Nullification, the far Right's fall back point?

[Stardreamer]

So I've been hanging around in Disqus chat which I'm finding quite enjoyable since I get to bang heads with right and left. In all the stories on the Supreme Court taking up marriage equality I'm seeing some trends among the far right who can bring themselves to even admit the end is near.

The position they are working up is that the states can ignore the court's ruling is they want to. A few Republican's have raised the concept to, that if the court declares marriage equality nation wide, the states will simply ignore it. One article I read calls this concept nullification and has been tried before, and failed, with school desegregation. What makes it interesting right now is the approach has been successfully employed just recently with state's passing laws decriminalizing marijuana. Of course those states are getting away with it specifically because the Federal government is not pressing the issue. What do you think?

 

[TX-Beau]

Jefferson Davis tried nullification, so did George Wallace, I suspect anyone trying to use that argument will be met with the same success.

Supremacy Clause. End of game. The Fed is letting Colorado run an experiment. Elect a Pub, end of game.

 

[T-Rexx]

I have been thinking about this problem for some time now.

Ignoring the Supreme Court won't work, of course. The federal government has leverage it can (and will) apply to force local jurisdictions to comply with federal law. It can dismiss federal judges who do not cooperate. It can withhold federal funds. It can make bigotry uncomfortably painful.

My expectation was that Republicans would (more or less) give up the anti-gay hate campaign after the Supreme Court forced marriage equality on the land (assuming that is coming). I do think that some of that has happened, and it is still my expectation.

But, a counter movement advocating Jim Crowe-style hate has also developed. "We will issue gay marriage licenses, we just won't pay any county clerks who issue such licenses." "We will enact a religious exemption that will allow anyone to refuse to serve gay people." "We will ignore court orders."

I do not expect much to come from the Jim Crowe-style laws. I do not think that anti-gay bigotry is today as deeply-rooted in American society as was anti-black bigotry in the past. Moreover, public opinion has been changing rapidly in our favor. It is notable that Jan Brewer (a Republican) vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays in her state. The Boy Scouts now allow gay kids to become scouts. Even the pope says it is not his place to judge gays.

The thing that will save us from nullification and Jim Crowe is widespread public acceptance of homosexuality as a biological norm. And that has been happening with surprising speed.

 

[TX-Beau]

All social change precedes the courts. It's why only the right has "activist judges" attempting to stop the march of Liberalism - which is winning, slowly, over time. Conservatism morphs to accommodate, not the other way. We forget this sometimes. That there was a time when women couldn't vote and black people were owned in fact, if not in law, and we all hid in our closets afraid of the light.

Dr. King said that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice, and so far, that's true.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem is that the federal government has so overstepped its bounds that people who believe in local government instead of de facto empire have to get radical to stand up for their states.

Ironically, though, this is an area in which the federal government most certainly should have jurisdiction -- matters of individual liberty. Other than that, they should have to have any power they want to exercise spelled out clearly. The marijuana issue is one where the federal government really has no authority; stretching the commerce clause to cover it is just an authoritarian's move.

It's sad that we've come to a point where there really are no defenders of the Bill of Rights any more. Each party has their favorites, but they defend them less and less. The Fourth is effectively dead, the Fifth keeps getting weakened, the First has become a circus....

The U.S. is becoming an empire. Both parties are working toward it. We're going to reach a point where we need a "second amendment solution", but the irony is that the people who believe in such a thing are no friends of liberty.

 

[TX-Beau]

People forget, while looking at the old men on our money - that they were young men who were rebels, and took to war, to change their world.

 

[TX-Beau]

"...a little rebellion now and then is a good thing..."

 

[evanrick]

Ive been saying for years federalism has failed. Yes it can coerce the states to not discriminate but the courts are a joke otherwise.

 

[smokeshadow]

IMO - with regards to the Supremacy Clause, the Federal Government has a bigger stick than state governments. . .it's called the U. S. Army vs. the National Guard

 

[hotatlboi]

IMO - with regards to the Supremacy Clause, the Federal Government has a bigger stick than state governments. . .it's called the U. S. Army vs. the National Guard

There is no "vs". If a state gov is acting in contrary to the fed gov the state national guard is simply taken over by the fed. That's what happened to George Wallace.

 

[Stardreamer]

I have been thinking about this problem for some time now.

Ignoring the Supreme Court won't work, of course. The federal government has leverage it can (and will) apply to force local jurisdictions to comply with federal law. It can dismiss federal judges who do not cooperate. It can withhold federal funds. It can make bigotry uncomfortably painful.

My expectation was that Republicans would (more or less) give up the anti-gay hate campaign after the Supreme Court forced marriage equality on the land (assuming that is coming). I do think that some of that has happened, and it is still my expectation.

But, a counter movement advocating Jim Crowe-style hate has also developed. "We will issue gay marriage licenses, we just won't pay any county clerks who issue such licenses." "We will enact a religious exemption that will allow anyone to refuse to serve gay people." "We will ignore court orders."

I do not expect much to come from the Jim Crowe-style laws. I do not think that anti-gay bigotry is today as deeply-rooted in American society as was anti-black bigotry in the past. Moreover, public opinion has been changing rapidly in our favor. It is notable that Jan Brewer (a Republican) vetoed a bill that would have allowed businesses to discriminate against gays in her state. The Boy Scouts now allow gay kids to become scouts. Even the pope says it is not his place to judge gays.

The thing that will save us from nullification and Jim Crowe is widespread public acceptance of homosexuality as a biological norm. And that has been happening with surprising speed.

Your expectation is largely correct from what I can see in the political press stories, its clear the Republican party's main leadership will breath a silent sigh of relief when the court rules in favor of same sex families. They know this social issue has become toxic and is working against the party with younger generations. They just want the court to rule so they can say to the base 'well we tried but its the law of the land now' and move on to other issues. Unfortunately we have a very vocal part of the party on the far right that is not going give up the fight and are whipping up the social conservatives. They are going to put pressure on the rest to at least make token gestures of rebellion and turn this into another Roe v Wade. Hopefully the leadership will prevail and this will die a natural death I think once same sex marriage is the law of the land and people don't see the sky falling they will lose a lot of steam. Abortion stays on the scene because its not hard to get people to rally around a moral position (right or wrong) of not killing babies but its going to be a lot harder to keep a moral rallying point about people marrying when the doom and gloom doesn't appear.

 

[T-Rexx]

Unfortunately we have a very vocal part of the party on the far right that is not going give up the fight and are whipping up the social conservatives. They are going to put pressure on the rest to at least make token gestures of rebellion and turn this into another Roe v Wade.

I have no doubt whatsoever that a small portion of the GOP will continue to try to stir up hatred against gays. Just as they currently try to stir up hatred against blacks, Latinos, the poor, women, Muslims, etc. There is something within that party that needs somebody to attack; some Americans to hate. They have been that way for 70 years. The GOP is not a party of ideas but one which seeks to maintain power by generating fear of everyone else.

The big question in my view is what will happen to the GOP long-term. They depend on straight, white, rich, male, English-speaking Christians for votes - a demographic which they absolutely dominate. But that demographic is steadily disappearing. And the GOP, frankly, does not seem to be able to adjust to that fact.

 

[Kulindahr]

People forget, while looking at the old men on our money - that they were young men who were rebels, and took to war, to change their world.

Franklin wasn't young at the time of the Revolution.

 

[Kulindahr]

There's a deep irony here: states' rights is actually a liberal position, meant to protect local rule -- the very same thing the Revolution was about to a great extent. But liberals have done a 180 and now favor powerful central government over states' or even individual rights.

 

[TX-Beau]

There's a deep irony here: states' rights is actually a liberal position, meant to protect local rule -- the very same thing the Revolution was about to a great extent. But liberals have done a 180 and now favor powerful central government over states' or even individual rights.

Yes and no, Liberalism is equality before the law, unalienable rights for everyone. Liberalism is about the relationship between the government and these two principles, so yes Liberalism is about local autonomy, but it's also about one of the primary functions of government being to ensure them for everyone as well.

"States Rights," is a bogus fig leaf over tyranny invented by bigots to serve bigots, and remains so. The rights these "states" want is the right to fuck over people they don't like. Liberalism is also the Fed stepping in to stop "local" governments trying to take freedoms away.

Or at least it was supposed to work that way, these days no one seems to be minding the till.

 

[TX-Beau]

Probably because there are very few Liberals in Government. We make bad corporate whores.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes and no, Liberalism is equality before the law, unalienable rights for everyone. Liberalism is about the relationship between the government and these two principles, so yes Liberalism is about local autonomy, but it's also about one of the primary functions of government being to ensure them for everyone as well.

"States Rights," is a bogus fig leaf over tyranny invented by bigots to serve bigots, and remains so. The rights these "states" want is the right to fuck over people they don't like. Liberalism is also the Fed stepping in to stop "local" governments trying to take freedoms away.

Or at least it was supposed to work that way, these days no one seems to be minding the till.

States rights was written into the Constitution by liberals and libertarians (which back then were nearly the same thing). But nowadays it has been pretty well neutered by liberals pushing the back-asswards interpretation of the commerce clause to turn it into authority to do just about anything, not just to regulate interstate commerce to keep the states from creating barriers.

That true blue authoritarians have turned to states' rights to try to defend things shows just how authoritarian the left has become.

 

[Kulindahr]

Probably because there are very few Liberals in Government. We make bad corporate whores.

So do actual libertarians.

 

[TX-Beau]

States rights was written into the Constitution by liberals and libertarians (which back then were nearly the same thing). But nowadays it has been pretty well neutered by liberals pushing the back-asswards interpretation of the commerce clause to turn it into authority to do just about anything, not just to regulate interstate commerce to keep the states from creating barriers.

That true blue authoritarians have turned to states' rights to try to defend things shows just how authoritarian the left has become.

Hmmmm, I'd have to research that to get to an opinion but I suspect I'm going to find that just more Libertarian complaining.

In regard to States Rights, you will absolutely find that The Fed enforcing the bill of rights is a Liberal position, (and the states doing the same thing) this isn't "authoritarian" in the least little bit. You don't have the right to fuck over someone else - and neither do the "States," or the Fed for that matter.

If you want to go all the way back, on the "States Rights" issue, the FF's were NOT in agreement, "States Rights" as you are using the term was not "enshrined" in the constitution beyond the creation of a Federal System - there is no language in the Constitution that the State trumps Fed, indeed it says exactly the opposite, of course the south has pretty much always disagreed with that, and the people who have been using that argument ever since, are not people I assume you want to associate with.

I find it far more "authoritarian" to attempt to defend slavery and Jim Crow. modern disenfranchisement, etc with an argument of "States Rights." Don't you? It is a Liberal position that the Fed AND the State protect us from such things, and if the State is participating, then yes, it's time for the Supremacy clause.

 

[Alnitak]

Franklin wasn't young at the time of the Revolution.

Bah. 70 is the new 50.