Founders and Framers
Nullification
Natural law and the Compact
By Stephen L. Wilmeth
There lays my
copy of the Constitution.
How many
years has the reference been repeated about its importance to our way of life.
Both sides arguing the constitutionality of a federal action … both sides using
the defensive measures it projects into the validity of their position.
I am afraid
I must reluctantly agree with Las
Cruces, New Mexico radio
talk show host, Michael Swickard. We really don’t have a Constitution. The patronization
of its reference is more rhetorical than it is sincere. There is loyalty to its
purpose only on the basis of political symbolism.
If we are honest with ourselves,
few of us learned the true measure of its genius. Fewer yet learned the most
important points from any instructor. If the instructor was able to grasp the
measure of its profound simplicity, he didn’t communicate to us any notion of
its most fundamental binding. A virtuous and moral man is imperative.
Perhaps there is no virtue among
us. That was certainly the position of the naysayers before the Revolutionary
War. They doubted the ability of a common man to govern.
James Madison was one who worried.
He feared an American descendency without virtue and morality. He was convinced
without those two qualities the Constitution and the Republic for which it
stood could not be sustained.
Natural Law
Every time I go back and read from
John Adams I am struck by his work ethic and diligence. Like all of the
Founders he had no staff to serve his bidding. He didn’t delegate the grunt
work away to rule only on important matters. He was driven to find out what the
important stuff was through the labors of reaching a conclusion that made perfect
sense. He reached that point by the tedium of the process. He would study for
days on a concept. He would pray and read scripture. He would consult the
historical masters.
Cicero was on his short list of desk
references. A Roman, Cicero
drew attention to the core belief that any lasting institution could exist only
on the basis of identifying and adhering to the rules of “right conduct”. Such
rules were valid only if they mimicked the genius of the Creator.
It was his contention that once a
foundation is identified the only approach to governance was through the laws of
the Supreme Creator. He referred to those standards as Natural Law.
The best example of understanding
the context of Cicero’s
Natural Law is to read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of
Independence. Those words are perhaps the most eloquent creations by Man for
the purposes of trying to capture accurately the very doctrine under which
human affairs shall be governed. They were attempts to define the ethical
principles that can only be understood and perpetuated by reason. They are
truly masterful attempts to clarify natural law, but they were also more … they
were American words that found form and substance at a very critical juncture
in time.
No less than Thomas Paine became
convinced that Americans were then united on multiple fronts. The emerging
Americans were “industrious, frugal, and honest” as opposed to the “luxury,
indolence, amusement, and pleasure” that dominated their English masters.
Interestingly, the Americans had also
arrived at that state as a majority being property owners. “Almost every man is a freeholder”, Paine
wrote. Too little credence has been paid to that immensely important fact. They
had come to rely on the fruits of private property in largely closed system,
but … there was more.
The Americans, without the full
measure of self governance, had been interacting amongst themselves in a purer
state of natural law. With respect through a balance of enterprise predicated
in large part on self-reliance, their economy existed on strong ties of mutual
existence. They united for reasons in common. They also had what Cicero
referred to as “the right reason in common”. They became united against a
tyrannical master who had failed to maintain a reciprocal compact of natural
law.
They rebelled and … they prevailed.
To the compact
The Constitution was and still is a
compact amongst states.
It wasn’t the Senate or the House
of Representatives or the Supreme Court that created and ratified the American
Constitution. It certainly wasn’t the President, either. It was the victorious free states of the newly
and soon to be fully formed union, the United States of America, which
ratified and set in motion their conditional agreement of compact based upon
clearly delegated rules of authority.
Each state gave their approval on
the basis of that finite, defined demarcation.
The Constitution was the guiding
document creating and defining a limited federal government. It was James
Madison’s words, “I … have always
conceived … that those who ratified the Constitution conceived … that this is
not an indefinite government, but a limited government, tied down to the
specified powers, which explain and define the general terms.”
Today, many of us believe the
premise of the aforementioned Michael Swickard that the federal government has
become the dominion of expanding powers and the Constitution no longer exists.
The ultimate fear of Alexander Hamilton in the #78 Federalist Paper has come to
pass. He wrote, “No legislative act,
therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid”, and, yet, the
Constitution in form and practice has been shredded. The creator’s partnership
has been ousted.
“To deny this”, Hamilton
continued, “would be to affirm, that the
deputy is greater than his principal … that the representatives of the people
are superior to the people themselves …” Indeed, independent, free, and
sovereign man has long been a symbolic expression rather than the cornerstone
of our system.
Writings such as these and
multitudes like them make it abundantly clear the Framers held that the states
not only have the authority, but the responsibility to determine when the
federal government oversteps its defined boundaries. The 10th
Amendment magnified the issue of states’ rights in 1791.
Nullification
Many worried about the issue of virtuous
leaders with enough wisdom to maintain the original precepts of the
fundamentals. Thomas Jefferson was one.
In 1799, he wrote the prescription
for action to be undertaken against authority creep by the federal government.
He penned the following:
“That the several states who formed (the Constitution), being sovereign
and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and,
that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done
under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.”
What is nullification?
Nullification is the legal theory
that the states have the right to nullify or invalidate any federal law which a
state has deemed unconstitutional. Although tried many times, the action has
never been upheld. The Supreme Court has rejected the concept. Most of the
objections have come from interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the
Constitution, but all Americans should wake up and vigorously defend against
that assertion.
The Supreme Court did not even
exist before the Constitution was written. It was created by the combined
authority of the states in their adoption of the Constitution. No branch of
government was party to such a vote. They held no dominion in a concept that
preceded their very existence nor were they granted any right to displace the
American citizens who formed the pillars of sovereignty within those states.
The Supremacy Clause is what it is … the declaration the Constitution is
Supreme, not the federal government!
James Madison feared the same
outcome. “If the decision of the
judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the
Constitution … dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and
executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department, also may
exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution
…” Never was there truer words.
The Remedy
Honest constitutional scholars have
come to the conclusion that since the Supreme Court has seized the final
authority to determine the constitutionality of a federal act the United States
is not a Republic of sovereign States but a monarchy. The sovereign American
people and their States have been displaced by a ruling class that in form and
function reflect the same tyrannical forces that Thomas Paine identified in the
Anglican masters of the colonies.
“Luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure”
were the credited references.
Again, Jefferson
offered a remedy to fight back against the perversion of any suggestion of natural
law with his nullification strategy, but unless a few states like Arizona, Utah, Oklahoma, and Texas lead there will not be a concerted state
response, either. Most states are in the same state of constitutional
corruption the federal government has led us all.
So, that leaves the other Jefferson strategy, but that requires a buoyant, mortal
catalyst … Sam Adams, do you exist?
Stephen
L. Wilmeth is a rancher from southern New
Mexico. “Tyranny in all forms is still … tyranny.”
THE WESTERNER SEZ:
Read Nullification by Thomas E. Woods.
However, I'm beginning to think the Anti-Federalists had it right. You can read them here.THE WESTERNER SEZ:
No comments:
Post a Comment