Nullification Continues

[post by UptheFlag]

Red States continue to say they are supporting the Constitution
by refusing to follow the law of the land.  The new issue is the Pentagon’s
order to allow married homosexuals to have the federal benefits provided
to hetero sexual couples in state national guard units.

The states in violation are OK, TX, LA, MS, GA, and WV.  The governor’s
of these states maintain the order is a violation of state rights.  What these
governor’s want to deny is that the National Guards are federal reserve
troops and paid for by the federal government.  They claim the Guard is a state
agency and therefore under state constitutions.

Homosexual groups call this a return of Jim Crowism of separate but equal.  In
Texas four state National Guard bases refuse to process the paperwork.  Perry
issued a state order that says the National Guard “is a state agency and as such
is obligated to adhere to the Texas Constitution and the laws of this State, which
clearly define marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

Commander of the Guard has appealed to the State Attorney General, who is running for GOP nomination for governor and a reactionary against Wendy Davis, and Abbott is
refusing to rule. Hagel calls for total compliance.

Here we are again with National law being nullified by states.  What will Obama do,
put his tail between his legs?  Will he do an Ike and nationalize the National Guards
of these states? Cut off the funding of these National Guard units which are paid
for by the Pentagon?  For what reason did 600,000 American citizens die.  Lets remember
their ultimate sacrifice during this Veterans Day week!


9 thoughts on “Nullification Continues

  1. It seems to me this POST goes to the heart of our dysfunctional government,
    which has been present ever before the nation was formed. It is concerning that it has fallen on death ears. The burr under the saddle is strong Federal
    Government which flies into the face of those who distrust a central
    government, AND some of that distrust is justified(but that’s another topic,

    The American Revolution was a real revolution. It was not only a War for
    Independence, but also a revolutionary democratic movement in economics
    and society. It unleashed all kinds of forces, and then the problem for the
    ruling elites was how to put the genie(s) back in the bottle at the end of the more than successful War. This was enabled by the failure of the first
    government, the Articles of Confederation. The new Framers had to meet
    in secret in Philadelphia with doors locked and windows locked because
    they feared the mobs in the city of brotherly love, even to the point of
    prohibiting any note taking or any written material taking from the room.
    They knew what they were doing was unconstitutional under their orders
    from the Articles. (This is a reason there has never been another convention
    called to amend the Constitution).

    After writing the Constitution, they had to get it ratified by the States. In order to achieve that, the first Ten Amendments were put forth to protect
    individual rights and the concerns of southern states to protect their state
    rights and privileges. The Framers, and this includes all the Framers, had
    voted to make the Laws of the Constitution “the supreme laws of the land”.
    In order to gain southern support for ratification, therefore, the Tenth
    Amendment was added last to the list. The Framers ranked the First
    Ten Amendments from most important to least. What they did was to use
    the old dvide and conquer ploy of promising dissenters something and then
    ignoring it later. It worked; ratification was achieved after a bitter and
    close struggle.

    Dissension, however, soon broke out, and the Tenth Amendment, then called
    the States Rights Amendment, came to the fore. The Framers intention was
    to simply make clear that the States could take care of their internal affairs
    that did not conflict with the rights and duties of the Supreme Law clause.
    The South then started the hue and cry that their freedoms and liberties
    were being subjugated to the North which led to disobedience of the laws,
    then calls for nullification, then separation, and finally end the Union in
    1861. From 1865 to 1876 the Tenth was used as the Framers intended.
    But, in1876, in order to keep the Presidency, which the Democrats
    had won that year, the GOP told the southern electors if they changed
    their votes to Republican(shades of Gore vs. Bush), the GOP would
    end southern reconstruction and turn those states back to white
    democrats. Once again States Rights became the battle cry of the
    South and remains until the present. Simply stated
    is that from1876 to 2013 Dems and GOP have been reluctant to
    enforce the supreme law of the land, but for few exceptions(Truman, Ike,
    JFK). Until enforcement is re-instated, we can expect turmoil and

    1. The South then started the hue and cry that their freedoms and liberties
      were being subjugated to the North which led to disobedience of the laws…

      So are you suggesting that The South has been the ‘bad boy’ all along, almost from the inception of our nation? The ‘trouble-maker? The prodigal son? A pain in the ass?

      And still so right into today! Shit, we should have let them secede and be done with this deviant child!

  2. Look at it this way, M_R, there were two cultures, and they were brought
    together out of a shared necessity. But, as time advanced the original
    reason evaporated and each culture returned to its base. Walls were
    set up through a line of demarcation across the two cultures. This is seen throughout history, and hell even before written history as with Hebrews-
    Arabs(Palestinians), Athens-Sparta, Rome-Egyptians(Africans), then
    Rome-Germanic “barbarians”(our ancestors), Christian Europe-Turks,
    French-Germans, NATO-Russia as examples of a boundary separating
    two opposing cultures. The result is that one culture has to absorb the
    other, defeat it, and be supreme. This was done in the U.S. Civil War,
    but again the victory on the battlefiiled has been diluted ovwe the 140
    intervening years…..

    1. Thus, the answer to that iconic statement,”Can’t we all just get along” is NO? Surely world history, as you point out, says the same. Then it is a reasonable outcome that parts of one country may not ‘get along’ either.

      What about splitting the US into 3 confederations [Civil War era]? NSA, SSA and WSA. ‘Boundary lines’ will need to be drawn and articles of confederation [Colonial era] written. One central military, one inter-confederacy transportation and exchange commission established. Beyond that, let her rip- separate and unequal!

      I’ll expand this further after my tutoring sessions today…

  3. To show the idiocy Still at work. Sen, Joe Manson, WV(D) in speaking about
    Obamacare said that state run government is the way it should be, that’s
    why Madison wrote the Tenth Amendment. He went on to say that “States
    are soverign” and that all power resides in the States. No talking head countered him. People then buy into such lunacy. If all power resides in
    the States then the Framers, Madison included, would not have drawn up the Constitution…..

    1. The concept of ‘States Rights’ is thoroughly engrained in the psyche of many Americans, considerably common south of the MD Line, as you know. I never hear anybody in my neck of the woods discuss that topic. Never.

      As Ohio was carved from the NW Territories, such an idea was not in the NW Ordinance. It was all about joining with the other states in union.

Comments are closed.