NullifyNow! comes to NH

I've mentioned it here, I've (4.00 / 6)

tweeted it, and I've written about it.

Yet despite the Speaker and Chairman's presence at this fringe grouping, the most prominent bulletin board for GOP activities, DiStaso's Granite Status, has not noted it.

This should be major news - GOP leadership attending a meeting devoted to the invalidation of federal law.

It's not like the US had a crisis on this very subject which helped spark the fire of the Civil War or anything.

I repeat: Daniel Webster weeps.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 17:32:58 PM UTC

They have interesting info (0.00 / 0)

It always seems to me like way too many people write each other off.  Have you found any value in any of it?

---

by: dscotese @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 05:33:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where are all the new jobs? (0.00 / 0)

How much more will our property taxes be in Nov?  Does Itse ever go to work?

---

by: mevansnh @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 19:30:18 PM UTC

Nullification is Treason (4.00 / 5)

Perhaps it is because I've been a History teacher but the news of the "Nullify Now" conference at SNHU is just shocking to me.  I understand from the conference website that the "Granite State Patriots" group is the founding sponsor of the event, if so they should change their name to "Granite State Traitors."

The major cause of the American Civil War was the belief that the states were superior to the Union and could therefore declare "null and void" federal laws that they disagreed with.  Slavery is a symptom of this belief, not the cause.  Because of nullification we fought a bloody, four year war that led to the deaths of almost 625,000 Americans.  That is more deaths then were caused by all other American wars fought before and since.

What is wrong with these people?  In the 1860s New Hampshire these people would have been arrested and charged with treason.  I'm not an attorney but shouldn't actively pushing for nullification be an impeachable offense?  It is abviously a violation of an official's oath to the U.S. Constitution.

I realize that some of you out there are going to consider my point of view to be a bit extreme but think about it.  Members of the leadership of the NH Republican party are going to a conference dedicated to breaking the law of the land.  Tell me is the State of New Hampshire going to pay their registration fees, per diem or millage?  Is attendance at this conference consider legislative business?  Will these individual be introduced as NH Government/Legislative officials?  Is this our tax dollars at work?  Please say no!

"Liberty and Union, Now and Forever, One and Inseparable!" -- Daniel Webster

---

by: ProfessorMike @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 20:38:46 PM UTC

It sure isn't very (4.00 / 2)

patriotic.  Except I am sure they would disagree with me, because for them, patriotic is whatever they do, and unpatriotic is what we do.  So words don't really mean anything.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:18:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where do I sign up (4.00 / 2)

Nullification is Treason

to get my bumper sticker?

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:21:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unconstitutional (0.00 / 0)

If that describes your government, what do you do about it?  There must be something... Or do you just roll over?

---

by: dscotese @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 05:34:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You try to get four other Justices to agree with you. (0.00 / 0)

Oh, you were NOT appointed and confirmed to the United States Supreme Court? Then you don't get to determine whether something is "unconstitutional."

You could look it up.

---

by: elwood @ Wed Mar 16, 2011 at 10:42:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It did occur to me (4.00 / 3)

that this might be why they need a militia.  
I like being a citizen of the United States, even when I don't always agree with everything my country does (wish that happened a bit less often, actually).  I don't want to give up the protections of the US Constitution or the laws of the land.  And I sure don't want to be the object of these guys "states' rights!"  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:16:46 PM UTC

It's only a short step (4.00 / 2)

from there to passing legislation that we could be arrested for being US sympathizers.  

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:30:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They've already passed a bill (4.00 / 1)

that calls for the arrest of officials enforcing federal gun laws. They are considering others that do something similar with regards to healthcare.

---

by: Mike Emm @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:37:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That passed???? (4.00 / 2)

Forget local media. When is the national media going to realize that the people in Concord have lost their minds and are moving us into truly scary territory?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 21:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some of us believe... (0.00 / 0)

Some of us believe that we're already in truly scary territory, and that sadly, we seem to be the only ones left in our right minds, with everyone else having drunk the koolaid, left and right.

We've got a Federal Judge (Kessler) ruling that 'mental activity' is regulate-able.  Anyone care to think about where that direction could or would take us?  (If you think it'll be ok since you're in charge, imagine when your opponents can use that ability against you....)

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress's power....However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance

"little guidance"?  How can a federal judge even think that's CLOSE to within Congress's power, unless we are already in the Twilight Zone?

We've got the TSA pat-downs, which violate the 4th Amendment, not to mention NH's 19th.  And yet, we have Democrats like Rep. Pantelakos defending this practice, telling people, "If you don't like it, don't fly."
http://www.wmur.com/r/27035604...

We've got warrant-less wire-tapping, internet kill switches, and more mostly via the Patriot Act, renewed by folks on both sides of the aisle... anyone on either side who voted for that renewal should be ashamed of themselves.

If the Left had gone this route during the Bush years, and seriously discussed nullification as a means to address the abuses of power, a lot of the teaparty folks would have been your allies then and now... but you didn't, perhaps you figured that getting on top of the heap was better than taking the heap down, and reducing the power of whomever is on top.

ProfessorMike misses the ball here: the conference is not an official activity of the NH legislature, it's private.  And it very clearly says "constitutional sound" methods, so I really can't see how 'treason' follows from 'constitutionally sound', it seems that NOT taking 'constitutional sound' methods to address the problems we face would be the true treasonous act.  We have Representatives who claim in public that the US and/or NH Constitutions are outdated and we try and follow it "too much" - I submit that THAT is certainly far more serious than someone attending this conference.  

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 22:51:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a lot of pitiful fools (4.00 / 1)

forgot that your party drove the economy into the toilet during the Bush years, and stupidly decided to elect you buffoons to finish the job.

Where are the jobs, Seth? Where's the laser like focus on the budget and the economy of our state?

All I see are clowns. Clowns trying to form an army on the taxpayer's teat. Clowns trying to dictate reproduction. Clowns trying to dictate marriage. Clowns trying to dictate divorce. Clowns trying to oust an elected representative on trumped up charges. Clowns trying to make jobless people pee in cups because they get food stamps because they're unemployed because your party destroyed the economy. Meanwhile pious GOP fauxholy men want to legislate their very narrow, religious views.

You come here babbling and typing lots of words in the hopes that we don't notice what you're doing, but we do. You pretend to disagree with your party leadership now and again, as if that makes you some sort of maverick. Well, McCohn, you're no maverick. You're wearing the same clown costume they are. If you had a shred of decency you'd publicly step down and decry the folly your party is engaging in, defiling the People's House and making a mockery of our state.  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:10:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seth's treasonous forbears in the South (4.00 / 2)

also claimed that they were patriots.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:15:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My forbears? (0.00 / 0)

I seem to recall those were Democrats at the time.
So are they my forbears or yours? (likely neither...)

Last week, I was struck by the fact that the core argument in the Kentucky/Virginia Resolutions was over the Alien/Sedition Acts, and history shows that, in fact, the Resolutions were on the correct side of that battle (ie the Acts really were unconstitutional, by most modern views looking back), despite the numerous legislatures who refused to do the right thing at the time.  It's no coincidence those are back in full swing now, because we're essentially dealing with the same problem: unconstitutional actions.  If we lose, will later history judge us to be on the correct side, regardless of who wins?

Jefferson was a patriot, and he authored those Resolutions.  I've rather be Jefferson than Lincoln, frankly.  Lincoln?  Try http://www.lewrockwell.com/woo... (Woods will be the keynote speaker at the above, so it's certainly related - his views on Lincoln are pretty strong having authored 2 books on him)

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:40:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oops, the two books are DiLorenzo, not Woods (0.00 / 0)

The review is by Woods.  Got my Toms mixed up. Same point, though. Woods' opinion is the same.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:42:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dilorenzo is a whackadoodle (4.00 / 2)

It would not surprise me to learn that he was dropped on his head as a baby.  In addition to being a cuckoo bird, he is not a patriot.

New Hampshire stood strong for the Union in the Civil War. There are statues in nearly every town in this state in honor of the men who fought against the secessionists. It dishonors them when the speaker and his party chair support this drivel.  

 



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 01:29:37 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Abolitionism (0.00 / 0)

Kathy, I've decided that we're the new abolitionists... if you're going to tell everyone we want to abolish this and that, we might as well embrace the long and valiant history of New England Abolitionists, a main cause of the founding of the Republican Party here in NH.

Thank you, I'll be sure you get the credit for the inspiration.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:23:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not even remotely funny... (0.00 / 0)

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:30:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

You need a tougher skin if you want a career in politics, Seth.  

Speaking of Republicans, one of these days Abraham Lincoln is going to be tempted to step out of that portrait in Representatives Hall, grab the gavel from O'Brien, and chase him from the building, if your friend the Speaker continues his activities.  That portrait was paid for by the school children of New Hampshire:

This portrait of the sixteenth President of the United States began with the collecting of three thousand dollars in pennies, nickels, and dimes by New Hampshire schoolchildren in 1923. Ten thousand children took part in the effort to procure funds for a State House portrait of Lincoln.

http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/public...

It may be the Speaker's efforts to abolish state support for education that results in his being evicted from the premises. It may be his anit-constitutional bend (anti both the United States and New hampshrie Constitutions). Or maybe it will be a general rejection of a leadership that is more concerned about inviting guns into the State House than it is abouit the children of the state.  But he will be evicted.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:45:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

YOUR forbears. (4.00 / 1)

NOT mine.

The Democratic Party of the 1850s was a shameful thing. It purged itself of racism in the early 1960s.

They are YOUR forbears because you share their traitorous refusal to respect your country's lawful authority.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 00:03:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You want us to read books about a president (4.00 / 3)

who was assassinated with the cry "sic semper tyrannis", written by a guy who wrote another book called "Nullification: How to Resist Tyranny in the 21st century"? Seriously?

More on Kentucky/Virginia:

Historians differ over the extent to which either resolution actually advocated the doctrine of nullification. Historian Lance Banning wrote, "The legislators of Kentucky  (or more likely, Breckinridge  himself) deleted Jefferson's suggestion that the rightful remedy for federal usurpations was a "nullification" of such acts by each state acting on its own to prevent their operation within its respective borders. Rather than suggesting individual, although concerted, measures of this sort, Kentucky was content to ask its sisters to unite in declarations that the acts were "void and of no force", and in "requesting their appeal" at the succeeding session of the Congress."[13]  The key sentence, and the word "nullification" was used in supplementary Resolutions passed by Kentucky in 1799.[14]

Madison's judgment is clearer. He was chairman of a committee of the Virginia Legislature which issued a book-length Report on the Resolutions of 1798, published in 1800 after they had been decried by several states. This asserted that the state did not claim legal force. "The declarations in such cases are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied by other effect than what they may produce upon opinion, by exciting reflection. The opinions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force." If the states collectively agreed in their declarations, there were several methods by which it might prevail, from persuading Congress to repeal the unconstitutional law, to calling a constitutional convention, as two-thirds of the states may.[15] When, at the time of the Nullification crisis, he was presented with the Kentucky resolutions of 1799, he argued that the resolutions themselves were not Jefferson's words, and that Jefferson meant this not as a constitutional but as a revolutionary right.[16]

Madison biographer Ralph Ketchum wrote:

" Though Madison agreed entirely with the specific condemnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, with the concept of the limited delegated power of the general government, and even with the proposition that laws contrary to the Constitution were illegal, he drew back from the declaration that each state legislature had the power to act within its borders against the authority of the general government to oppose laws the legislature deemed unconstitutional."[17] "

Historian Sean Wilentz explains the widespread opposition to these resolutions:

" Several states followed Maryland's House of Delegates in rejecting the idea that any state could, by legislative action, even claim that a federal law was unconstitutional, and suggested that any effort to do so was treasonous. A few northern states, including Massachusetts, denied the powers claimed by Kentucky and Virginia and insisted that the Sedition law was perfectly constitutional .... Ten state legislatures with heavy Federalist majorities from around the country censured Kentucky and Virginia for usurping powers that supposedly belonged to the federal judiciary. Northern Republicans supported the resolutions' objections to the alien and sedition acts, but opposed the idea of state review of federal laws. Southern Republicans outside Virginia and Kentucky were eloquently silent about the matter, and no southern legislature heeded the call to battle.[18]

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 00:23:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

For those who find this an interesting topic... (0.00 / 0)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

Written in 1899, a good overview of the times, only 100 years afterward.  Being over 200 years later, history truly does see things in a different light...  

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:44:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're going to LouRockwell.com as a trusted source? (0.00 / 0)

Really? Why not start quoting from freerepublic.com and Alex Jones' infowars.com.

The more you post, the crazier you seem.

---

by: Mike Emm @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:37:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was relevant to the diary and the response (0.00 / 1)

Believe me, I won't make it a habit to link from here to there.  That's like matter and antimatter meeting - large bursts of energy are released in an explosive manner.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:03:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's insulting the collective intelligence (4.00 / 3)

of our readers by posting a link to a racist crackpot, as if he were a credible source.
 

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:27:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Representative, (0.00 / 0)

Your oath of office in NH included support of the US Constitution.

Do you believe the Supremacy Clause can be ignored?

Having poked around a bit on Free-State sites, I see that there are references to creating a "stateless" society.  Is that a goal of yours, and does nullification fit into that goal?

As for the various issues you bring up, my answer is the same as Prof. Mike's earlier, and Daniel Webster before him.  The path to accountability and reform is through our system of elections in a representative democracy.  The path of nullification invariably leads to civil war.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:34:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Supremacy Clause (0.00 / 0)

Federalist No. 33, January 2, 1788, Alexander Hamilton

"But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy. It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment, which is only another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been expressed."

Pretty clear to me.  And that expressly makes the key point here. Nullification is about rejecting laws NOT "made pursuant to the Constitution"  Like abusing the Commerce Clause to the nth degree.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:51:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You and your gang of thugs don't get to pick and choose. (4.00 / 5)

Neither did Jefferson Davis.

The Supreme Court (there's that "supreme" concept again) determines whether laws should be set aside because of Constitutional issues.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 00:06:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you don't mind, please answer the question. (4.00 / 2)

You didn't take an oath to the federalist papers, but to the United States Constitution.

Can the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution be ignored by a public servant such as you who has sworn an oath to support it?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 00:10:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What part of... (0.00 / 0)

"NOT made pursuant to the Constitution" was unclear?

If a Federal law is an overreach into areas they shouldn't be, based on what they are allowed to do according to the Constitution, the quoted section says very clearly: it's NOT covered by the Supremacy Clause.  So now whom should I believe: the founders who said that clear as day in print, or Judge Kessler who thinks that the Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to control 'mental activity'?

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 05:09:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, Representative, if you don't mind. (4.00 / 1)

It's a yes or no question.

Can the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution be ignored by a public servant such as you who has sworn an oath to support it?

The Supremacy clause is clear.

The definition of what is federal law is also clear, irrespective of your non-judicial interpretation of which federal laws are unconsitutional and which are not.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:21:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is clear... (0.00 / 0)

Our current oath:

I, [name] do solemnly swear, that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the United States of America and the state of New Hampshire, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.

You refer to this part, and in 1970, yes, that's correct, 1970, that United States of America was added, so 'support the constitution thereof' clearly referred to the NH Constitution until at least 1970.  (Interestingly it doesn't says 'constitutions thereof' which would clearly be both, so does it, in fact, include the US Constitution?  I think CACR4 addresses this.  Regardless, if it's both, certainly the next section makes clear which I must put first...)

I, [name] do solemnly and sincerely swear and affirm that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent on me as [position], according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the rules and regulations of this constitution and laws of the state of New Hampshire. So help me God.

I agreed to do my duty in accord with the constitution and laws of the state of NH. Among the articles of the constitution, the following seem to describe my duty (and indeed of all people in the state, but certainly myself as a representative, 'a substitute and agent' for them) with respect to this situation:

[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.

And of course, sitting by idly is not an option:

[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:47:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So is that a "yes" or a "no"? (0.00 / 0)

You seem to be saying that because the oath is 41 years old it does not apply to you.

But again, if you don't mind a simple "yes" or "no" would be clearer.

Do you, who took an oath to support the US Constitution, believe you can ignore the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution when you want to?

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 00:58:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who decides? (4.00 / 3)

Who decides if there has been an overreach?  The republic party in NH?  

---

by: mevansnh @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 10:31:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

how many jobs (0.00 / 0)

is this creating, Rep. Laser Beam?

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:22:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Shorter Cohn: (4.00 / 6)

"I don't have to follow federal law if I don't like it."

The Ed and Elaine Brown political philosophy.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:09:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Answered above (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant.

---

by: SethCohn @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:02:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous (4.00 / 2)

There are two ridiculous points in one sentence (with an ellipsis) of yours:

"If the Left had gone this route during the Bush years, and seriously discussed nullification as a means to address the abuses of power, a lot of the teaparty folks would have been your allies then and now... but you didn't, perhaps you figured that getting on top of the heap was better than taking the heap down, and reducing the power of whomever is on top."

First, the Tea Party folks never would have gotten on with that.  They were quietly sitting around re-electing George Bush when we were calling Republicans out.  I don't know if has to do with the GOP's manipulation of words and ideas, the residual hatred of Democratic government (see the 1990s), xenophobia, the color of the President's skin (maybe not a motivator for all or most, but certainly part of it for a good many), but these Tea Partiers are still a small segment of society who have been given a voice by a GOP that has embraced a radical fringe.  They are inherently conservative, and judging by their opposition to taxes and services they don't use but their demands to keep their own, they seem also to be inherently selfish.  They wouldn't have joined Democrats in any effort against Bush (they had their chance), and Democrats would not have gotten into cahoots with such a radical fringe in the first place.

Second of all, the post-ellipsis part of your sentence has the equation for Democrats all wrong.  Democrats in 2006 and 2008 didn't "get on top of the heap."  Democrats propose nullifying unsavory laws not because they saw them as unconstitutional or unconscionable, but because they have a respect for the rule of law and a general aversion to violating the Constitution.  Nullification is unconstitutional, it has been decided by a civil war that resulted in more American deaths than any other war, and if you disagree with a law, there are other, legal avenues with which to address it.  Furthermore, Democrats don't view being in government as some sort of banana republic crusade where the entire work of previous governments is undone by the successor and its servants and elected officials are investigated and indicted.  Democrats have perhaps been too weak in addressing law violations by Republican officeholders, but at the end of the day the decision to do so was guided not by avoidance of wrong-doing and political costs, but by a desire to do the necessary work of government and address the affairs of state.  This is something that your Republican colleagues in Concord appear entirely incapable of doing.

---

by: FrankLloydMike @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 12:28:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seth-- now we know (4.00 / 2)

Thanks for moving to NH to undermine sanity in the state I grew up in. As usual you are great at naval gazing your way to the most bizarre conclusions imaginable.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 14:48:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, on a 240 to 120 roll call vote (4.00 / 1)

it went through the House, after getting a recommendation from Itse's committee. Now its back to a new committee, Commerce and Consumer Affairs.  

---

by: Mike Emm @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 23:01:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Tea Party Tribunal has this new game. (4.00 / 3)

When they "pass" such a bill, it gets a review by Constitutional Scholars* like Dan Itse to see whether they actually have authority to pass it.

This way, they can put on funny hats and play their games in the State House without it meaning anything.

Once the committee says, "Looks okey-dokey to us!" they vote again, for real.

* They have diplomas signed by Bill O'Brien!

---

by: elwood @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:16:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe next election (4.00 / 1)

the ballot can just say "3-in-1" to describe this new/old unitary legislature.

No need for the other two branches.  Checks and balances are for the other states.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 11:27:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Uh-oh (4.00 / 3)

One of these days I may have to retire my current login and become BlueMike, so nobody gets confused...

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Mar 06, 2011 at 22:01:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Trying to imagine the outcry (4.00 / 1)

if Democratic Party officials in NH signed up to speak at a gathering such as this.  Except I can't imagine what it would be about!  
Arguing with Mr. Cohn is like trying to catch an eel with your bare hands.  I think we need better tools.  Or perhaps another source of nourishment for our cause.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:33:05 PM UTC

Actually, (4.00 / 1)

Arguing with Mr. Cohn

is a 100% waste of time.

November 2012
Hope for a return to sanity.

---

by: GreyMike @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 13:57:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Like I said (4.00 / 1)

we need other nourishment for our cause.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 17:07:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well... (0.00 / 0)

Burt Cohen recently participated in one.

http://constitution.unitedstat...

---

by: BeGreener @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 18:27:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes he did (0.00 / 0)

And with all due respect to my friend Burt, I think he is a little whackadoodle on this, too.  He read a book by non-historian diLorenzo on Lincoln and adopted it as gospel. One of these days I hope he snaps out of it.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 18:52:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

there is a left-wing secessionist movement... (0.00 / 0)

in VT.

http://www.vtcommons.org/

Our Politics

We at Vermont Commons: Voices of Independence believe that the United States is no longer a republic governed by its citizens, but an empire that is immoral and essentially ungovernable.

We believe that a sovereign state's right to nonviolently secede, first championed in the United States by the citizens of 19th century New England, is a right that demands re-exploration in the 21st century.

We believe that a 21st century Vermont, working in concert with our neighbors and the rest of the world, may better be able to feed, power, educate and care for its citizens as an independent 21st century commonwealth than as one of fifty states within the U.S. empire.

The "endless war on terror" being waged by the United States for geo-strategic control of the world's remaining fossil fuel energy resources - "full spectrum dominance" -  can not and will not alter the emergent reality of peak oil and climate change.

Our Vision for 2010 and Beyond

We hope to remain in statewide print publication six times per year to continue our efforts at pioneering a new and sustainable model for 21st century journalism. Elements of this model include

Not-For-Profit: We see our news journal as a nonprofit "statewide multimedia coffeehouse," not as a commercially-run for-profit business. In an era of corporate consolidation, and the gutting of the print news business, we are providing an essential public service for the citizens of Vermont.

Place/Commons-Based: We are focused on the goings-on of a single place - Vermont - and its relationship with the rest of the world, with a specific focus on the idea of "the Commons." (See Peter Barnes' book Capitalism 3.0 for an introduction.)

Civically-Minded and Solutions-Oriented: We seek out writers and ask them to submit their work as unpaid citizen journalists, chronicling solutions-oriented work being done by Vermonters across the state.

Fiercely Subjective/Non-Partisan: We make no pretense to "Objectivity": preferring instead to model ourselves after 19th century republican newspapers in the then new U.S. republic. We have a definite point of view. But we balance this with a non-partisan approach, seeing ourselves as a "big tent" for a variety of voices from a variety of political perspectives - liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, and decentralist/mutualist.

Collaboratively-Funded: As a not-for-profit, we rely on funding from multiple sources, including generous individuals, subscriptions, and advertising from Vermont-based businesses and nonprofits.

---

by: BeGreener @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 20:52:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Burt's a private citizen (0.00 / 0)

these days. There's a difference between what a private citizen does, and what an elected representative of the NH legislature does. If Burt were still a state senator, your point would have more merit.  

---

by: susanthe @ Tue Mar 08, 2011 at 19:39:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Concord Monitor article on Nullify Now today (0.00 / 0)

In case no one else has noted this, the Concord Monitor does, thank goodness, cover Nullify Now in today's paper.  

---

by: vparmele @ Mon Mar 07, 2011 at 18:17:49 PM UTC