also the root – usurpation of states’ rights by the feds. A GIGANTIC foundational issue making our country more and more polarized is the spreading of a “one size fits all” federal gov’t trying to make laws that both Iowa and New York agree with. Not gonna happen – either the Iowa conservatives will love it and New York lefties will hate it or vice versa. Our gov’t was set up to allow for states to have individual personalities, and the more that is lost, the more resentment builds in the country. This addresses that.

If Massachusetts wants a disastrous Health Care law, be my guest. Texas can come up with something sane and I can chose which state to live in. Obamacare is just the latest symptom of the disease of an overreaching federal gov’t. I prefer an approach that treats both the symptom and the disease. If you have cancer, an aspirin may take away the pain it’s giving you, but you’re still slowly dying.

We focus too much on the short game on the Right – and it shows in how the left has been slowly marching forward with their agenda the last 100 yrs. Voting for another squish ‘just to get Obama out of office’, running from a candidate who is ‘unelectable’ because of false media attacks, and fighting specific overreaching legislation while being silent regarding its infringement on states’ rights might win a battle or two – but such strategy not only keeps our most important core values from advancing, but gives tacit approval to the false lefty worldview.

It reinforces that beltway Repubs don’t have to listen to the conservative base because we will vote for whomever they give us, that the media actually CAN choose our candidates if they are nasty enough and that the feds can stomp on states rights, as long as we can’t dispute anything in the bad law itself apart from it’s conflict with states’ rights. Actions speak louder than words, people.

When will we learn….?

miConsevative on January 22, 2011 at 8:10 PM

ajacksonian on January 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Awesome, and will take some time to digest such a vast amount of information.. Thanks for spending the time and sharing this work with us.

Keemo on January 22, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Mizflam98, I think that I fixed that for you :)

rgranger on January 22, 2011 at 7:57 PM

I guess the other 4 are accountable to Soros, eh?

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM

ajacksonian on January 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Those are excellent quotes from President Jackson. However, there still is no case for nullification in there, as far as I can see. In fact, just the opposite.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Ooohh… so this is how liberals can sleep at night.

So, under this same logic, a Democrat/liberal president freed the slaves.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 8:24 PM

I guess you missed it, but there was a huge political realignment in the 1960′s and 70′s where Southern (largely white) conservatives switched to the Republican party and Northern liberals switched to the Democratic party. That’s why people like you are Republicans now, even though you probably have would been a Democrat had you been born 50-60 years ago.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Pray tell what was that vague political realignment and what triggered it?

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Pray tell what was that vague political realignment and what triggered it?

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Are you really this thick? You do know that the South used to be solidly Democratic, and the North solidly Republican, right?

The realignment had a few separate causes, but the main one was that the Democratic party power began to court minorities by supporting civil rights measures, while the Repubs courted disaffected white voters in the South (by using the “Southern Strategy”). As a result, the party’s constituencies basically switched during the 1960′s and 70′s.

In all seriousness….did you really not know all of that? You really should get outside the friendly confines of HA from time to time…

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Those are excellent quotes from President Jackson. However, there still is no case for nullification in there, as far as I can see. In fact, just the opposite.

AshleyTKing on January 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Jackson would be tried for crimes against humanity today for what he did to the indigenous people of the south.

darwin-t on January 22, 2011 at 8:52 PM

The realignment had a few separate causes, but the main one was that the Democratic party power began to court minorities by supporting civil rights measures, while the Repubs courted disaffected white voters in the South (by using the “Southern Strategy”). As a result, the party’s constituencies basically switched during the 1960′s and 70′s.

In all seriousness….did you really not know all of that? You really should get outside the friendly confines of HA from time to time…

If the Democratic party was so aligned with Civil rights, pray tell was it REPUBLICANS that voted for all the critical measures and not your vaunted “civil” rights democrats?

Noelie on January 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM

quoted by FOX as having saud:

Slip of the tongue?

Friendly21 on January 22, 2011 at 8:57 PM

If the Democratic party was so aligned with Civil rights, pray tell was it REPUBLICANS that voted for all the critical measures and not your vaunted “civil” rights democrats?

Noelie on January 22, 2011 at 8:53 PM

Because the realignment had just started, really. Racist Southern Democrats began to defect to the Republican party en masse soon after the passage of the CRA.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Note that even when the CRA of 1964 was passed, Southern Republicans opposed it and Northern Dems supported it…

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Maybe this has already been mentioned.
Seems to me though, that many cities are nullifying state law by providing safe sanctuary to illegals. Could it also be argued that the Federal government is nullifying Federal laws as well? They refuse to enforce immigration laws and sue states who do.
So, the case could be made that states are following the Federal governments lead by be refusing to enforce immigration laws, they can now also refuse to enforce other laws.

JellyToast on January 22, 2011 at 9:10 PM

The realignment had a few separate causes, but the main one was that the Democratic party power began to court minorities by supporting civil rights measures, while the Repubs courted disaffected white voters in the South (by using the “Southern Strategy”). As a result, the party’s constituencies basically switched during the 1960′s and 70′s.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM

ahaha.. what a complete load. Do you really expect people to believe that.. WHOAAOA!! A WIKIPEDIA LINK!!!

My apologies… I defer to your obvious expertise on this subject.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Idaho is one of the most Republican states in the country, so to see them try this is not surprising. I hope they succeed.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/idaho-considers-plan-to-nullify-obama-s-health-care-law

jdawg on January 22, 2011 at 9:16 PM

ahaha.. what a complete load. Do you really expect people to believe that.. WHOAAOA!! A WIKIPEDIA LINK!!!

My apologies… I defer to your obvious expertise on this subject.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:14 PM

I’ll remember that bit of dumbf*ckery the next time a right-leaning person here tries to use Wiki to back up an argument. Shouldn’t have to wait too long…

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM

I’ll remember that bit of dumbf*ckery the next time a right-leaning person here tries to use Wiki to back up an argument. Shouldn’t have to wait too long…

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM

Hey, knock yourself out there, butt-plug.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Seriously, I don’t care what poll Dingy Harry or any of these other leftspaz tools wants to trot out. When you get multiple states calling BS like this…guess what???

THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT IT!!!

BigWyo on January 22, 2011 at 9:41 PM

The realignment had a few separate causes, but the main one was that the Democratic party power began to court minorities by supporting civil rights measures, while the Repubs courted disaffected white voters in the South (by using the “Southern Strategy”). As a result, the party’s constituencies basically switched during the 1960′s and 70′s.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM

Seriously, did you even read that article from Wikipedia? Who was it written by, Paul Krugman?

It alleges that Reagan’s and GHW Bush’s winning Presidential strategies were based on this. It’s strongest evidence of this is the “Willie Horton” ad used during Bush’s run against Dukakis (hah!)

It’s basically a parroting of the ole’ Republican-policies-are-racist strategy used by progressives for the past 30+ years.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:43 PM

Seriously, I don’t care what poll Dingy Harry or any of these other leftspaz tools wants to trot out. When you get multiple states calling BS like this…guess what???

THE PEOPLE DON’T WANT IT!!!

BigWyo

you sure that it’s not just the MSM telling them not to want it?
the MSM is, like, totally controlled by the forces of reaction and the Big Money Boys.

everybody on Hot Air knows that when the majority of the US thinks differently than they do, it’s because the MSM lies,lies, lies.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Hey, knock yourself out there, butt-plug.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Knock yourself out, Popeye wannabe.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM

everybody on Hot Air knows that when the majority of the US thinks differently than they do, it’s because the MSM lies,lies, lies.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Or because Soros is paying everyone to disagree…or something…

If there’s one constant among “both sides of the aisle”, it’s the utter inability to come to grips with the idea that they aren’t the uncontested majority on something. Much less when the sane world has left them in the dust while they’re ranting in the wilderness…(ie; “bush stole the elections!”)

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:49 PM

If there’s one constant among “both sides of the aisle”, it’s the utter inability to come to grips with the idea that they aren’t the uncontested majority on something. Much less when the sane world has left them in the dust while they’re ranting
Dark-Star

YES.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM

Knock yourself out, Popeye wannabe.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:46 PM

Army of Darkness reference, actually (and, by proxy, Three Stooges).

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Army of Darkness reference, actually (and, by proxy, Three Stooges).

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 9:58 PM

My bad then, I’m a Stooges fan but I completely missed the reference.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 10:00 PM

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 9:49 PM

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 9:54 PM

You both are wandering in the wilderness happily whistling show tunes without the vaguest idea of what’s going on.

Congrats.

darwin on January 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

There is no doubt that, up until Congress ran amok, the regulation of Health Insurance rested in the states. Suddenly, here comes Congress and says they’re going to do it. Perhaps there is hope using nullification, there will be some interesting arguments, at least.

bflat879 on January 22, 2011 at 10:02 PM

darwin
don’t know too many show tunes and don’t whistle.

go fish!

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Sorry, this was already tried once during the nineteenth century. It’s unconstitutional. Madison even talked about how nullifying federal law was not a fair basis for the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.

Nullification is essentially anarchy. There’s no point in having a federal government if a state can just choose to nullify the laws it passes. As much as we’d like to do it, just imagine the chaos it would have caused as liberal states tried to nullify the various laws passed by Bush.

cpaulus on January 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM

Nullification is essentially anarchy. There’s no point in having a federal government if a state can just choose to nullify the laws it passes. As much as we’d like to do it, just imagine the chaos it would have caused as liberal states tried to nullify the various laws passed by Bush.

cpaulus on January 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM

There’s no point in having a union if the federal government simply imposes its will on the states.

It’s not anarchy either. Anarchy is a total absence of government, this is simply a declaration that the state will not recognize or abide by the law. It would be the last recourse should all other avenues fail.

darwin on January 22, 2011 at 10:10 PM

ajacksonian on January 22, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Outstanding post as usual!

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM

There’s a constant example of nullification done at the local level. It’s done by refusing to enforce immigration law and creating “sanctuary cities.” So please don’t say that it hasn’t been used successfully since the civil war.

Of course, this example is a case where the federal government refuses to enforce their own law. But the act is still the same.

njrob on January 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Of course, this example is a case where the federal government refuses to enforce their own law. But the act is still the same.

njrob

of course, of course.

lax enforcement, desuetude, nullification all one and the same.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Are you really this thick? You do know that the South used to be solidly Democratic, and the North solidly Republican, right?

The realignment had a few separate causes, but the main one was that the Democratic party power began to court minorities by supporting civil rights measures, while the Repubs courted disaffected white voters in the South (by using the “Southern Strategy”). As a result, the party’s constituencies basically switched during the 1960′s and 70′s.

In all seriousness….did you really not know all of that? You really should get outside the friendly confines of HA from time to time…

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 8:46 PM

You’re so cute. Allow me to inform you on what I know about this. I’m sorry it took so long to get back to you. I just got off the phone with my sister.

The south was Democrat, yes. But it was the blacks that were Republicans in the south. It was generally mixed Democrat/ Republican up north. This split in the south happened during reconstruction mainly because the freed slaves looked at the Party of Lincoln as their saviors. The Southern Democrats at that time started up the KKK to keep the uppity blacks in line. This makeup more or less stayed that way until the FDR’s presidency.

Eleanore Roosevelt started catering to blacks to convince them to vote Democrat. At first the black leaders didn’t go for it, but with enough incentives and government programs, Roosevelt started to convince some blacks to vote Democrat. Also the fact that the Republicans didn’t bother to cater to blacks with government programs also did them in. Some blacks were convinced that they paid their debt to Lincoln. Unfortunately there still weren’t enough blacks voting Democrat to make a huge difference. Far too many of them were still voting Republican.

Lets fast forward to the 50′s. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was put forward under Ike but it was so weakened by the Democrats that it was nearly useless. Guess who set it up to become a weakened bill… Senate Majority Leader LBJ.

Now, end of the 50′s and beginning of the 60′s Stalin was putting out the word to the reds in the US to join in the civil rights movement. The reason was to stir up trouble with the US by taking a civil rights stance against America. Stalin felt that the US had no standing in judging the treatment of the Soviet people when America practiced segregation. So, that’s what many of the reds did. The same reds that joined the Democrat party and in the 40′s so they can dodge the “red scare”. So, I guess you can say that you’re right and during the 60′s there was a political shift. But that is only because the reds were infiltrating the civil rights arena and convincing more blacks to join the Democrat party… a party that became a bit more pink since Truman’s day.

Kennedy really didn’t care much about the civil rights act, but LBJ (remember him?) knew that he would gain a whole lot of new voters if he passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He said, “We’ll have the n*g*er vote for the next 100 years.” and he was right about that.
So you see, I did my homework instead of relying on the recycled propaganda you keep spewing.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Because the realignment had just started, really. Racist Southern Democrats began to defect to the Republican party en masse soon after the passage of the CRA.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Well, what do ya know. It was Sen. Robert Byrd who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He stayed a Democrat till his dying day.

Also the vote statistics are quite fascinating. Majority of Republicans both in the north and the south voted FOR the civil rights act.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

of course, of course.

lax enforcement, desuetude, nullification all one and the same.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

I have lived in grown up in cities (NYC) and states (NJ) that refuse to enforce federal law. They do that each time they arrest an illegal alien and then let them go without handing them off to federal authorities for deportation. Please don’t try and change the words I used from ‘refuses to enforce’ to ‘lax enforcement.’

njrob on January 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM

If the Federal government is not brought to govern within its enumerated powers, we are going to be living in a police state and in very short order. It is imperative that we re-establish states rights and use any
non-violent means at our disposal to do so…including nullification if necessary.

VBMax on January 22, 2011 at 7:49 PM

This! With careerists from both parties seeking only to line their pockets and buy off the voters to maintain their perks of office and the far left liberal presstitutes propagandizing for every leftwing liberal proven failure of a policy and position we are dangerously close to becoming a bankrupt nation unable to pay even the interest on our debts unless the peoples assets are confiscated!
This brings us dangerously close to a call to arms and a for real Tea Party, but this time throwing the corruptocrats in the Potomac!

dhunter on January 22, 2011 at 11:02 PM

You both are wandering in the wilderness happily whistling show tunes without the vaguest idea of what’s going on.

Congrats.

darwin on January 22, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Here’s a free clue: you can comment on how much others understand when you actually have the remotest idea yourself. Until then, stick to something more your level, like tiddlywinks.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 11:03 PM

njrob on January 22, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Should begin with “I have lived and grown up in…”

Preview is my friend.

njrob on January 22, 2011 at 11:04 PM

njrob

the enforcement of immigration law is the task of which municipal agency that is an arm of the federal government?

Of course, this example is a case where the federal government refuses to enforce their own law.

was this not what you said?

You’re confusing me and I am a grown-up!

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM

Most interesting and enjoyable thread, thanks to fabulous posts by mizflame, txmom, dhunter, darwin, VBMax and I’m sure a few other red hot posters that I’ve missed!

Yes, I say. Nullify, amend the Constitution, litigate and more power to the states! Proceed soberfully, artfully and with due skill, concurrently with all of the above, and may the first horse over the finish line be celebrated with laurel and in legend. It’s time to take our country back.

Thanks again for the great thread, guys (and gals)!

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

lax enforcement, desuetude, nullification all one and the same.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 10:36 PM

Not quite. Nullification is deliberate refusal of enforcement. It amounts to “I don’t want to and you can’t make me!”

Parents hear equivalent sentiments every day the world ’round. Unfortunately, this kind of rebellion can’t be solved anywhere as easily.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 11:11 PM

Because the realignment had just started, really. Racist Southern Democrats began to defect to the Republican party en masse soon after the passage of the CRA.

crr6 on January 22, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Well, what do ya know. It was Sen. Robert Byrd who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He stayed a Democrat till his dying day.

Also the vote statistics are quite fascinating. Majority of Republicans both in the north and the south voted FOR the civil rights act.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 10:55 PM

That caught my eye too. Why would racist democrats join, “en masse”, a Republican party that was historically, and at the time of the CRA passage, opposed to everything these very same racist democrats stood for?

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:09 PM

Thank you. It’s really cool to have an intense thread with minimum name-calling.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Why would racist democrats join, “en masse”, a Republican party that was historically, and at the time of the CRA passage, opposed to everything these very same racist democrats stood for?

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Two-party syndrome: “We’re getting screwed over here, let’s go over there! Yeah!”…promptly forgetting that ‘over there’ is a party that disagrees with them on about everything from A to Z.

There was a third party, the ‘Dixiecrats’, that got tried. But it was a one-trick pony and when that trick failed they pretty much disintegrated.

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Dark-Star

I was not at all being serious with that comment.

Nullification is not just deliberate refusal of enforcement but also a claim of superior authority.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I was not at all being serious with that comment.

Nullification is not just deliberate refusal of enforcement but also a claim of superior authority.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:27 PM

Prolly the lack of any facts presented in your arguments that threw him.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 11:32 PM

Dark-Star on January 22, 2011 at 11:24 PM

I understand your point, but I fail to see an historical affirmation of crr6′s “en masse” defection of racist democrats to the Republican party. I think the dems have historically proven themselves to be, and still are, racist in policy and racists found a home then and do now with the dems. Any dems who decamped to the R’s did so because perhaps they no longer wanted to be part of what became a party of commies and sleazes. That was the story with my parents, anyway, post JFK.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Thank you. It’s really cool to have an intense thread with minimum name-calling.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM

AMEN!

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:39 PM

they no longer wanted to be part of what became a party of commies and sleazes. That was the story with my parents, anyway, post JFK.

tigerlily

your poor folks run into some real bad luck.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

I understand your point, but I fail to see an historical affirmation of crr6′s “en masse” defection of racist democrats to the Republican party.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

That’s because it never happened. The dixiecrats remained loyal to the Democratic party.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM

they no longer wanted to be part of what became a party of commies and sleazes. That was the story with my parents, anyway, post JFK.

tigerlily
your poor folks run into some real bad luck.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM

clarify.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM

That’s because it never happened. The dixiecrats remained loyal to the Democratic party.

spinach.chin on January 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Yes they did. I was hoping to get crr6 to question his/her reasoning and or sources…no biggie.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:53 PM

That’s because it never happened. The dixiecrats remained loyal to the Democratic party.

spinach.chin

Oh, it surely happened, spich.

Strom Thurmond was a notable example of a very large shift that happened in response to the civil rights stance of Kennedy and Johnson.

There was a bunch of stuff written about it at the time and even afterward.

You could look it up.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM

they no longer wanted to be part of what became a party of commies and sleazes. That was the story with my parents, anyway, post JFK.

tigerlily
your poor folks run into some real bad luck.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM
clarify.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM

again. clarify.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Oh, it surely happened, spich.

Nope, sorry.

Strom Thurmond was a notable example of a very large shift that happened in response to the civil rights stance of Kennedy and Johnson.

Likely example. Can you come up with evidence of mass defections of dixiecrats to the GOP?

Nope.

There was a bunch of stuff written about it at the time and even afterward.

You could look it up.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:57 PM

I could, but there’s lots of other stuff I’d rather do.

Fact remains, a greater percentage of GOP lawmakers voted for the Civil Rights Act than Dems that voted for it. As has been said, why would dixiecrats migrate to a less-racist party.

Don’t make sense, champ.

As I said earlier, this is one of those bedtime tales that lib parents tell their lib kids so that they can sleep at night without the crushing moral responsibility of how their ilk have destroyed the Black American family (to name one thing).

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM

no longer wanted to be part of what became a party of commies and sleazes. That was the story with my parents, anyway, post JFK.

tigerlily
your poor folks run into some real bad luck.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 11:41 PM
clarify.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:52 PM
again. clarify.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:59 PM

Hiding under your bridge won’t help. You seem to think that people here at HA are stupid and don’t see you for what you are. The fact that posters have literally run circles around you on this thread should disabuse you of that ridiculous fantasy. Intelligent as the vast majority are, they’ll have no problem seeing that you are not just a troll, but one who attempts to lamely insult a commenter’s parents, for reasons only a two-year old mind could justify. I have seen many trolls insult commenters, but I have never seen one insult a commenter’s family. You have taken the prize, but then you don’t need to take it, because you carry it with you, always. You’ll find it in your diaper, widdle baby.

tigerlily on January 23, 2011 at 12:15 AM

Can you come up with evidence of mass defections of dixiecrats to the GOP?

‘The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 presidential election when the electoral votes of every former Confederate state except Texas went to either Republican Richard Nixon or independent Wallace.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court is the body that decides Constitutional issues on whether laws are legitimate.
HeroesforGhosts on January 22, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Therein lies the problem….one branch of government deciding IT is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. That was never the purpose of the federal government.

csdeven on January 23, 2011 at 12:26 AM

The civil war settled the question of nullification.

Oops. I guess it didn’t!

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 23, 2011 at 12:27 AM

There’s a constant example of nullification done at the local level. It’s done by refusing to enforce immigration law and creating “sanctuary cities.” So please don’t say that it hasn’t been used successfully since the civil war….

njrob on January 22, 2011 at 10:32 PM

The declaration of sanctuaries where illegals are shielded from federal law is an interesting contrast. Instead of labeling this as nullification, perhaps states can simply assert that they are declaring themselves “sanctuaries from Obamacare.”

This fight will be won through spin and presentation as much as in the courts.

slickwillie2001 on January 23, 2011 at 12:28 AM

tigerlily,

tke a breath. I didn’t insult your parents by pointing out that the sleazy racists of the southern states left the Democratic Party right at the same time that you said your parents left it.

If they, as you said, left to get away from sleaze, that didn’t work because the sleaze left with them.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:28 AM

Therein lies the problem….one branch of government deciding IT is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional. That was never the purpose of the federal government.

csdeven

that wasn’t the purpose of the federal government. it’s a function that’s a part of the design of it.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM

The states are enjoined from any action that is not in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions.

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

The Constitution doesn’t limit the states. It limits the federal government. That is your first clue that the states are sovereign. Continue reading the Constitution and more evidence of the original intent will be clear.

csdeven on January 23, 2011 at 12:36 AM

That was never the purpose of the federal government.
csdeven

that wasn’t the purpose of the federal government. it’s a function that’s a part of the design of it.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:34 AM

Uh yeah, exactly what I said captain obvious.

csdeven on January 23, 2011 at 12:39 AM

The Constitution doesn’t limit the states. It limits the federal government. That is your first clue that the states are sovereign. Continue reading the Constitution and more evidence of the original intent will be clear.

csdeven

drivelous. read the tenth amendment if nothing else.
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:40 AM

‘The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 presidential election when the electoral votes of every former Confederate state except Texas went to either Republican Richard Nixon or independent Wallace.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:25 AM

Wait… what party was Wallace a part of? Oh yeah… he was a lifelong Democrat, so it’s convenient for the wizards at Wikipedia to lump Nixon with Wallace in trying to claim the Dixiecrats fled the Dems.

I can see why you avoid presenting facts in your arguments, because you suck at it, champ.

Got anything else?

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 12:08 AM

When you ask libs for evidence of the mythical mass shift from Republican to democratic, they always come up with Strom Thurmond as an example. Ask them for a second example and they generally change the subject. Hummina-hummina.

There were a couple of others, a nobody House member, a couple of city mayors, a state legislative member here and there, perhaps a city garbage commissioner or two, but there was no mass defection. It’s all liberal propaganda and over the years it has grown into a ridiculous fable.

slickwillie2001 on January 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM

Nullification is unconstitutional.

Bit of a non sequitur, isn’t it? The Constitution doesn’t really address either secession or nullification, but the simple fact that the states keep their sovereignty except where power is specifically ceded to the federal government — as the 10th Amendment makes very clear — strongly implies that they have the right to refuse to honor laws which they consider to violate the Constitution they agreed to all those years ago.

States do still have rights under the Constitution. Unless the Constitution specifically overrides those rights, the rights are reserved to the states, not to the federal government.

In practice, I think the theory of nullification falls under “Rights reserved to the states.” Which makes it just one more of the checks and balances in our government.

Awkward? Extremely. But our Constitution was not created to be efficient, but to make it harder for any one branch of government to usurp the power of others.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 23, 2011 at 12:44 AM

Wait… what party was Wallace a part of? Oh yeah… he was a lifelong Democrat,

spinach.chin

so then, as a life-long Democrat, Wallace ran for president as the candidate of the Democratic Party?
I thought that he ran with LeMay as a candiditae of another party called the American Independent and based his candidacy around opposition to the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats passed in 64.

Yeah, my facts is all missing and everything. I just didn’t realize that the Democrats ran two slates that year.

I forgot that the all-white delegations to the Democratic conventions from the southern states were challenged for their seats starting in 64.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Don’t forget the middle words, “in order to form a more perfect UNION” (emphasis mine)

txmomof6 on January 22, 2011 at 5:48 PM

…which is an assault on he English language if ever there was one…how can something be “more perfect”? If it’s perfect, it’s perfect. There is no provision in English for “perfecter”, as there is none for “perfectest”….

…but, the point to make things more efficient (a better choice of words) than under the Articles of Confederation (especially as regards the payment of Revolutionary War debts) is well taken…but, that still doesn’t make this “perfecter” union all-sovereign…it’s still the people who empowered it….

Puritan1648 on January 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Perfect does not necessarily mean “flawless.” It is often used to mean “complete” or “comprehensive,” especially in older texts.

It’s frequently used that way in the Bible, which often leads to confusion from those who mistake it to mean “incapable of further improvement.”

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells his followers to be perfect, just like their father in Heaven is perfect. Put in context, it means to quit being unjust in all the ways he condemned in the Sermon on the Mount. It certainly never implied any human being could be without flaws.

So, a “more perfect” Union simply means a more complete and effective union.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 23, 2011 at 1:01 AM

so then, as a life-long Democrat, Wallace ran for president as the candidate of the Democratic Party?
I thought that he ran with LeMay as a candiditae of another party called the American Independent and based his candidacy around opposition to the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats passed in 64.

I don’t think I mentioned what party he ran under, did I? Just that he was a life-long democrat.

Is Joe Lieberman a Republican? Sure, he’s technically an Independent, but come on *wink-wink*.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:02 AM

well, spich, you really aren’t a life-long Democrat if you run as an independent with a platform based on opposition to the Democratic Party’s positions.
You’ve then become a no-longer lifetime Democrat and whether you mentioned that or not, it still means that you’re fulla.

“winkedy-wink” and don’t tap your foot while in the men’s room, even if that is spinach running down your chin.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 1:09 AM

I forgot that the all-white delegations to the Democratic conventions from the southern states were challenged for their seats starting in 64.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 12:56 AM

I’ll bottom-line it for you: in the 1968 Presidential election, if you consider the Dem Humphrey and racist-Dem-turned-independent Wallace as one unit, all southern states had the majority of their popular votes go to this duo.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:09 AM

*non-argument*

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Suck it up and embrace your party’s racist underpinnings.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:16 AM

Now, end of the 50′s and beginning of the 60′s Stalin was putting out the word to the reds in the US to join in the civil rights movement. The reason was to stir up trouble with the US by taking a civil rights stance against America. Stalin felt that the US had no standing in judging the treatment of the Soviet people when America practiced segregation. So, that’s what many of the reds did. The same reds that joined the Democrat party and in the 40′s so they can dodge the “red scare”. So, I guess you can say that you’re right and during the 60′s there was a political shift. But that is only because the reds were infiltrating the civil rights arena and convincing more blacks to join the Democrat party… a party that became a bit more pink since Truman’s day.

Kennedy really didn’t care much about the civil rights act, but LBJ (remember him?) knew that he would gain a whole lot of new voters if he passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He said, “We’ll have the n*g*er vote for the next 100 years.” and he was right about that.
So you see, I did my homework instead of relying on the recycled propaganda you keep spewing.

mizflame98 on January 22, 2011 at 10:44 PM

Excellent. The liberals keep wanting to make the realignment all about race, as they do everything else. But as the Democrats became more liberal, it was inevitable that they would lose their grip on the South. It’s no accident that the South started voted Republican when the Democrats abandoned fighting the Cold War and started protesting Vietnam. The South has always been staunch supporters of national defense, and the Democrats were calling for unilateral nuclear disarmament, burning draft cards, praising the Soviets, supporting Cuba, and betraying the very troops we sent into war to fight for us. Plus, they jumped on every kind of 60′s-era “modern” social fashion that offended the morals of the conservative Southerners, such as abortion. And their promotion of socialism and government spending made all fiscal conservatives abandon the Democrats.

And so Reagan came along and unified the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and national defense conservatives into a single alliance. rewriting the political landscape.

But to any liberal, it was all about those racist Southerners jumping ship to the Republicans so they could keep the schools segregated.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 23, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Suck it up and embrace your party’s racist underpinnings.

spinach.chin

it’s your chin and (probably) your own spinach. you suck it up yourself.

audiculous on January 23, 2011 at 1:33 AM

Here’s a sampling comparison of Nixon’s vote percentages in 1960 and 1968 from some southern states:

AL
1960 42.2
1968 14.0

AK
1960 43.1
1968 31.0

GA
1960 37.4
1968 30.4

TN
1960 52.9
1968 37.8

MS
1960 24.7
1968 13.5

He, in fact, didn’t increase his percentage totals in any southern state from 1960 to 1968. How do you explain that, considering the whole “Southern Strategy” fairy tale. Libs claim it was the reason Nixon won in 1968.

Didn’t seem to work too well…

Plus, it doesn’t explain Jimmy Carter’s sweep of the south in 1976. So, they were racist… then they weren’t racist.. then went back to being racist so Reagan could win…

I just can’t keep it all straight.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM

Good to know Nebraska is stepping up!

Yakko77 on January 23, 2011 at 2:03 AM

He, in fact, didn’t increase his percentage totals in any southern state from 1960 to 1968. How do you explain that, considering the whole “Southern Strategy” fairy tale.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM

…you’re kidding, right? The reason those percentages dropped is because Wallace ran as an Independent (promoting segregation, mind you) and he siphoned off much of the Southern vote.

crr6 on January 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Jackson would be tried for crimes against humanity today for what he did to the indigenous people of the south.

darwin-t on January 22, 2011 at 8:52 PM

Do you mean his campaign against the natives attacking settlers from Spanish Florida? The Trail of Tears happened during Van Buren’s administration. Either the Cherokee could obey state and federal law, or they had to move west.

AshleyTKing on January 23, 2011 at 2:51 AM

But to any liberal, it was all about those racist Southerners jumping ship to the Republicans so they could keep the schools segregated.

There Goes The Neighborhood on January 23, 2011 at 1:26 AM

Well yeah. That’s pretty much what happened.

crr6 on January 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM

How do you explain that, considering the whole “Southern Strategy” fairy tale.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 1:50 AM

BTW, if you don’t want to take wikipedia’s word on the Southern Strategy, how about two different chairmen of the RNC?

crr6 on January 23, 2011 at 2:58 AM

Well yeah. That’s pretty much what happened.

crr6 on January 23, 2011 at 2:53 AM

Umm… Nixon desegregated the schools of the deep south.

So in appreciation… the racist dixiecrats-turned-Republicans voted for him en masse in 1972.

Still doesn’t add up…

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 3:24 AM

Maybe you should stick to lawyerin’

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 3:25 AM

A good article by someone intimately involved with the Nixon desegregation plan:

http://www.racematters.org/desegregatednixonshultz.htm

Maybe if you can open your mind, and resist some of your preconceived programming, you might agree that not everything you’ve been force fed your whole life is true.

spinach.chin on January 23, 2011 at 3:36 AM

I understand your point, but I fail to see an historical affirmation of crr6′s “en masse” defection of racist democrats to the Republican party.

tigerlily on January 22, 2011 at 11:38 PM

Of course…I mean, any politically astute racist wanted nothing more than to join the Party of abolition.

[sarcasm]

anuts on January 23, 2011 at 5:30 AM

Whoa! The leftist will never allow “nullification” to wrest their ill gotten power back from them. I suspect such thinking might divide this nation quicker than slavery (which was an economic issue as well as a moral issue)

Pushing too hard, leftists, sooner or later, gets you pushback. A small earthquake can sometimes cause a massive tsunami. Maybe you should be building arks with that cache of stimulus money?

Don L on January 23, 2011 at 6:37 AM

I believe that presidents in the 50s and 60s called upon the national guard to enforce the law

Don’t the governors of the individual states control the guard?

Also, what is to stop a state from requiring (under threat of punishment)that all taxes demanded by the feds be held in escrow by the state until such time as disputes with the feds are remedied? There are other weapons to use yet – but alas , few freedom minded leaders to use them.

Don L on January 23, 2011 at 6:47 AM

Just think though, all your liberal states could nullify the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as unconstitutional since it was never declared!

Isn’t that pretty much what sanctuary cities for illegal aliens do?

Don L on January 23, 2011 at 6:51 AM

The states are enjoined from any action that is not in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions.

the states are neither sovereign nor the fount of sovereignty.

audiculous on January 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM

The Constitution doesn’t limit the states. It limits the federal government. That is your first clue that the states are sovereign. Continue reading the Constitution and more evidence of the original intent will be clear.

csdeven on January 23, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Overall, this is one of the most informative threads I’ve seen here in quite some time. Right up to the point where crr6 and audiculous stepped in and puked their illness all over the good work. Like my Mom always told me; son, in life you must recognize the good and take from it, as there will always be bad lurking close by. Your ability to recognize the good from the bad will have much to do with your success in life.

Much good contained within this thread, and I thank all of you for that.

Keemo on January 23, 2011 at 7:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4