Article VI Non-Pursuance vs Tenth Amendment Nullification

[EBounding]

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

Didn't California end up taking out all the 10th Amendment language though?

 

[ClydeCoulter]

More education is better.

edit: Educating people on the supremacy clause is a great way to help spread the idea of limited government.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

More education is better.

edit: Educating people on the supremacy clause is a great way to help spread the idea of limited government.

Aye,

I think the biggest thing is 90% of the people in opposition, when discussing the subject, automatically leap to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause and say "The Supremacy Clause says whatever Congress does is supreme!" and then they shut their ears, jam their fingers in and go 'nyaa nyaa nyaa.'

You can crush the vast vast majority of the (allegedly) educated opposition, by starting the discussion with the Article 6 Pursuance subclause of the Supremacy Clause. Don't even mention the 10th Amendment or the issue of Nullification up front. Take the entire doctrine of the lack of federal supremacy straight from nonpursuance within the Supremacy Clause itself, and the statist objectors have nowhere to pull an objection from. They have been taught for YEARS that nullification is a non-starter because 'Article 6 takes precedence.' So you use their ignorance against them and argue the whole thing out of Article 6.

This opens the doors and gets you past the effective objections. Once you do that, you find that more and more people are open to convincing.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

You clearly don't canvass where I do.

Talking to Republicans, they almost always seem sympathetic to nullification. Liberals will never go against their federal gods and whine about racism. I think explaining non-compliance or anti-commandeering would be a less arcane way of communicating the message of resistance than talking about Article VI

 

[Origanalist]

Talking to Republicans, they almost always seem sympathetic to nullification. Liberals will never go against their federal gods and whine about racism. I think explaining non-compliance or anti-commandeering would be a less arcane way of communicating the message of resistance than talking about Article VI

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I happen to think Gunny's idea of using the statists own argument against them is a damn fine idea and I would like to see it get some wide spread use.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done/used to combat unconstitutional laws at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

 

[Origanalist]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

If you're referring to my rep comment Clyde, I wasn't aiming that post at you. If not, ooops...:o

 

[ClydeCoulter]

If you're referring to my rep comment Clyde, I wasn't aiming that post at you. If not, ooops...:o

Thanks for the clarification

 

[ClydeCoulter]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done/used to combat unconstitutional laws at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

One other thing that I might add to this is, the Supreme Court is part of that federal government that is subject to Article VI pursuance. I know that sounds obvious. But, is it?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I don't care what it's called - nullification, non-pursuance, repudiation, GTF(eds)O, whatever. As long as it happens.

Ultimately, though, any particular differences between "nullification" and "non-pursuance" aren't really going to make any difference at all as far as the purveyors of power and (so called) "public opinion" are concerned. If non-pursuance ever gains traction sufficient to pose any threat to the powers-that-be, non-pursuers WILL be denounced as "crypto-nullifiers" - exactly as "nullifiers" are currently denounced as "neo-Confederates" (i.e., non-pursuers will become "crypto-neo-Confederates").

Mere labels will not mollify those who stand to lose power as a result of any repudiation of federal authority ...

 

[Origanalist]

I don't care what it's called - nullification, non-pursuance, repudiation, GTF(eds)O, whatever. As long as it happens.

Ultimately, though, any particular differences between "nullification" and "non-pursuance" aren't really going to make any difference at all as far as the purveyors of power and (so called) "public opinion" are concerned. If non-pursuance ever gains traction sufficient to pose any threat to the powers-that-be, non-pursuers WILL be denounced as "crypto-nullifiers" - exactly as "nullifiers" are currently denounced as "neo-Confederates" (i.e., non-pursuers will become "crypto-neo-Confederates").

Mere labels will not mollify those who stand to lose power as a result of any repudiation of federal authority ...

The same thought occurred to me right off the bat. However, this may make it more difficult as it is using the same "supremacy clause" they have been trumpeting. There can be no doubt about the attacks that will come however.

 

[Occam's Banana]

The same thought occurred to me right off the bat. However, this may make it more difficult as it is using the same "supremacy clause" they have been trumpeting. There can be no doubt about the attacks that will come however.

Like I say, as long as involves putting the Feds in their place (or better yet, giving them the boot entirely), I have no objections to this approach.

But reason, logic, consistency and the plain sense of words (not to mention the plain sense of the Constitution) mean nothing to the people who will be opposed to this. Their reverence for the so-called Supremacy Clause goes only as far as they can abuse it in order to blow off anyone who seeks to limit or proscribe the power of the federal government. That is simply not going to change, regardless of what tack is taken. They'll tap-dance around "non-pursuance" as gracelessly (and with as little intellectual integrity) as they do around "nullification" ...

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Like I say, as long as involves putting the Feds in their place (or better yet, giving them the boot entirely), I have no objections to this approach.

But reason, logic, consistency and the plain sense of words (not to mention the plain sense of the Constitution) mean nothing to the people who will be opposed to this. Their reverence for the so-called Supremacy Clause goes only as far as they can abuse it in order to blow off anyone who seeks to limit or proscribe the power of the federal government. That is simply not going to change, regardless of what tack is taken. They'll tap-dance around "non-pursuance" as gracelessly (and with as little intellectual integrity) as they do around "nullification" ...

I don't really disagree with you, except to say I believe it will be WAY more difficult for them to derogate an Article VI argument in the eyes of the public than 10th Amendment Nullification, in part because heretofore they have used ArtVI to derogate the 10th A.

By showing the powers that be to be incompetent and keeping them in derision, we win over the Idiocracy crowd -- which happens to be the American majority. They don't really care who is right or wrong, which arguments are cogent or fallacious, they get off on seeing one guy make another guy look like a fool.

Picking up general public support for the doctrine of State supremacy over powers not enumerated is critical. If we can gain general public acceptance of the true fact that the States are sovereign over all powers not enumerated in the US Constitution, it will become a lot easier to elect people to State Legislatures who tell fedgov to get stuffed. Those people, then, will get into their State legislatures and actually tell fedgov to get stuffed.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Bump...Bump...Bump...Bump...Bump...

 

[T.hill]

It argues nullification without mentioning it directly, it's different in-name only. To practically implement this so called article 6 nonpursuance law would to mechanically invoke state nullification.

Rand and Greg Brannon would be wise to use this as alternative rhetoric to state-nullification advocacy.

 

[TaftFan]

Why not just use the word "interposition" as well? Basically it is nullification but with more than one state.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

It argues nullification without mentioning it directly, it's different in-name only. To practically implement this so called article 6 nonpursuance law would to mechanically invoke state nullification.

Rand and Greg Brannon would be wise to use this as alternative rhetoric to state-nullification advocacy.

I agree, "Corrective Action to Article VI Non-Pursuance".

 

[Christian Liberty]

Everywhere this policy has affected the people on the ground, it was not called "nullification" nor was the Tenth Amendment invoked. Everywhere a Tenth Amendment based bill actually called "Nullification" has been passed, it has not affected the lives of the citizens of that State.

Colorado and Washington State MJ legalization, the never called it nullification, they never invoked the Tenth. Ohio Obamacare, a Constitutional amendment. The do not call it nullification, they did not invoke the 10th.

Montana Firearms Freedom, the first of the nullification bills passed -- 2009; they called it nullification and based it on the Tenth. You still cannot buy a Montana Freedom Firearm.

If what I am saying is true, we have to ask ourselves whether we care more about the actual policy and making a difference on the ground, or whether we care more about a word.

Why can't you buy a Montana Freedom Firearm, BTW?

That said, if changing the word will change the results in our favor... why not?

I think its funny that it confused some people on here, BTW. It will probably work on the average voter

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The strategy Gunny has proposed is solidly constitutional, and cleverly bypasses the sticky point preventing widespread adoption of measures that would invalidate unconstitutional federal laws. One caveat I would have with the idea, however, is that it doesn't eliminate the demagogues who distorted nullification in the first place, just maneuvers past their smear job on the term. Soooo, what's to stop these same people from also poisoning "non-pursuance" the same way they did nullification?

Getting past the sticky point is fine in the interim, just remember you still have to fight for the substance, and defend the substance of the idea, which was never faulty, that under the Constitution the states provide a check against the overreach of the federal government. The cult of the omnipotent state will fight this basic principle tooth and nail, in whatever rhetorical or tactical form we advance it.

Ultimately, they do not believe in limits on government power, or in checks against its overreach, no matter which part of the Constitution is cited to them. Switching sections or terminology merely delays, not disposes of the fundamental conflict.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

The strategy Gunny has proposed is solidly constitutional, and cleverly bypasses the sticky point preventing widespread adoption of measures that would invalidate unconstitutional federal laws. One caveat I would have with the idea, however, is that it doesn't eliminate the demagogues who distorted nullification in the first place, just maneuvers past their smear job on the term. Soooo, what's to stop these same people from also poisoning "non-pursuance" the same way they did nullification?

Getting past the sticky point is fine in the interim, just remember you still have to fight for the substance, and defend the substance of the idea, which was never faulty, that under the Constitution the states provide a check against the overreach of the federal government. The cult of the omnipotent state will fight this basic principle tooth and nail, in whatever rhetorical or tactical form we advance it.

Ultimately, they do not believe in limits on government power, or in checks against its overreach, no matter which part of the Constitution is cited to them. Switching sections or terminology merely delays, not disposes of the fundamental conflict.

Oh make no mistake, they will try and roadblock that route too, but they aren't the ones we need to convince. Not only will their attempt at roadblocking it be way more difficult and consume more PR resources, but it will also be easier to overcome, and their own actions will show them up as liars and hypocrites. All three factors helping us to win over the actual people we need to win over.

First, it's more difficult and will consume more PR resources. People like John C. Calhoun never spoke in terms of "non-pursuance" so they don't have a history to easily distort. Without a ready reservoir of source-material, poisoning the well will become an order of magnitude more difficult. They will have to expend more resources because they will now have to make the lies up from scratch, and expend energy to justify their lies.

Second, it will be easier to overcome, in part because of their own efforts. They are the ones who have sown the seed that "Article VI trumps everything," so to the people they have managed to condition an Article VI argument will automatically "trump everything." They will be working against their own conditioning, and so in part consuming themselves in a kind of mass cognitive dissonance that will open more minds to accept the truth about the real Constitutional division of powers.

Third, their most skilled apologists will have a thorough history of arguing for Article VI as contradicting the Tenth Amendment. When they step up to mock our Article VI argument, all we have to do is point to one of their articles from the past and ask, "Say, isn't this you a year ago arguing that the Article VI Supremacy Clause trumps everything else in the Constitution because it's Supreme? Have you changed your mind now?" Now they are in a Catch-22. If they have changed their mind, now Nullification becomes viable, but if they have not changed their minds they just contradicted their own argument. If they remain opposed in either case they look like hypocrites to everyone observing the debate.

So if we take this approach, they will have to consume and spend more resources to fight it, their objections will be easier to overcome, and by setting their own words against them they will come across like hypocrites.

All of this works to our advantage amongst the very group we need to convince -- the people too busy (or unmotivated) to study for themselves, who simply take on faith the word of others they believe more knowledgeable than themselves. That group, often derogatively referred to as the "Low Information Voter," make up the vast majority of voters in any election.