Nullification

I posted a video by Tom Woods a few weeks ago, and I was lucky enough to find one of his newer books at the library:



  This guy is freaking smart. It's been a while since I read an intensely informative book like this so it takes me a few re-reads of pages to get it all. It's almost like Robert Borke's book in that every sentence seems to be too full of important info that you end up underlining/highlighting the whole damn book!

    At first glance, the topic of nullification would make most people roll their eyes and write you off as a "government conspiracy" touting nut, or Glenn Beck making a vague and confusing point with a chalkboard. I have to say, I can't blame it all on my lame California High School education--but I really don't know much about American History. And what I did learn in school, I accepted as fact without actually analyzing it. Because I didn't care. I care now, and it's really very interesting to learn the truth about the framers and what their intentions were. I know I should only speak for myself, but it seems like it's so easy to only look at the country in it's current state, and quickly judge this or that to be 'right' and therefore, fair for Americans. You look back at the 18th century, and think they were just bored white guys with wigs who liked to use a lot of unnecessary words to make sentences pages-long. And even to think that maybe the constitution is sort of a 'living' document with rules that are specific to certain times and said times' issues.

BUT
it's not irrelevant at all. I'm not even a quarter through this book, and i've learned so much. The framers truthfully did intend for each word to serve a purpose and to bear meaning throughout time. It was a very delicate process, to construct a constitution that both was specific enough to be efficient, while also being 'vague' enough to withstand cultural changes.
But the theme in this book, which is also the theme of the constitution, is that the federal government was ONLY set up to regulate (and by regulate, they mean 'make regular' not monitor or invade privacy) the tasks expressly (meaning the tasks literally written in the constitution) delegated to it. And nothing else.

   EVERYTHING else was supposed to be left to the States. I forget sometimes that we are a Union of states, and that those states are supposed to have more freedom than the Union itself. Look at whats going on today and how inconsistent that is. I'm new to this libertarian point of view, but I now see that the only way for this country to avoid becoming totalitarian, is to totally restrict the federal government from intrusion in not only State affairs, but personal affairs, like your health insurance policy.

   In the very beginning of the book, Woods talks about Pelosi being so proud that Obamacare was passed without it's thousands of pages being read....she was asked where in the constitution is congress authorized to order Americans to buy health insurance....all she could answer with is "Are you serious?"

  Pretty disappointing how much they are allowed to get away with. The federal government cannot be permitted to decide what is "right" and then mandate that. To think of all the wasted tax dollars going to tasks (and countries...) not delegated to the federal government to even be involved in, is flabbergasting. It's fun to use that word, but it is amazing how far the Federal government has over-reached and how blind we have all become to what is happening. People cannot or will not look past themselves---if a particular law benefits them but hurts the country, they support it...not understanding that in the long run, it's only going to bog us all down. (a recent example of that mindset..)

Read the book! The healthcare mandate is a prime example for nullification....which basically means the mandate is null and void, because it is unconstitutional. Sometimes I get interested in studying law. It's ridiculous what some cases used as reasoning to be covered under the constitution, and what judges went along with, despite supposedly studying the constitution. The main abused clauses are 'general welfare', the 'commerce clause' and 'necessary and proper' which by name seem to allow shelter for vague intentions...but upon reading them, really don't.

   An interesting train of thought is found in US vs. Lopez a 1995 case about guns in schools. Obviously we don't want guns in schools and that should definitely be handled by local or state officials. But the logic behind the indictment as being under congressional authority, was through the...commerce clause?! They basically said, that bringing guns to school, makes kids nervous...nervous kids don't do well in school, and therefore won't do well in life, which affects...interstate commerce. The supreme court rightfully disagreed, fearing the slippery slope it would allow. Unfortunately, that case didn't set a precedent for future cases and how broad the clauses are interpreted to be...

  And don't get me started on the invalidity of Roe v. Wade's "right to privacy" allowing abortion.