Here is an article about an AG candidate in Connecticut (I think) that I just couldn't believe made it on the internet!
[Begin]
In an interview on Wednesday with TheDay.com, Connecticut Attorney General candidate Martha Dean falsely and dangerously claimed that, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, states have the power to “nullify” – that is, disobey or ignore — federal laws that the states believe the federal government had no constitutional power to enact, a theory that has not seriously been entertained since it was put to bed by the Civil War. According to Dean, in some instances:
“[T]he Supreme Court is just wrong, so what option does the state have? …They have the option of nullification….This is a tool that has existed…It is a tool that isn’t often used. It isn’t often needed.”
Actually, no such “tool” exists. The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, makes the Constitution and federal laws enacted pursuant to it the supreme law of the land – laws that all states must therefore obey. And Article III of the Constitution makes the Supreme Court, not the states or individual state officials, the final arbiter of whether a federal law is or is not unconstitutional. It is disturbing that Dean, seeking office as a state’s chief lawyer, said in the interview that she does not “accept” that the Supreme Court has this authority. Dean would do well to go back to her law school texts and remind herself of Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous declaration, made more than 200 years ago, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Simply put, Dean’s claim that states have the power to nullify federal law conflicts with the text of the Constitution.
It also conflicts with a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court. As CAC’s Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra explained in our series “Strange Brew: The Constitution According to the Tea Party”:
[A]fter the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, a number of southern state legislatures passed “Resolutions of Interposition” vowing not to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Constitution required desegregated schools. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in a unanimous opinion in the name of all nine Justices, the Supreme Court repudiated the Little Rock, Arkansas school board’s plan to prevent African-American students from attending the formerly all-white Central High School and strongly reaffirmed that states have no power to nullify federal law. Quoting the Supremacy and Oath of Office Clauses and discussing precedents dating back to the birth of the Republic, the Court held flatly unconstitutional Arkansas’ refusal to obey the mandate of the Equal Protection Clause. “[N]o state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.”
Dean would do well to remember why nullification “is a tool that isn’t often used.” Besides being completely unconstitutional, its invocation has brought about some of the most divisive moments in our history: from the attempted destruction of our great Nation by secessionists in the 19th Century, to the dividing of people by segregationists in the 1950s and 1960s. Encouraging such backsliding of America into its darkest days is an extremely dangerous position for anyone to take, let alone someone seeking to become a state Attorney General.
If Dean is elected, she, like every other federal and state office holder, will be required by Constitution to take an “oath of affirmation” to support the Constitution. Hopefully, by at least this time, she would realize that her oath would require her to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States– not the Constitution according to Martha Dean or any other state official. [End]
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=2166
Here is my response which is in a moderation queue, probably waiting to be examined by the website's "Thought Police" and will never see the light of day on their site.
[Begin]
Wow. I rather enjoyed your position; siding with the “bully” that is the Federal Government, way to go! Of course the Feds are always right, and they would neeeeever think about abusing the virtual monopoly they posses in the interpretation of law. Perish the thought! I can’t imagine how anyone would ever think the Federal Government would overstep it’s legal authority…well ok maybe they do a little when they arrest sick people for smoking Marijuana, but that doesn’t really happen anymore right? They said it doesn’t, and they always tell the truth.
Ok ok ok, and maybe the draft seems like a violation of the 14th amendment but we only wrote that for the racists and there aren’t any racists in government right? I mean our government is made of perfect and flawless and brilliant individuals who would never ever think of hurting any of us citizens…unless you maybe are a Muslim who might have terrorist ties. But he’s a bad guy who cares if he’s a citizen. We don’t give citizens a trial if the Feds tell us their definately bad do we? Or maybe if you have a small organic farm and maybe all your IRS paperwork isn’t in perfect order then the IRS might storm your house with armed agents, maybe. Of course people like that have it coming how dare they try and stay profitable by flying under the radar. Those small organic farms are hotbeds of evil! No, my overlords are the wisest of all the overlords. That Charlie Rangle…a picture of ethical conduct. Oh, and that John Ensign what a stand up guy!
I was thinking of all the free and open dialog I have with my Federal Congressional Rep. or my Senators. Every time I write them I never get a boring ol’ direct answer back. It’s always personal with my name at the top and everything. It’s nothing like when I write my State Reps and Senators. I mean they are the worst. They always just answer my questions directly and don’t add in all the great stuff they think they are doing in Congress.
I remember I asked my State Rep how he planned to vote this one time, and he had the nerve to only answer my question directly but to NOT then drone on for three more paragraphs about all his accomplishments. How am I supposed to be proud of that? Not like when I write Carl Levin about Iran; I get to hear all about his work on the armed forces committee and I don’t even care that he doesn’t really answer my question because he’s perfect because he works for the Federal Government. Which means he works for me. Right?
That was sarcasm but the following isn’t. You should read better books. Seriously. [End]
