Jan 4, 2010

Teabaggers trotting out a new treasonous tactic: Nullification

It was not long ago that anyone, mostly Democrats, who questioned the alleged “leadership” of George Bush or questioned the useless invasion in Iraq were called traitors. Why is it that the extremist teabaggers are not called traitors even though they are basically calling for an overthrow of the democratically elected U.S. government?

There latest stunt should seal it. They are calling for a long rejected theory called Nullification, and at least one treasonous Michigan blogger and teabagger is pushing it. Basically - after all, I am not a lawyer and have not studied law- Nullification is a constitutional theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void any law passed by the United States Congress which the state deems unacceptable and unconstitutional.

You may recall The Nullification Crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. It was a sectional crisis brought about by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification in a dispute over tariffs. The crisis was diverted when the tariff rates were reduced, but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification was rejected by the nation.

It really never should have been an issue because of the U.S. Supreme Court case McCulloch vs. Maryland of 1819. The court ruled that the authority of the federal government comes from the people rather than the state governments. The U.S. Constitution had not been adopted by the state governments, but by people gathered in state conventions. Therefore, the Constitution gained its authority from the people. For this reason, the federal government, in fulfilling the responsibility given it by the Constitution and ultimately the people, is superior to the state governments. That’s why the Framers included the Supremacy Clause.

However, southern states did not let it go in order to ensure the existence of slavery, and it led towards secession and the Civil War. The bloodiest war in American history was fought to reject nullification, and teabaggers are trotting it out again.

Nullification and so-called “states rights” was also used in the South to deny African-Americans basic rights. But again, it’s back.

I don’t know how you can’t add traitor to the list of words describing the extremist, racist and hate-filled teabaggers.


Johnny C said...

I give the right wing credit for one thing they don't let a little thing like hypocrisy get in the way of a good ole fashion insane rant. Could image what this right wing blogger would have called us if we talk about these sort of things if Bush was president?

I wish these right wingers just admit they hate the idea of having a black man being president. Again they would look bad for admitting it but at least its the truth than hearing these far fetch half ass legal ranting about what's or what's not constitutional.

And my question to these right wingers who are now champions of the constitution where were they at when Bush pushed through the Patriot Act? Or when he allow wire taps on American civilians without warrants and when he suspend Habeas Corpus?

Communications guru said...

I know. It’s just amazing. If you dared question the government when Bush was president you were a traitor, but if you’re a tea bagger calling for the actual overthrow of the government you’re a patriot.

We saw some of the same hate when Clinton was president, but nothing like this. When they went after Clinton it costs taxpayers millions of dollars in their witch-hunt. At least they are spending their own money to hate President Obama.

Chetly Zarko said...

Clinton actually committed a crime - albeit a petty-one that Republicans tactically should have ignored, or downplayed, rather than the path they took. But he committed a crime.

Obama, to my knowledge, has not, yet, or to my knowledge, so he gets some benefit of the doubt.

And I actually am quite happy a black man is President. It is vindication for the Republican Party's very formation, the end to slavery lead by Republicans and fought by Democrat seccessionists, the millions of lives given in that war and the near 100 year war with the Democratically backed KKK, which was mostly defeated in the 1960s. That said, I feel no obligation to further pay for Democrat guilt - if you voluntarily want to that's fine. My ancestors fought on the right side of the Civil War, my philosophical predecessors were on the right side of Jim Crow, and I'm proud that with Republican action years ago we have the ability to have a black president, even though I disagree with much of his policy (although I agree with some, like Race to the Top).

PS - the bloodiest war in American history was fought to reject the Democratic Party's nullification efforts, but the laws that were being sought to be nullified were just and the nullification itself was based on unjust principles. The debate on nullification is still out, although I have some issues with it if overused, and the debate on States' rights certainly should still go on - judge because someone in the past misused a principle doesn't have logical bearing on whether the principle is valid or just today. I wonder if you would say Christianity is a defunct and wrong concept because Crusaders falsely killed in the name of Christ? Or Islam false because Osama bin Laden killed in Allah's name? Maybe false for other reasons - but not for that reason. I also wonder if you support the concept of "jury nullification" - something many liberals support and I suspect many liberty-movement teabaggers, although its not a high-profile issue? Of course, that's a slightly different type of nullification since it bestows sovereignty with the people, rather than states, but the concept is the same.

Communications guru said...

The hate of Clinton and the taxpayer funded witch-hunt began the day he was elected. The commission of the alleged crime came after a $40 million investigation of every aspect of his life that was supposed to be limited to a failed land deal in Arkansas. To say the “Republicans should have ignored, or downplayed” it would be to completely re-write history.

I’m glad you have given Obama the benefit of the doubt, but the fact remains the hate for him far exceeds that of Clinton.

The Emancipation Proclamation is the last thing Republicans did for African-Americans. There is a good reason segregationists like Strom Thurmond switched to Republican Party after Democrats championed civil rights, and that’s where they are today. If you need any further proof of that, just go to a “tea party.” I’m not paying for anyone's guilt, and doing the right thing has nothing to do with guilt. But to say after hundreds of years of slavery and a hundred more of government sanctioned discrimination that the playing field is now level is ridiculous.

No, your “philosophical predecessors were on the wrong right side of Jim Crow.

You are partially right when you say, “the bloodiest war in American history was fought to reject the Democratic Party's nullification efforts,” but to pin that on the Democratic Party is wrong. It was the south. To show how that has revered itself like Dixiecrats switching to the GOP, the racist teabaggers are dragging out that rejected principal of nullification again. The debate is over, and it has been rejected.

Your Christianity and Islamic examples do not apply here. I don’t think jury nullification applies here either. It seems like that’s a separate debate.

Chetly Zarko said...

"last thing Republicans did" ...?

They voted in higher percentages in Congress in 1964 to pass the Civil Rights Act ... which was proposed in 1957 under Eisenhower and filibustered by Southern D's for 7 years. Republicans, and others, were often directly targeted for death during Jim Crow by KKK members, particularly during the first half of that era. The 13th-15th amendments followed the Emancipation. I could go on, but you're constant distortions of history for your own twisted ends are self-evident truths.

Strom Thurmond? What about Robert Byrd, who is in Democratic Party today?

But "doing things for blacks" ... or any group ... other than guaranteeing them their equal rights as individuals which the Emancipation and other acts did, and then fighting the long-battle to enforce them, is the only legitimate mission of government. If you mean to say that Republicans didn't attempt to bestow a bunch of political goodies and preferences on groups since 1965, I'd agree mostly.

As to alleged Obama hatred, you just notice it more relative to Clinton because you live in the present and have the normal human bias of noticing and weighting that more than events of the past. And let's look at Bush-hatred from your side - the vitriol against Bush is quickly forgotten. I remember Reagan hatred during the 80s too. I have no easy measure to compare it all over time, particularly since the modern internet has radically transformed the way society communicates these notions. I'll be somewhat balanced here - there has been partisanship from both sides for many years - claiming the mantle of who's the nicest and naughtiest, and whose right and wrong, is a futile and eternal debate that will never resolve. You are either intellectually dishonest, or blinded by your partisanship so much as to become unable to see anything but your extreme partisan world-view.

Communications guru said...

That’s correct, the “last thing Republicans did…”

The Civil Rights Act was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963, and he then sent a bill to Congress on June 19 to have it introduced by Democratic leaders. It would be almost like claiming Obama’s health care reform bill came about because of Republicans.

As for the Republican talking point that the GOP “voted in higher percentages in Congress in 1964 to pass the Civil Rights Act” ignores the fact that not a single a Southern Republican voted for the bill, and a higher percent of northern Democrats voted for it in the House, 94 percent, as well as in the Senate, 98 percent. The Southern Strategy begun by Richard Nixon and continued by Ronald Reagan led to an exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, and remains the backbone of the GOP up to the time of the teabaggers.

The fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 lost the south for the Democratic Party. The only Democratic presidential candidate after 1956 to solidly carry the deep south was President Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

What about Robert Byrd? He denounced his early racist views. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms switched to the GOP to find a home for their racist views. Accusing me of “distortions of history:” is laughable in light of the spin on Nullification.

Affirmative Action is hardly a “bunch of political goodies.”

Please. If you want to see the hatred of Obama just go to an Astroturf “tea party.” The Secret Service has been stretched to the limit by responding to death threats against the President, an increase of 400 percent.

The sad part of the Clinton hatred was it was, somehow, sanctioned by the government and paid for by the taxpayers. Sure there was hatred of Bush, but he seemed to return much of it. Plus, I don’t recall Bush facing 30 death threats a day, or a $50 million taxpayer funded witch-hunt. Those are facts, not partisanship.

Chetly Zarko said...

You are spinning like a top, man.

There is an obvious difference between "proximate causes" and "general causes" - most people understand that. You parse the historical totality by dividing off the history inconvenient to you. Sure, JFK's speech was a proximate cause of the 1964 act - and he deserves fair credit for that (along with fair credit for his tax cuts, as well). But you ignore the longer causes - the 1957 CRA was introduced by Eisenhower and his AG, and ironically LBJ, the ultimate political opportunist and Senate leader at the time, watered it down and "triangulated" credit both for "passing it" and "killing it" with the watered down amendments. See wikipedia for a general timeline and analysis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957

Of course, you also ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which was solely Republican and the one in 1960, which corrected a few of the watered down deficiencies of the LJB deal in 1957. The history of the CRA is a long-march, not a magical snap of JFK's fingers, though he deserves much credit. LBJ, of course, was the ultimate opportunist, and by 64 felt the wind and had the mandate of JFK's election and assassination, and could hardly have gone in the other direction even if he were inclined.

So, in your further division of history, you justify your unbalanced "last thing Republicans" did was the Emancipation Proclamation by dividing Republicans in Northern and Southern Republicans and saying the southern ones voted against it. Aside the incredibly tiny sample size, who cares. The larger majority of Republicans voted for it, and to deny them any credit proves the sickness that is Kevin Shopshire. Even if you give credit to the fence-riding LBJ opportunist or Democrats in general, you can't say Republicans deserve SOME - or an iota - of credit? Or you'll stick to your storyline that a few racist Republicans means all Republicans are -- which is also your teaparty story line of today. It's a flawed, and fundamentally immoral McCarthyist-style Salem-witchunnt and guilt by association game you play. Turn the lens on yourself though - IF those rules of logic fit, then every Democrat, even modern ones, are racist ... for their historical affiliation and for their modern affiliation with, let's pick just one - say, the Larouchers, who are Democrats gone racist.

I've been to a few "tea parties," but never seen an "astroturf" one - oddly, I recognize most of the people as local individuals I know from door knocking to attendance at other political events. Don't recall any out-of-state people, and its hard for me to believe 500 people at some events are all paid to be there. I've never seen a tea-partier threaten violence, but I have seen Larouchers with Obama-is-Hitler pre-printed cardboard signs (when everyone has handmade, homeade ones).

Chetly Zarko said...

I have no idea what Secret Service data shows - but the link you show is a third-hand report of that data from a person who appears to have written a tell all book but who has mysterious inside sources into the Secret Service operations. Among the threats mentioned were Muslim terrorists when Obama went to Somalia. Clearly, sensational, but no evidence of how that originates from tea-partiers, or anyone, for that matter. Get me a source with authoritative data and you might have something, but right now you don't even have someone to point it to except your assumption it must be because tea-partiers hate him, in your mind.

The movement for equal treatment without preference has never argued the "playing field is level". That is another distortion of our position. Indeed, I say here, again, for the 857th time ... the playing field is not level. It is our position that the direction society should take to level the playing is not preference based on group membership, but equal treatment of all individuals and much, much more importantly, better educational opportunity, particularly for the poor but in reality for everyone. Educational opportunity though isn't accomplished by setting lower expectations for groups - its accomplished with higher standards and expectations for all individuals, and very hard attention paid to how that happens. Obviously, we disagree on the means but I think probably agree on at least those ends -- but its much easier for you to remain in your comfortable world if you pigeon-hole my arguments so that it likes like my ends are much different because you can actually win arguments against the strawmen and it makes you feel better.

Communications guru said...

I’m spinning; and you’re not?

The Civil Rights Bill was initiated by JFK, and no amount of spin will change that. I don’t care how many words you use, it’s still a fact.

The Republican Party of 1875 is not the Republican Party of 1964 or today. You can’t spin away the fact that not a single Southern Republican voted for the bill, and it launched the Southern Strategy that has been so successful for your party. Wow, I’m sick because I’m not buying your spin? Thanks, I appreciate that, especially coming from a racist like you.

They are Astroturf in that they are not grassroots efforts; they are organized by two Washington, D.C. lobbying firms. As for signs, I guess you ignored all the Hitler signs, photos of the president with a bone in his nose or the ones paid for by the lobbyists that say “bury Obamacare with Kennedy.”

Seriously? You “don't recall any out-of-state people? You must have missed the bus tour that stopped in Brighton. You can read about it here.

Communications guru said...

I’ll grant you that the Secret Service is reluctant to release the data on the number of threats, but there are no doubt the threats are way up, and the hatred of Obama is unprecedented. I know you’ll dispute every source, even the largest newspaper in the UK, but here is one from the Boston Globe. It says, “The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency’s overall mission.”

“No evidence of how that originates from tea-partiers?” You can also read on this blog about the rise of white supremacists and the militia that have pushed the Astroturf “tea parties.”

Affirmative Action does level the playing field. A few points on an entrance exam for race does not go far enough to offset hundreds of years of slavery and a hundred years of discrimination, but it helps. I agree with you; the playing field is not level. Equal treatment of all individuals? I’m the liberal? So, just because you say we have “equal treatment of all individuals ,” its true? In the meantime, all the institutional prejudice that has set back generations of African-Americans just disappears?

You’re talking about educational opportunity, but your party wants to cut early childhood education and K-12 funding. Give me a break.