Tracy gets the last word in the Williams-Tarum-Horwitz supremacy clause debate

Below is Tracy Tarum's response to the last post by Daniel Horwitz on the topic of the supremacy clause of the constitution. I am going to let Tracy have the last word.  Someone has to have the last word and it appears we are getting into reruns. This could go on and on. I have found this dialogue instructive of a divide between stains of thought of those on our side of the aisle. While I tend to side with the view of Daniel, I know that Tracy's view has wide appeal among many conservatives. I appreciate the thoughtful and spirited debate. While I am ending this point-counter point blog posting, any of the participants in this debate as well as anyone else is free to post a comment to any blog post. Comments are welcome. Following this post is a list of other post in this series as well as some related post. Thank you to Daniel, Tracy, and Gene for your contribution to this dialogue. Rod

 I’m saying that it is not our duty to submit ourselves to government

Tracy Tarum

by Tracy Tarum

First, I hate neither you nor Vandy.  In my picture I’m wearing a Vandy shirt, and I’ve been a Men’s Basketball Season Ticket holder for the last five seasons.  I did make the snide “top University” comment, referring to my displeasure that an alleged top University has failed to teach you such basic and important facts in the field in which they’re educating you; but neither is that “hatred” of nor discrediting the University.

And if a Marine recruit unjustly or incorrectly criticized Chesty Puller or James Mattis, I’m going to call that kid arrogant, condescending, and foolish.  Likewise, when a third-year college kid so disrespectfully (and incorrectly) criticizes Tami Kilmarx – co-founder of “The Salt and Light Institute;” responsible for bringing David Barton to town, and Glen Hughes – who has contributed untold hours and funds towards finding, funding, supporting, and promoting Conservative causes and candidates: I’m naturally inclined to show some aversion or contempt for such an attitude – but that’s not hatred.

Referring to me as “unhinged” and not “in the land of reality” doesn’t affect me even a little.  I deal in facts and reason; I’m someone who cannot be offended; don’t assume they bother me.  And if I had discredited you based solely on being a third year law student, it wouldn’t have been “completely reasonable.”  The correctness or incorrectness of your ideas and positions are what determine your credibility, not your age, education, or school of choice. Wow, I do sound unhinged…  Now…

It’s not your fault, but you grew up in the “everybody gets a trophy” and “your intentions make you right” generation.  So you naturally equate someone pointing out your errors as being “unhinged” or “not understanding your point.”  No, I did read your response and fully understood what I was critiquing – and your point was and still is wrong.  You misunderstood my point.

Though you don’t realize it, your bedrock belief is upon the notion that the fabric of society and the security and maintenance of our rights must be directed by “courts’ decisions;” and you give no indication whatever of understanding true Liberty, and what that actually entails – the unmolested possession of Natural rights.  You therefore mistakenly assert repeatedly that any law passed by the federal government supersedes all other laws passed by the States.  (You “say” you don’t; your arguments bare the obvious conclusion that you do…you assert time and time again that the only possible way for a federal law to be disregarded – even if passed outside the granted authority of that government, and even if clearly unconstitutional – is for a federal judge to overturn it.)

And I am telling you that that’s not correct; not if they reach beyond the established, agreed upon, and allowed – i.e. enumerated – powers.  And if the federal courts fail to invalidate violations thereof, States do have a right to do so themselves, and not adhere or comply.  Protection of that power is found in the 9th and 10th Amendments.  The idea that the States and their citizens must, as some assumed universal and inherent duty, follow all dictates of the federal government – to include even the invalid or otherwise unconstitutional – unless overruled by “Federal judges [the only ones who] have the power to nullify Federal law” is patently absurd and insane!!

Lest you disagree because I’m not a lawyer, let me offer the words of John Harris, a Friend of mine, a third-generation attorney, and leader within the TFA:

“Only those federal laws which a) are enacted pursuant to an express delegated power set forth in the Constitution and b) which do not violate any provision(s) of the Bill of Rights are protected under the "supremacy clause". Those that do not meet each of these standards are ultra vires acts by the federal government - so says the Constitution.”

Here’s our difference Daniel: you look to “what did the courts decide?” for your answers to what is and is not a right, and how the powers of government must function; I look to the studies and ideals of Locke, Montesquieu, Cicero, Pufendorf, Smith, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin, Bastiat, etc. for what Liberty actually is, and how governments should be formed and maintained to secure it. 
You ascribe to the courts all the power of government; I ascribe the body directly elected by the people as the source of the power of government.  It’s a difference between studying the origin and basis of Natural rights, and a notion to simply appreciate the “rights” government “allows”’ you – and an even more dangerous notion of vesting courts alone with the power to interpret.

I’m not saying that our country isn’t acting as you say it “should;” we are submitting ourselves to government as you portray it.  I’m saying that it is not our duty to live as such.  Our governments WERE NOT constructed as such; and we have ZERO obligations as human beings with Natural rights to live in such manner as to hinge our pursuits of happiness on 545 people; less still to merely nine.  Because whenever “Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”  And when we find our government to be so far out of kilter with what seems most likely to affect our Safety and Happiness, “it is [our] right, it is [our] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for [our] future security.”  It is from this brilliant and timeless Declaration of Natural rights that we understand that any governmental authority acting outside its granted powers need not be respected.

Also, do yourself, true history, and Mr. Madison a favor, and never refer to him as “The Father of the Constitution.”  Madison hated it, stating in 1834 that; “You give me a credit to which I have no claim in calling me ‘the writer of the Constitution of the United States.’ This was not, like the fabled Goddess of Wisdom, the offspring of a single brain. It ought to be regarded as the work of many heads and many hands.” And reading his own “Notes of the Debates…” shows his suggestions were overruled far more than they were carried.  But since you brought him up, here are some words of wisdom from Mr. Madison:

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

Translation in part: the States created the federal government as a voluntary act, and may rescind that association at any time.  I don’t think it’s wise to do so, but it’s each State’s right.  It is apparent that you’ve never considered or studied the purpose of government, the necessary and intended structure of Republican government, the danger of consolidated power, Natural rights, and the studies of the origins of society – based on leaving the state of Nature to form Society, which necessarily also incorporates the proper purpose of the law.  That is why I suggested to you that you read Bastiat, Locke, Jefferson, Montesquieu, Pufendorf, etc.

And as you explain how my previous example would “likely play out,” you again perpetuate the notion that we are mandatorily subjugated to the federal government, against our will, with no relief available except the mercy of the courts, at the threat of loss of Liberty: which is the TEXTBOOK DEFINITION OF TYRANNY!!!  Do you not realize that if you were correct, we – as 50 separate States and an entire nation of individuals – would be living in a tyranny controlled by 545 people assembling in one city; and of that, nine-man, nearly-un-removable branch would be King?!  I am stating as fact that our foundation was not laid on such principles, nor our powers organized in such form, as to be forced to live as such.  Your assumptions as such are dead wrong!!

Lastly, your statement dealing with citizens having “a constitutional right to own “high-capacity” magazines…[and constitutionality of Exec. Orders]” by coming to the conclusion that we DON’T and that they ARE, is so mind-numbingly ignorant of the verbiage, purpose, and intent of the Constitution and the 2nd  Amendment, that I’ll not even bother addressing it other than to say that it’s scary how ignorant you are on that one. And judicial review is not the “bedrock of our constitutional system.”  It was a hotly debated topic, has been severely abused, and in my mind and the minds of many is a dismal failure, and quite possibly the worst mistake our Founders made; and is in serious need of review and amending.

Though (especially after your “high-capacity” magazines comment…), I’d love to know the name of this “most respected and effective conservative legal scholars of the last century” you studied under.  Because either you weren’t listening to what you were taught, or the reverence is as misguided as Chief Justice, Law Professor, Constitutional Law Scholar, et al……

Tracy Tarum is an Aircraft Avionics Technician who has extensively studied Natural rights and the origins of Liberty, and is active in many groups desirous of a return to these principles and Republican forms of government consistent with honoring and protecting them.  He can be reached at tctarum@aol.com.

To read previous and related post in this series, see the links below:

• More on the Williams-Horwitz-Tatum Supremacy Clause/Nullification debate
• Danial Horwitz's responds to Tracy Tarum's critique of his defense of federal supremacy 
• Tracy Tarum critiques Danial Horwitz's defense of federal supremacy over States rights  
• Rep. Joe Carr's speech at the Second Amendment rally  
• Let’s just be sensible. Nobody is going to arrest a federal agent.  
• Rep. Jeremy Faison's sensible anti-federal gun control bill   
• Rep. Joe Carr vs Rev. Al Sharpton debate nullification on MSNBC 
• Rod Williams is right about the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution 
• Rep. Joe Carr vs Rev. Al Sharpton debate nullification on MSNBC  
• On Joe Carr's attempt to make enforcement of Federal Law a Crime

Top Stories