Spring Break
A theoretical scenario of nullification in the U.S.
Seth Stern
Issue date: 5/1/09 Section: Opinion
Last week I wrote about the fundamental right of states to nullify federal laws they believe to be overbearing.
This week, let's look at a fictional future scenario in which nullification is applied, and the consequences of such an application.
President Obama wins re-election due largely to Republican nominee Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous claim that the media was desirous that a black president succeed.
Despite an approval rating in the low teens, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, still Speaker of the House, reintroduces the Assault Weapons Ban. Last time the Democrats learned their lesson, they included wording banning the ownership or possession of any firearm with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds.
President Obama signs the AWB into law less than a month later, having encouraged both Congress and the Senate to fast-track the legislation.
Wyoming legislators nullify the new law not 72 hours later. Identifying the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution under the second and 10th Amendments, they declare the entirety of the law null and void within Wyoming borders.
Sensing a shared feeling of dissent from their cousins to the south, Montana resurrects similar legislation they allowed to die in early 2009. Idaho, Utah and Alaska follow suit within the day.
President Obama, not willing to cede any federal powers (constitutionally or not), orders the FBI special agents in charge of all five state bureaus to place the governors under arrest. Having immediately squashed the resistance, President Obama activates the National Guard units of all 50 states.
My point is that our government was designed a certain way, and practically every politician, once in power, ignores that design and just does whatever ensures reelection.
Many of you celebrated Obama's election like you had won the game. That idea is offensive and ignorant. The Collegian's editorial staff graded this man with a B+ at 100 days. Wrong.
Being cool, calm and well-spoken (or well-read as the right keeps reminding us) does not give the man a free pass for the disregard he shows for the Constitution. You didn't let President Bush get away with it. Why do you let this man do so?
This week, let's look at a fictional future scenario in which nullification is applied, and the consequences of such an application.
President Obama wins re-election due largely to Republican nominee Rush Limbaugh's ridiculous claim that the media was desirous that a black president succeed.
Despite an approval rating in the low teens, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, still Speaker of the House, reintroduces the Assault Weapons Ban. Last time the Democrats learned their lesson, they included wording banning the ownership or possession of any firearm with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds.
President Obama signs the AWB into law less than a month later, having encouraged both Congress and the Senate to fast-track the legislation.
Wyoming legislators nullify the new law not 72 hours later. Identifying the rights granted to them by the U.S. Constitution under the second and 10th Amendments, they declare the entirety of the law null and void within Wyoming borders.
Sensing a shared feeling of dissent from their cousins to the south, Montana resurrects similar legislation they allowed to die in early 2009. Idaho, Utah and Alaska follow suit within the day.
President Obama, not willing to cede any federal powers (constitutionally or not), orders the FBI special agents in charge of all five state bureaus to place the governors under arrest. Having immediately squashed the resistance, President Obama activates the National Guard units of all 50 states.
My point is that our government was designed a certain way, and practically every politician, once in power, ignores that design and just does whatever ensures reelection.
Many of you celebrated Obama's election like you had won the game. That idea is offensive and ignorant. The Collegian's editorial staff graded this man with a B+ at 100 days. Wrong.
Being cool, calm and well-spoken (or well-read as the right keeps reminding us) does not give the man a free pass for the disregard he shows for the Constitution. You didn't let President Bush get away with it. Why do you let this man do so?
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 5
James Carlson
posted 5/01/09 @ 7:59 AM MST
This week's extremist rant from Seth Stern bordered on the creepy. The worst part is that he is simply repeating garbage shoveled to the ditto heads on talk radio. (Continued…)
Skeptical White Man
posted 5/02/09 @ 9:59 PM MST
Interesting that you see Jeffersonian doctrine as extremist.
You obviously believe the Constitution of which Mr. Stern speaks is obsolete, so why do the left and right both claim how important it is to adhere to the document to which they show no obedience?
By the way, you're obviously a product of the public school system and didn't read the whole column. (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 5/03/09 @ 8:29 AM MST
Good article Seth. I don't understand why there is such apathy in America. Maybe people like James Carlson want the federal government to take care of them? We aren't gullible or stupid James - we understand the fundamentals behind constitution and care about America. (Continued…)
Post a Comment