« When Rights Collide | Main | In Defense Of A Birther »

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Nullify-a While You Can, Monkey-Boy!

Via TP, I see the Iowa GOP's platform is brimming with more constitutional word salad than Ron Paul at an Applebee's, including:

A Right to Life

1.4 We disagree with Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton as “settled law.” [What about Casey, which reaffirmed Roe?] Under the Tenth amendment, these Supreme Court decisions have no authority over the states.

...

Government: Judicial Branch

1.1 We demand that U. S. and state courts operate under the guidelines [uh...guidelines?] stated in Article VI of the U. S. Constitution, where it establishes that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

...

Government: State and Local

1.1 We support constitutional state sovereignty including nullification of federal oversteps [Dear Strict Constructionists: where is the state power to nullify spelled out?].

Once again we see wingnuts waving the Tenth around as some sort of "Get Out Of The United States Free" card.  The dissonance is awesome: we want the courts to follow the Constitution, but if we don't like what they or Congress do in their constitutional roles, we'll just say "LALALALALALA, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU AND YOU'RE NOT OUR REAL DAD!"

I almost hesitate to refer to longstanding judicial doctrine, but here are some Supreme Court decisions they might not be aware of that pretty much nullify nullification:

  • Prigg v PA (1842): [U]pon just principles of construction...the legislation of Congress, if constitutional, must supersede all state legislation upon the same subject, and, by necessary implication, prohibit it. For, if Congress have a constitutional power to regulate a particular subject, and they do actually regulate it is a given manner, and in a certain form, it cannot be that the state legislatures have a right to interfere. 
  • Ableman v Booth (1858): The language of the Constitution by which this power is granted is too plain to admit of doubt or to need comment. It declares that

"this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

But the supremacy thus conferred on this Government could not peacefully be maintained unless it was clothed with judicial power equally paramount in authority to carry it into execution...

  • Cooper v Aaron (1958): It is necessary only to recall some basic constitutional propositions which are settled doctrine.

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the "supreme Law of the Land." In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation," declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 5 U. S. 177, that "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system....Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 "to support this Constitution."

...

"If the legislatures of the several states may at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery. . . ."

As an aside, there's a certain quasi-ironic juxtaposition between the former cases and the latter, of particular interest to me given VT's ante bellum history.

Anyway, the document is chock-full of ignorance and contradictions, not limited to declaring that unborn children have rights whilst rejecting a UN convention that says children have rights, and declaring that healthcare isn't a right but rather a "privilege" whilst ignoring natural rights as understood by William Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and even George Washington's nephew, Justice Bushrod Washington.  

And who the fuck is trying to "remove any mention of God" from the Declaration of Independence?  Are there liberal gnomes breaking into the National Archives and people's homes, scratching out "Nature's God" from every copy?  Are they also removing any mention of the general Welfare and the Necessary and Proper clause from the Constitution, or do we not care about that?

Please tell me this is all an elaborate test of the Infinite Number of Monkeys Theorem by a mad scientist from the 8th Dimension...

ntodd

Show a little "yuhyoohappy" during the NTodd Ain't Ann Romney Fundraiser *

May 22, 2012 in Constitution, Schmonstitution | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef016766b1fa4e970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nullify-a While You Can, Monkey-Boy!:

Comments

Oh, these ignorant fucksticks. And now I have a headache.

Posted by: Nancy in Detroit | May 23, 2012 11:51:30 AM

Post a comment