Ohio Secessionists & Nullificationists

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/26/tenth-amendment-movement-aims-power-states/

35 states,….that's 70% of the country. Hardly some lunatic fringe, average. I hear what you're saying, and I agree on the lunatic part. But this thing is now pervasive and it's true that nullification is part of the plan.

larry, if those ideas are so wacky…..would you conclude that 35 state legislatures are also wacky?

bzzzp…..Chicago passed gun regulation laws, as many other places in America have done. The Robert's Activist Court was the first Court to issue a ruling on whether the 2nd granted personal gun ownership rights. The 5 Horsemen of the Conservative Apocalypse simply cut the "well-regulated militia" part out of the 2nd altogether. Point being….Chicago had their gun regulations in place before the Robert's ruling.

I expect a ruling that prohibits Chicago from regulating guns. That will take care of it once and for all. No restrictions, no regulations, nothing. Guns, guns, everywhere. Hope that makes conservatives happy, so much so, that they quit with the annoying conspiracy theories that Obama is coming for all the guns.

Well, Reverend, I have to hand it to you. You can confuse people with the best of them.

1. The Ohio Freedom Alliance (OFA) was founded March 8, 2008, in Columbus, as you wrote. George W. Bush was President, and then-Senator Barack Obama was just beginning to gain national recognition – ten months before President Obama took office.
2. The OFA is a non-partisan organization. While some of its members are Republicans, most find the Republicans just as troublesome to liberty as the Democrats. Mr. Seitz’s statement was a partisan remark, to be sure; but he was not speaking for the OFA.
3. State sovereignty resolutions are not the same as nullification or secession. The resolution passed by the Senate simply was a demand to the federal government to respect the rights of the states that are protected by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
4. Similarly, a careful reading of the OFA forum will show that most members are as leery of Mr. Kasich as they are of Gov. Strickland.
5. You are correct that OFA members are opposed to Obamacare. So are 52% of Americans, according to a poll taken this weekend – and according to the report (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform), opponents are much more passionate than the supporters. So am I to assume that you want the current health care proposals imposed on the American people against their will?
6. If you had viewed the first four videos in the series, you would have heard much of the Constitutional and legal justification for nullification and secession. Nullification originated with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1797, and has been used by many states – not all of them Southern – prior to the Civil War. Four of the original thirteen states explicitly reserved the right of secession in their statements ratifying the United States Constitution, and several of the Federalist Papers written in support of the Constitution (particularly Nos. 39 and 45) support the idea that the federal government is a creature of the states, which exists only through their agreement. The Constitution, in essence, is a contract between the states to provide for a general government.
7. Texas v. White was about the enforceability of a contract made during the Civil War which required payment in Confederate money. As a practical matter, all contracts based on acts by a losing power in a war must be null and void afterward. It’s the natural outcome of war. The statement in Texas v. White saying that “the Constitution did not permit to secede from the United States” was factually incorrect. The truth is, the Constitution is silent on secession. Read it for yourself.
8. Related to the above, are you suggesting that the independence of the United States from Great Britain should be nullified because there was no provision for secession in the Acts of Parliament that form the English Constitution?
9. Your statement on nullification does not prove that nullification was illegal – what it proves is that the South Carolina nullification forced the federal government to come to an agreement with South Carolina that made continuing the nullification unnecessary.
10. As to your “strikeout pitch,” I will not argue with the popularity of Medicaid. It is also, by all accounts, financially unsustainable – and is a major cause of the health care crisis we face now, because it distorted the market for health care in a way that gave health care providers an incentive to increase costs.

In my book, the Reverend is 0 for 10.

Do not confuse the OFA and the Tea Parties with the “conservative movement.” There is no such thing. The OFA and the Tea Parties (what I call the “liberty movement” want smaller government that is more accountable to the people. We value our Constitutional freedoms more than maintaining the union just for its own sake. Nullification, and as a last resort, secession, are tools to regain those freedoms. They are not ends in themselves. The radio talk show hosts and Sarah Palin are neo-conservatives, or what you like to call “Bushies.” They are no more interested in smaller government and personal liberty than are President Obama and the Democrats.

I hope this helps to clear up the confusion.

Mr. Thomas…

About numbers 1&2……while it could be true that the OFA has non-Republican members, would you say that any of those members voted for Democrats in the last few election cycles? Scott Brown, for example, avoided any mention of the word 'Republican' while campaigning….but he is one. Many conservative Partiers do the same at their Parties. When it gets down to the wire, I suspect OFA'ers punch the ticket for the GOP.

#3) State sovereignty resolutions are redundant. It would be like states passing resolutions in support of free speech. The reason we're seeing these resolutions now is because disgruntled sore losers on the right are making a political statement….declaring their nullification, or hopes of nullification, of the Democratic President and his agenda, are on the table. In other words, conservatives are pushing these resolutions to be received by D.C. as a threat.

#4) See 1 & 2. OFA'er's may not much care for Kasich, but I've heard this nonsense before. When the election comes around, OFA'ers won't be voting Democratic and surely won't waste their votes on some Independent. Disingenuous.

#5) America does not have a direct democracy. We have a representative democracy. We elect the reps. we want to make laws. That's what's happening with health care reform. Elections matter…..and….we don't operate our democracy at the whims of daily polls. Additionally, 59% of the American people want a public health insurance option. That doesn't sound like Americans are rejecting health care reform.

#6-7) Here, you admit that nullification and even, secession, are viable options.
"…the idea that the federal government is a creature of the states, which exists only through their agreement." So, the federal government is the hired hand of the states? Really?

#8) We fought a war against the British……the South tried defeating the North once over these identical issues. Is that what you want again?

#9) Here, you embrace nullification…..just as my blog post pointed out….so, who really is confused? It isn't me.

I understand that libertarians desire smaller government. However, that misses the point. It isn't smaller government that we need, we need an efficient and honest government. We have the biggest economic engine ever seen in earth's history. That, in itself, requires a big government.

Thanks for the well-thought out comment…..even the part about me being able to "confuse people with the best of them."

Has the author of this article ever heard of the principles of 98? I'd hardly consider Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wackos and they were the first to use this idea. Did he know Ohio has used mechanisms like nullification before in the 1820s? Some of the most famous uses of nullification was in attempts to override the fugitive slave act (which means by northern states).

As I read through the OFA website, I keep seeing a revolutionary theme, focused on the Constitution- WOW! Now that is fringe in today's big government controlled society.

My People are destroyed from a lack of knowledge….(Hosea 4:6a NIV)

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people…They are the only
sure reliance for the preservation of Liberty — Thomas Jefferson

So, I leave you with some questions: Is it really fringe if the OFA educates on the Constitution and it's members promote politicians that make the Constitution a main part of their platform in order for the people to retain liberty?

Remember, when you lose a right, government controls that right. Which rights of yours are you willing to give the government?

Reverend:

I do not consider it the least bit disingenuous that an individual votes to the candidate closest to his convictions. It happens that in Ohio, more Republicans than Democrats are likely to favor the same policies as the OFA. However, many Republican primaries will be hotly contested by Tea Party and other liberty-minded candidates this year; and you will find more (perhaps not overwhelming, but more) interest in the minor parties. I personally have voted Democratic, particularly in situations where there were no other qualified candidates for office, or where more liberty-minded candidates have committed serious errors. For example, I voted for Gov. Strickland in 2006, because I liked his vision for Ohio, and could not support neocon Ken Blackwell. It is my view, and I think most liberty-minded people would agree with me, that a vote is more "wasted" on a major-party candidate than on a minor-party or independent candidate who supports our positions.

I agree with you on #5; however, the Rasmussen poll is far from the only indicator that Americans are generally hostile to a federally-run health-care system. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts is an indicator, as is the resignation of several Democratic members of the Congress who do not wish to face defeat in November. There is a fine line between trusting your representatives, and allowing them to do as they please.

Yes, the federal government IS the hired hand of the states under the U.S. Constitution. If you do not believe this, you are either rejecting either the Constitution, or are accepting some theory of a "living Constitution" that tends to promote a "Mad Hatter" interpretation: "The Constitution means whatever I [the President, the Supreme Court, whomever...] choose it to mean, neither more nor less." Read Article I, sections 8-10, of the Constitution. Taken together with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the literal text of the Constitution is quite clear on the powers of the federal government and the limitations on those powers.

The threat of war does not affect the viability of nullification or secession. It does remind us that such actions should not be taken for "light and transient causes," and accordingly it is in our nature to put up with an increasingly oppressive government until all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. However, Americans have struggled with this for over 40 years. In the end, a government that chooses war over allowing the use of legal processes that are consistent with (if not explicitly sanctioned by) the Constitution precipitates the kind of crisis that Thomas Jefferson was referring to when he said "the tree of liberty must sometimes be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I don't want war any more than anyone else. But I would rather that Ohioans have to fight for freedom rather than to quietly submit to slavery.

Finally, you write, "We have the biggest economic engine ever seen in earth's history. That, in itself, requires a big government." That economic engine was built during a period when government interfered only lightly with free enterprise. Big government is only "necessary" because we have had two generations who find it difficult imagining governance in any other way — a situation the OFA and I are working hard to correct.

Do not misinterpret that last statement. I firmly believe that some government (at all levels) is necessary to protect everyone from force and fraud (which makes me more "statist" than the extreme libertarians); but decentralization is essential to restore accountability to the people. Nor am I a great fan of large corporations — the same reduction in scale that I promote in government will also help individuals and small businesses to find prosperity.

It basically comes down to this: If the federal government fails to uphold individual liberty, which will you support, the federal government, or liberty? I trust my position is clear.

I think I agree with you on certain of the ends, but certainly not on the means. You say you don't trust big corporations, and in general, I agree. All power is subject to abuse, and large corporations have historically shown no reluctance to abuse it. I believe the 'big government' we see today is directly linked to an attempt to control or compensate for the abuses of big corporations. And I believe until we change the way corporations fit into our legal system, big government is the necessary (but poor) band-aid required to keep those corporations from slaughtering society and its people. Maybe you should read about the issues of corporate personhood, if you haven't already.

That last comment was directed to Harold Thomas.

Good stuff. I find much that I can agree with in the libertarian views being shared by Harold and others. Liberals find common ground with libertarians on rejecting wars of adventurism and empire building…and I do respect the independent spirit. I felt that Ron Paul had exemplary moments during the GOP debates in early 2008. I also felt that other GOP'ers in those debates held Paul in contempt, mocked him. Made me want to spit. Paul is correct, and always has been, about the Iraq crime. Much to like, although I would disagree with him on other issues….but at least, there's some common ground.

We have a corporation-government fusion problem. The two have become one at the federal level. The answer to our problem is public financing of all federal election campaigns.

I have to agree with Jacquie on the corporate-personhood problem….and the other big problem, I think, is that….. money = free speech. Add to those overwhelming problems the fact that Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are going to be around awhile shilling for everything corporate.

Doesn't look promising, but creating a potentially violent situation by threatening nullification and, perhaps, secession…..in my opinion, is the wrong way to go.

But hey, have at it. I could be wrong. Been wrong before.

There is no secessionist movement in the USA. This is a phony issue. The end.

And Rev, it might surprise you, but I also hated it when other Republicans laughed at Ron Paul during the 2008 debates. Paul has some real good ideas, though the ones I like are probably different than the ones you like.

The only other thing I'll say about secession is – if there were to be any states that wanted to secede from the Union (there aren't), then they wouldn't give a crap whether the Union thought it was legal or not. When our founders led our secession from England, that was illegal under British law. Our founders did it anyway, though they all would have been hanged if their effort failed.

There may be no secessionist "movement"…yet. But, clearly there is talk in many places of secession….and ACTION of nullification, also an illegal action. State sovereignty resolutions are the precursor to resolutions of nullification which will lead to…..who knows?

"no secessionist movement…yet"

LOL. Stir up that fearmongering pot, Rev. Those Tea Partiers are SO SCARY !!! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my !!!

I'm also sorry to hear you are against the 10th Amendment, but it's in the Constitution all the same.

I put up the evidence of radical right secessionist thinking in the state of Ohio. These folks are also active in the Tea Party deal. Make of it whatever the heck you want or don't want to. Two things…….I will keep calling them as I see them…..and I sure as hell ain't makin' this stuff up.

Funny, at the Tea Parties I've been to, and at the Tea Party websites I've visited, I haven't heard any talk of secession. How could that possibly be ? Are they keeping it a secret from me, or what ?

Rev, I'm sure you BELIEVE you are telling the truth, and hey, maybe there are a couple Tea Party guys talking secession, just like there may be a couple Tea Party guys holding up racist signs……but what you are actually doing is the bidding of the left-wing loons, who will do absolutely anything to attempt to discredit, distort, and misrepresent the Tea Party movement. What you are actually doing is called propaganda. It would be like me saying the 9/11 Truther Pentagon shooter or that left-wing female teacher shooter represent all progressives. I would never do that, because it would be profoundly dishonest, so I ask……..why do you do it ?

Nope…you're the one blinded here….and it's understandable….because the Baggers ACT like they're against deficit spending, something you take seriously.
But all the hundreds….yes, hundreds, of hateful, bigoted, signs that I saw…..I really saw them. I don't much care, right now, what YOU saw. I've seen evidence from dozens of Bagger events….and you saw, perhaps, a few signs from one gathering.

I'm the one being objective here, while you are subjectively, emotionally involved with the Partiers.

I see. So, everything the Tea Party people SAY they are for is just an illusion, part of a greater conspiracy uncovered by left-wing loons like you who know better, even though you've never attended a Tea Party event or talked to any Tea Party people at those events or elsewhere, while I have talked to tons of them. Got it. I'll get you a new tin-foil hat for your birthday, so the Tea Partiers can't beam racist messages into your brain from outer space. We're working on that technology at Aryan headquarters right now. That's the ticket. Coo-Coo-For-Cocoa-Puffs !

I asked to see those reams of racist signs on my blog the other day. Funny, none of you libs produced them. So, I'll ask again. Show me the "hundreds" of racist signs.

Damn, Rev. You need help.