South Carolina and another nullification crisis

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Washington Post's Colbert King got it exactly right in The rise of the New Confederacy.

South Carolina, the state that gave us the Nullification Crisis with the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification in 1832, until Congress in 1833 passed a Force Bill, authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina ended the crisis.

South Carolina, the home of Senator John C. Calhoun, the intellectual force behind states' rights and nullification, under which states could declare null and void federal laws which they viewed as unconstitutional, and who was an inspiration to the secessionists of 1860–61.

South Carolina, the first state to secede from the United States with the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.

South Carolina, whose Confederate militia batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the first shots of the American Civil War in 1861.

South Carolina, which has refused to accept its defeat in the Civil War or to accept the post-Civil War Amendments, in particular the 14th Amendment, which forever ended any debate over Sen. Calhoun's theories of nullification and secession.

That South Carolina is once again acting in defiance of the federal government with yet another attempt at the long-discredited and unconstitutional theory of nullification. South Carolina House passes bill making ‘Obamacare’ implementation a crime:

The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

* * *

The nullification bill moved on to the state Senate Thursday and referred to the Committee on Finance. As of Oct. 2, the bill is still residing in the Senate.

President Andrew Jackson had to resort to the threat of military force against South Carolina. President Abraham Lincoln had to fight a bloody Civil War with the loss of over 600,000 American lives, and which forever scarred the American psyche. 

Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy had to federalize national guard units and send U.S. troops to enforce the Civil Rights Acts and U.S. Supreme Court orders in Southern states that engaged in "massive resistance" pursuant to the Southern Manifesto of 1956, which accused the Supreme Court of "clear abuse of judicial power," and promised to use "all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation."

150 years since the Civil War, and South Carolina is still pursuing the long-discredited and unconstitutional theory of nullification, while seeking a confrontation with the United States government.

Are we really going to relitigate the Civil War? Do Tea-Publicans really want a civil war over denying access to health care to their fellow American citizens?  Seriously? What kind of soulless creatures would do this?

If Tea-Publicans want to destroy our democratic Republic, then they should at least have the courtesy to tell us what it is they want to replace it with, besides dystopian anarchy.

And they should be forced to abandon the Republican Party label, because that was the "Party of Lincoln" which was diametrically opposed to what these Tea-Publicans believe.

Comments

[Brian Clymer]

Excellent post. The "Party of Lincoln" has become the "Party of Nullification". Shameful.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have a problem 'distinguishing' -- in the legal sense -- between two positions that I hold strongly, as I believe many of us do, but that seem to be contradictory.

All of us, I'm sure, would agree with the position of this article and the condemnation of South Carolina. The history is accurate, the tie to the racism of the previous actions is obvious, but we have taken a 'generalized' position against 'nullification' in general.

At the same time, I, and I believe most of us, support the actions of Colorado and Washington in legalizing recreational marijuana. Certainly I would be surprised if anyone here strongly opposed legalizing medical use. (And, if no one noticed -- and I've seen little comment on this -- when Eric Holder announced he would not act to stop this -- the same Eric Holder who must fear, when tying his tie in the morning, that the Republicans would find some reason to complain about the knot or color and accuse him of something nefarious -- there was NO outcry against this 'usurpation by the executive of the rights of Congress.' And medical votes -- and I expect new recreational votes -- have been as heavy in red states as in blue.)

BUT, 'stopping the distribution of marijuana' is technically not just a matter of law, but an obligation placed on the government by a treaty they signed, an obligation supposedly equivalent to a Constitutional provision. Now it is true that the treaty was a Nixonian invention that we practically extorted other countries into signing, particularly European and American ones. It is true that most European countries seem to be ignoring the treaty entirely, and may not even remember they are signatories to it -- or rather that marijuana prohibition is part of the drug treaty they belong to.

BUT, the current head of the UN Organization in charge of enforcing that treaty comes from what has become the most socially conservative part of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa. And -- sorry for not having the cite -- he has demanded that the US live up to its obligations under the treaty -- which would prohibit medical as well as recreational distribution.

Now I am entirely in favor of both positions, of condemning SC and of legalizing marijuana, but I'd like to ask others who share this attitude how it is possible to be consistent, how it is possible to 'distinguish' the two state actions. (Okay, there is no attempt by Colorado or Washington to prevent federal action enforcing the law, no attempt to make its enforcement criminal -- but is that an important enough difference?)

I am standing on this platform, and know both positions are 'right' but is there anyone out there who can put a few nails and braces on the theoretical underpinning?

[AZ BlueMeanie]

Seriously? You take a major constitutional crisis and want to make it about marijuana? Perspective!

[Mike]

The usual half-truth blog/article.
Did the author mention that "Nullification" was used by Northern states to END slavery????
All it takes is a quick read of the South Carolina Declaration of Secession to see that Northern Nullification of the Federal Fugitive Slave Law was a primary reason.

Did the author mention that Progressive Liberals are leading the way with "Nullification" ?
Marijuana for medicinal purposes in 21 states??
Marijuana legal for recreational in 2 states??
This despite Federal Law and the US Supreme Court to the contrary?

"Sanctuary Cities" defying Federal Immigration Law??

Yes, indeed the Democrat Liberals are leading the way with "Nullification"
But oh no...they don't want anyone with a different opinion to find out that it works

[AZ BlueMeanie]

So you're a big fan of slavery, and everything else is just filler.