Arizona, Idaho, and the Ghost of John C. Calhoun

Pictured- John C. Calhoun, former US Senator from South Carolina and Vice President of the United States

I'm no lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV or even in community theater, but it's time for me to get up on the soapbox.............ready or not.

While American state legislatures spend their time ratifying ridiculous bans on the implementation of Sharia Laws inside the United States.....(wouldn't there have to be a Muslim majority in this country before it was even a remote possibility?)....and other wedge issues like gay marriage, there is a more serious matter going on in certain states. And it's an issue that though not resolved by our Civil War in the 19th century we assumed would most assuredly be resolved by the Constitution's 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, and 24th amendments. Those amendments referred to the voting rights of former slaves, minorities, women, residents of the District of Columbia, and of poll taxes used to deny or hinder the vote of those mentioned by the individual states.

Those amendments insured full citizenship to all Americans and were used to supersede state and local laws that would restrict voting rights to those mentioned- and in the case of citizens of the District of Columbia, Washingtonians were finally given the right to vote with implementation of the 23rd Amendment.

In the post Civil War and Reconstruction eras Southern states passed "Jim Crow" laws to prevent African Americans from voting, using the pretense of "state's rights" to keep the law of the land being applied in those states. "State's rights" had been the creed for individual states, primarily in the South, to ignore or even nullify what they saw as an intrusion into the affairs of states....more often than not this had to do with a federal mandate that wasn't popular in that state, and in the early 19th century that often meant laws limiting the growth of slavery. But often taxes and tariffs took the spotlight in that era.

And today in the 21st century we're seeing a new phase of proposed nullification of federal laws in certain states, some a result of opposition to federal healthcare reform, derisively referred to as "Obamacare" by it's opponents. But in Arizona and Idaho there are movements under way for their respective state legislatures to nullify all federal laws that may be deemed invalid or an overreach by the federal government, at the discretion of those state legislatures.

Reactions like those in Idaho and Arizona are almost as old as the republic itself. The Nullification Crisis of 1832 was the most famous instance in our history. Below, the story of the crisis from US History.com.

The Tariff of 1832, despite pleas from Southern representatives, failed to moderate the protective barriers erected in earlier legislation. South Carolina called a state convention that nullified the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within their borders and threatened to secede if the federal government attempted to collect those tariff duties. Robert Hayne (of Webster-Hayne Debate fame) had resigned from the Senate to run for governor of South Carolina; John C. Calhoun resigned the vice presidency and took Hayne’s seat in the Senate. These two men spearheaded the nullification drive. A real possibility of secession and war existed.

Jackson immediately offered his thought that nullification was tantamount to treason and quickly dispatched ships to Charleston harbor and began strengthening federal fortifications there. Congress supported the president and passed a Force Bill in early 1833 which authorized Jackson to use soldiers to enforce the tariff measures.

Meanwhile Henry Clay again took up his role as the Great Compromiser. On the same day the Force Bill passed, he secured passage of the Tariff of 1833. This latter measure provided for the gradual reduction of the tariff over 10 years down to the level which had existed in 1816. This compromise was acceptable to Calhoun who had not been successful with finding any other state to support him on nullification. Jackson signed both measures.

South Carolina repealed its nullification measure, but then spitefully nullified the Force Bill. Jackson wisely ignored that action.

I'm sure no one is accusing members of the Arizona and Idaho legislatures of treason, but it's easy to see that those who propose nullification are shortsighted in their perspective, and to be blunt, have a very narrow grasp on American history.

In Idaho Tea Party members are urging the passage of House Bill 59 which would allow the state to deem federal laws "null and void". Below, a notice from Tea Party Boise (originally printed in The Miami Herald).

"This is the line in the sand. On one side is federal tyranny — on the other side is freedom. What do you choose? If it is freedom — then be at the Capital (sic) on Feb. 7th."

In Arizona, a proposal from Republican State Senator Lori Klein would set up a panel of 12 lawmakers to review federal laws and mandates, and decide if the laws are "outside the scope of the powers delegated by the people to the federal in the United States Constitution."

Below, a statement from Senator Klein (from azdailysun.com).

"We're not seceding. We're looking at nullifying laws coming from the federal government that are mandates that are not constitutional."

The defiance of federal law in the 19th century inflamed the open wounds that were already there and led to armed conflict in 1861. Being part of this union we call the United States of America is kind of like being pregnant.....you either are, or you aren't.

It's the "United States is", not the "United States are".

Let's say state legislators decide they don't agree with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and decide not to allow gays to serve in the state's national guard?

Or in a national emergency a military draft is instituted....and certain states don't wish to allow their citizens to be drafted?

And if a state is free to nullify federal law without ramification, what is to stop the states from conversely instituting laws that are contrary to federal law, like an intelligence test for voting, or restricting full citizenship to American born children of undocumented immigrants?

If nullification of federal law is allowed to stand, then we fought a Civil War for nothing, and a century's worth of of domestic progress would be in jeopardy.

Maybe the adage is true.....we've seen the enemy, and it is us.

But we do have a constitutional mechanism in our system to resolve situations like this...it's called "the courts".

Once again....thank you, Founding Fathers.



Below, video of Lawrence O'Donnell on THE LAST WORD, with take on the new "Nullification Crisis".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First Read - N.J. court rules citizens cannot recall U.S. senators

Chalk one up for the Constitution of the United States of America, and a loss for the Tea Party in New Jersey.

In a 4-2 decision today the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a provision added to the New Jersey Constitution  in 1993 that gave New Jersey citizens the power to recall US Senators. New Jersey Tea Party members had been trying to recall New Jersey Democrat Bob Menendez. The following passage is from MSNBC.

The only way to end a Senate term early, the court said, is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, which empowers each house of Congress to "determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." As far back as 1906, the New Jersey Court said, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that a senator's seat "could only become vacant by his death, or by expiration of his term of office, or by some direct action on the part of the Senate in the exercise of its constitutional powers."

I find it continually amazing, fascinating, and sometimes amusing that Tea Partiers, who claim to be so concerned about about preserving and "restoring" the US Constitution, seem to have such selective memory about it's provisions.


Below, the link to full story as reported by MSNBC's Pete Williams.

First Read - N.J. court rules citizens cannot recall U.S. senators

Franklin Roosevelt's "Second Bill of Rights"; The Job Remains Unfinished

Yesterday I woke up bright and near the crack of dawn, so early there was nothing but infomercials and bad movies on the tube, so I decided to check out the ON DEMAND movies. I had about two hours until it would be time for breakfast so I checked out Michael Moore's Capitalism;A Love Story. I highly recommend it to all. If you're a Moore fan (like me), you'll be laughing and crying at the same time at the mess we find ourselves in because of the shell game played with people's lives by Wall Street, the banks, insurance companies, Big Oil, and the Fortune 500....not to mention by those elected officials who are supposed to be looking out for us on the local, state, and national levels.

And before any of you on The Right say, "Yeah, just some additional Democrat propaganda".....not so fast. More than a few Dems are taken to the woodshed, members of the Senate, House, and members of President Obama's economic team.

The bottomline is the September 2008 collapse was a joint effort by many components; there's plenty of blame to go around.

One of the topics covered in the film was one that I have heard mentioned before, but never looked into. Rare film footage was shown of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's State of the Union address from January 11, 1944. FDR gave the address from the White House instead before the joint houses of Congress; his health was starting to fail, and he had the flu. The first part of the address was given to a radio audience, but second portion of the speech was recorded on film, though it was assumed lost for years.

In the filmed part of the address, FDR proposed the establishment of a Second Bill of Rights, one that would guarantee economic opportunity for all and thus insure the growth and sustenance of our democracy. This would not be a change to the Constitution, only a bill that would level the playing field and free all in our pursuit of happiness.



Below, an excerpt from the address.

"It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.”[2] People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."

FDR was a true visionary. He saw the Constitution not as a static document, but one that was expansive, and one that was subject to change as fitting the times.

In today's political atmosphere...and the growth of the Tea Party movement and New Libertarianism, some would think Roosevelt's idea anathema and a blow to the true intent of the Founding Fathers in the adoption of the Constitution and The (first) Bill of Rights.

But would that really be the case?

As long ago as the birth of The Republic, the more progressive Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, saw that economic inequality was the enemy of a free state, and that to allow poverty to exist was an abomination.

A quote from Thomas Jefferson.

"Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."

FDR never lived to see the any application and adoption of this New Bill of Rights in the United States. It is a great irony that the defeated fascist nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan adopted most of these same principles after their destruction by the United States and her allies. And The United Kingdom and France, and other Western European nations that were occupied by the Nazis, rebuilt from the rubble using the outline given by FDR on that January night in 1944.

But America lagged behind in adoption of the Second Bill of Rights; the world's most successful democracy went ahead into an era of prosperity for many in the 1950'and 1960's, and on to the present day, but left many behind economically in the wake of this Great Abundance.

The great question remains....why?

For further reading and some possible answers, please check out FDR's Second Bill of Rights- and Why We Need It Now from Democraticunderground,com.

Joe Lieberman and The Most Un-American Law of the Last 70 Years

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Al Gore's running mate for the Vice-Presidency in Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, has proposed a law that would strip the citizenship of anyone suspected of terrorism against the United States, according to POLITICO. In doing so, there wouldn't be a need for the reading of Miranda rights to any suspect.

The key word here is suspect.

Lieberman's proposal comes in the wake of the arrest of Faisal Shahzad, the man arrested for allegedly parking a vehicle full of explosives in Times Square last Saturday. Shahzad is a native of Pakistan but a naturalized American citizen.

Below, an excerpt of a statement by Sen Lieberman, from POLITICO.

“I’m now putting together legislation to amend that to [specify that] any individual American citizen who is found to be involved in a foreign terrorist organization, as defined by the Department of State, would be deprived of their citizenship rights,” Lieberman said Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36741.html#ixzz0n6miWJee

There's a few problems with the Senator's logic....besides the fact that it tramples on the United States Constitution, as that it probably violates the Fourth, Fifth, and most importantly the Fourteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment reads in part....

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what about those lawmakers- like Lieberman, John McCain, and Congressman Peter King, for example- who are constantly wringing their hands about "activist judges", and want a "strict interpretation" of the United States Constitution? What is so hard to interpret in ....no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws ?





Look....I despise those who want to do us harm, cowardly terrorists, those simply bent on cold blooded murder. But do we alter our Constitution out of fear, or to score political points? Because that's the bottom line. That's what this is all about.

Consider this fictional scenario....we'll call the man Hamid Khan. He works in New York City, and is a computer systems analyst. He is a naturalized American citizen, born in Lebanon. One day he emails his cousin Ibrihim in Beiruit. They haven't spoken since childhood. Ibrihim asks Hamid about Madison Square Garden; he tells Hamid he he plays semi-pro basketball in Lebanon....Hamid emails some pictures of the MSG to his cousin, unaware that that Ibrihim is a member of a terrorist organization; they are collecting potential targets for an attack in New York City.

Under the law proposed by Joe Lieberman, an innocent man could potentially be arrested as a conspirator, have his citizenship stripped, not given his Miranda rights, sent to confinement in Guantanamo, where he would be questioned and imprisoned indefinitely until a military tribunal would decide what to do with him.

And do we apply this to suspected "homegrown" terrorists, like Timothy McVeigh, or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold clones- when does mass murder graduate to terrorism? Do we just apply the law on Muslim extremists and ship them to Gitmo, and let the blond blue eyed mass murderers face the music in civilian courts?

History always repeats itself; in the 1940's American citizens of Japanese decent were rounded up by the tens of thousands without due process and herded into interment camps for the duration of World War II. This never happened to German Americans or Italian Americans....yes, resident German and Italian aliens were interred in the United States, but the Japanese-Americans were given "special handling". Due process was trampled on then, as would due process be trampled on now if this proposal by Joe Lieberman, this subjugation of out Constitution, is allowed to pass.

Lieberman's proposed law is meant to send any suspected terrorist to a military tribunal. Its that simple. Frankly, that is a slap in the face of our civil courts. Our judicial system did manage to do a pretty good job of dealing with McVeigh, who got the needle he so richly deserved.

And by the way...where are the Tea Partiers now with their selective love of the Constitution and its heart and soul, our Bill of Rights?

I guess "due process" and the definition of citizenship must take a permanent back seat to gun rights and freedom of assembly with those guys.

Below, two videos from Rachel Maddow on the Faisal Shahzad case, and the reaction to his arrest, and to due process from "the usual suspects". Pay attention to the second video featuring Constitutional attorney Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School regarding the probable unconstitutionality of Leiberman's proposed law.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And for even more on this subject, here's more from Rachel Weiner of THE WASHINGTON POST.