Dear Senator Stevens, Congratulation for voting for sanity and the Constitution

Dear Senator Stevens,

 I am writing to commend you for voting for sanity and the Constitution when you voted against SB250.  A small group called Campaign for Liberty has targeted you as the Senator to persuade to change his vote when they try to bring SB250 back up for another vote.  Since the last committee vote was 4-4, the bill is not dead and could be revived and if one vote changes the bill could be voted out of committee. I don't know why they think you are he weak link. They are saying some terrible things about you. They are calling you a "traitor to the second amendment and "doing Governor Bills Haslam's grunt work to bring Obama gun control to TN."

I know that as an elected official, if you get a few calls or letters on an issue you may think that represents public opinion. Of course, in reality, a bunch of phone calls or emails may only represent a non-representative small group. That is the case with the calls you are getting on this issue now.  If you get letter calling you a "traitor" or accuse you of working for "Obama's Gun Control" or calling you a coward, you know where they came from. I am enclosing a sample of the despicable stuff they are putting out about you. See below:

STOP Sen Stevens From Voting For Obama's Gun Control Next Week!!!

Newly elected State Senator John Stevens is a TRAITOR to the 2nd Amendment and is doing Governor Bill Haslam's grunt work to bring Obama gun control to TN.

Yesterday State Senator John Stevens voted AGAINST SB250 which would force the TN government to arrest any federal official who tried to institute Obama's gun control here in Tennessee. Senator Stevens claims to be a proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but really he is only talk. Senator Stevens said he might vote for it but then caved to pressure from Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and Senator Kelsey after they "bribed" or bullied him to change his vote yesterday; he is a coward.  Senator Stevens will tell you that he is committed to the 2nd Amendment, but yet he votes against it as you can clearly see in this video: http://youtu.be/Vbcm5Uy0iTc?t=18m21s


The bill will come for another vote very soon, and when it does, we must pressure him to change his vote and instead vote FOR SB250!!!


It is CRITICAL that you call, and e-mail him, and tell him that he had better vote for SB250 or else he will face the political consequences (perhaps even getting thrown out of office).

Sen. Stevens, I am sure you realize the Internet has an awfully big echo chamber so there are other groups and individuals going to pick up on this. Nevertheless, it is still a small group of people.

You are right to oppose SB250. Nullification is unlawful, dangerous, and unconstitutional. SB250 is a very dangerous bill.  If local law enforcement people start trying to arrest federal agents carrying out federal law, people will get killed.  Don't change your voted.

While nullification has its advocates, thinking conservatives know it is unconstitutional.  Advocates of nullification like to ignore or explain away the supremacy clause. Conservative groups and publication that have editorialized against nullification is a who's who of the conservative movement and include The Heritage Foundation, The CATO Institute, National Review, Weekly Standard and Human Events.

Please continue to stand up for the Constitution and sanity. Continue to oppose SB250. There are several other good proposed bills that oppose gun control and I hope you will support those bills. Senator Kelsey introduced a resolution (SR0017) that puts the State Senate on record as expressing its "firm intention and resolve to fully marshal the legal resources of the state of Tennessee to judicially challenge and overturn any effort by the federal government to restrict or abolish the right of the people to keep and bear firearms or ammunition."

Another good bill is SB40 sponsored by Senator Nicely (HB10 by Rep. Faison). SB40 says that no state funds, property or personnel can be used to enforce a new federal gun law. That is appropriate and sensible. There is a big difference between saying the state will not enforce a federal gun law and saying agents of the State will arrest agents of the Federal Government who enforce Federal law. The approach of Senator Nicely and Rep. Faison in proposing the state not enforce federal law and the approach of Senator Kelsey in proposing that the the Senate go on record as resolving to fight in the courts any new restrictions on the Second Amendment are reasonable and sensible responses to new gun laws that may violate the Second Amendment. Ordering local sheriffs to stop federal agents from carrying out federal law is just nuts and will get people killed.

 Below is a previous article I have written on the issue.

Conservatives know nullification is dangerous, unlawful, and unconstitutional

With the controversy that is brewing over SB250, the bill sponsored by Mae Beavers that would nullify any new federal gun laws in Tennessee and would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents carrying out federal law, Republicans are split on the issue.  Those who favor nullification are claiming to be the real conservatives and are demonizing as statist those who support the supremacy clause of the Constitution and think that nullification is foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

The pro-nullification forces are very vitriolic in their denunciation of those with whom they disagree.  Many tea party types are claiming that the conservative position is to support nullification.  If you disagree with them, well maybe you got your understanding of the constitution from liberal academics. 

Rosine Ghawji, the co-chair of  a group called Memphis Tea Party, posted a letter he wrote to Sen. Brian Kelsey on the Federation of Republican Women facebook page. Sen. Kelsey is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and led the fight to defeat SB250.  Ghawji accuses Senator Kelsey of having been brainwashed and says he "doesn’t understand the most basic constitutional construction." He goes on to say, "Brian Kelsey is a perfect example of one whom vows an oath the the US Constitution - BUT CLEARLY doesn't know what is in it - or doesn't care."

The Tenth Amendment Center has posted a picture that features President Obama with a caption that ask, "Was this guy Tennessee Senator Brian Kelsey's law professor?" We conservative activist are being bombarded by self-taught constitutional experts who tell us to ignore the history of failed attempts by states to nullify federal law, to ignore the outcome of the civil war, and to ignore 250 years of constitutional case law. 

If like me you believe the supremacy clause really means something and that nullification is unconstitutional and dangerous but feel like the whole conservative movement is heading in the other direction, take heart. The most vocal conservative activist may be on a bandwagon that is endorsing nullification, but you are not alone. 

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious well-respected research and educational institution that has been around since 1979.  There mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.:"  It is difficult for anyone to claim they are part of the liberal establishment. A little over a year ago, they published a short essay on their web site explaining why nullification is unlawful and unconstitutional.  "There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally," they say. Many advocates of nullification claim that Madison and Jefferson supported the theory of nullification. Heritage says that is not so and explains the historical record to prove it. 

National Review  in an article Nullification Temptation said , "Nullification is a dangerous weapon to brandish. Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare, but the entire Constitution." NR also argues against nullification in an article called Federal Nullification Is a Bad Idea. National Reveiw is the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley in the 1950's.  They have been the leading source of conservative thought since their founding.  No one could underestimate NR's contribution to the Conservative movement. Also, the Weekly Standard has taken a position against nullification. 

Another prominent think tank often described as libertarian or libertarian-leaning is the Cato Institute.  In an article exploring the constitutionality of Obamacare a Cato Institute journalist wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the 'powers … delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to 'nullify' unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected."

There are plenty of sensible respected conservative voices speaking out against nullification. Just because the proponents may yell the loudest it does not make them right.  Do not question your conservative bona fides because you are not swept away by the passion of the moment. With National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Heritage Foundation and Cato on my side, I feel pretty confident of my position. Clearly nullification is unlawful, unconstitutional and dangerous. Below is a link to the Heritage article mentioned above.

Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional

Feb 8, 2012 – Despite good intentions, some have been tempted to embrace nullification: the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto ...

Since writing the above, I have found a more in depth and scholarly discussion of nullification also produced by the Heritage Foundation and you can find it at this link: Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers.

Senator Stevens, since I am making this an open letter I am enclosing your contact information, so that if others want to write you and express their support they will know how to reach you.  Your contact information is phone number 731-695-7449 and the email address is  sen.john.stevens@capitol.tn.gov.

Keep the faith. Continue to vote for sanity and the Constitution.

Sincerely
Rod Williams

Top Stories

Sen. Rand Paul Senate Filibuster HOUR 4

If you missed the filibuster, you can sample it below.


To see more of the filibuster follow this link: Filibuster.

Top Stories

The answer to that question is no, finally says Eric Holder.

It took a thirteen hour filibuster and turning up the heat to get the administration to publicly say the President does not have authority to ues drones to kill Americans not engaged in combat on American soil. Here is the letter Eric Holder wrote today:

The Attorney General
Washington, D.C.

March 7, 2013

The Honorable Rand Paul United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Paul:

It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Now, that wasn't so hard was it?

Top Stories

CPAC 2013 to feature Rand Paul

13 Hours. Last night, Senator Rand Paul stood up for our Constitution by delivering an almost 13 hour long talking filibuster, the second longest in the history of the U.S. Senate! “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.” Senator Paul started. Senator Paul, joined by Senators Barrasso, Cruz, Johnson, Lee, McConnell, Rubio, Toomey, and several others, filibustered the Confirmation of CIA Director-nominee John Brennan to bring attention to the use of drones against American citizens. Here’s your chance to save big when you join the ACU and see Senators Paul, Cruz, Lee, Johnson, McConnell, Rubio, and Toomey at CPAC 2013 as we all #standwithRand in support of the Constitution. To get your 25% discount, just use code STANDWITHRAND when you purchase your tickets. Registration is open now, click here. Don’t miss out, like the filibuster, this promo only lasts for 13 hours! Check out our schedule, updated daily, on the new CPAC 2013 website under “Program.” We hope you’ll join us at CPAC next week! The American Conservative UnioN

I look forward to attending the CPAC convention next week. This will be my first time to attend. In addition to Paul Rand, almost every other important conservative public figure will be in attendance: Gov. Bobby Jidal of Louisiana , Senator Marco Rubio, former Speaker of the House Newt Gringrich, Sarah Palin, Dr. Ben Carson who gave the keynote address at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month, Texas Rep. Ted Cruz, former Senator Rick Santorum, House Speaker Eric Cantor, Tennessee's own Diane Black and Marsha Blackburn, Allen West, and a bunch of others. There are still tickets available. If you are planning to attend drop me an email and maybe we can connect while at the convention.

Top Stories

I Stand with Rand. The President has no authority to kill Americans on American soil without a trial.

I set glued to the TV last night fascinated as I watched on live CSPN TV, Paul Rand filibuster the nomination of John Brennan for Director of the CIA. The real purpose of the filibuster was not so much John Brennan as America's drone policy and the Presidents refusal to disavow the right to conduct drone assassinations. I ended up watching about three hours of it. I was not only impressed by Rand Paul but also by Ted Cruz of Texan and the Senator from Colorado.

I am appalled that the President and his Attorney General will not unequivocally state that they do not have the right to kill Americans on American soil with drone attacks. That is a simple question. The answer should be simple. Instead of saying the president has no such authority, they have said they have not done it, do not plan to do it and it would not be “appropriate.” That is an outrage!

This president will not accept any limits to his authority. He will not even accept a limit on his right to kill Americans on American soil who have not been found guilty of a crime. Below is an excerpt from Paul’s filibuster:

I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court, that Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.
.......
When I asked the president, ‘Can you kill an American on American soil?’ it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding and unequivocal, ‘No.’ The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that. The president says, ‘I haven’t killed anyone yet.’ He goes on to say, ‘And I have no intention of killing Americans. But I might.’ Is that enough? Are we satisfied by that? Are we so complacent with our rights that we would allow a president to say he might kill Americans? But he will judge the circumstances, he will be the sole arbiter, he will be the sole decider, he will be the executioner in chief if he sees fit. Now, some would say he would never do this. Many people give the president the — you know, they give him consideration. They say he’s a good man. I’m not arguing he’s not. What I’m arguing is that the law is there and set in place for the day when angels don’t rule government.

Not only do I think Paul is right to demand that the President disavow the right to kill American’s on American soil, I also think it he is right to ask about our broader drone policy. Should we have the right to assassinate with drone attacks Americans in a foreign war zone without some sort of judicial review? Since in the War on Terror, the whole world is the war zone, this is a more important question than ever. Should not someone be looking over the shoulder of those ordering the killing? Rand Paul had a lengthy list of questions about drone policy. Every one of them deserves an answer.

Would this have been a legitimate target for a drone attack?

If you recall that in the aftermath of 9-11, seeking intelligence information the Bush administration engaged in some questionable eavesdropping on Americans making calls to and from foreign countries. As a result, a process was put in place requiring a special court authorization to eavesdrop in such cases. It should at least require as much oversight to assassinate an American overseas as it does to eavesdrop on their phone calls. I am appalled that Democrats and our mainstream media have been so quite on the question of our drone policy, especially the President’s refusal to disavow the right to use drones to assassinate Americans on American soil. If you think back about the scrutiny and coverage given to the issue of use of torture and the scrutiny given the issue of spying on Americans, why is the same scrutiny and coverage not given to the drone assassination of Americans?

In thinking about the use of drones to kill Americans in a foreign war zone, I have thought that if in the Vietnam war, had I been a General responsible for targeting drone attacks and we would have had drones, Jane Fonda sitting on that anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi for that propaganda photo op would have been a tempting target. That is why we need a system of judicial review and oversight.

Top Stories

What happened at the Council Meeting 3/5/2013 with summary and notation.

This is a short boring council meeting, just under an hour long. There are no surprises and no controversy, debate or roll call votes. There is no point in watching it. The first 38 minutes are taken up by public hearings on rezoning bills which would concern no one not living in the area of the rezoning. The consent agenda, including  the memorializing resolutions, passes without any bills being pulled off of the agenda.  Other than a couple deferrals everything on the agenda passes. 

Below is the Tennessean's explanation of  BILL NO. BL2013-359.

Metro Council clears way for Renaissance redevelopment

 Mar 5, 2013, By Joey Garrison The Tennessean -   ...  following final approval Tuesday of a new deal with Renaissance Nashville Hotel. The Metro Council voted unanimously Tuesday to approve a reworked agreement with Renaissance that eliminates an obligation that ...

    
   

  

Top Stories

Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.

Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom.  America’s founding fathers saw freedom as a part of our nature to be protected—not to be usurped by the federal government—and so enshrined separation of powers and guarantees of freedom in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But a little over a hundred years after America’s founding, those God-given rights were laid siege by two presidents caring more about the advancement of progressive, redistributionist ideology than the principles on which America was founded.

The next meeting of Conservative Fusion book club will be  Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 7:30PM. Please plan to attend now. There is time to order the book, read it and attend.

Top Stories

Thanks to Speaker Harwell, wine in Grocery Stores moves forward.

Speaker Harwell's Vote Keeps Grocery Store Wine Bill Going

Channel 5, NASHVILLE, Tenn. - House Speaker Beth Harwell has rescued a bill to allow supermarket wine sales by casting the deciding vote in a subcommittee where the measure faced defeat. Harwell, a Nashville Republican, is allowed to cast a vote in any committee, but rarely does so. She sat in on the House Local Government Subcommittee on Wednesday.

The bill passed with a 5-4 vote and will now move on to full committee.  The Speaker's involvement angered some liquor store owners .....

 

Top Stories

Update: What's on the Council Agenda for March 5th, 2013

You can get your own copy of the Metro council meeting agenda at this link: Metro CouncilAgenda.  The Council staff analysis as not yet been posted so I have had to do my analysis without benefit of the staff analysis. I will look for it when it is posted and I will update this post if anything in the staff analysis gives me reason to do so.  When it is posted, you can find the analysis at this link: Metro Council Agenda Analysis. Council meetings can be really, really boring if you don't know what the Council is voting on. With an agenda and analysis, they are just really boring.

There is one resolution and there are nine bills on public hearing. Most of them are zoning issue that would impact no one except the immediate neighbors of the proposed rezoning. None of them are of general interest.

ORDINANCE NOS. BL2013-376 & BL2013-377 are concerned with new sign regulations in the down town are. There are always some people who care about this issue. 

There are fifteen resolutions all of which are on the consent agenda. A resolution is put on the consent agenda if it is likely to be non-controversial and it stays on the consent agenda if it passes the committees to which it was assigned unanimously. Since Bills on the consent agenda are usually not controversial and tend to be routine matters, such as accepting grants from the Federal or State Government or authorizing the Department of Law to settle claims against the city or appropriating money from the 4% fund. Resolutions on the consent agenda are passed by a single vote of the Council rather than being considered individually. However, any member of the body may have a bill pulled off of the consent agenda. I do not expect any to be pulled off of the consent agenda. I don't see any controversial resolution.

Bills on First reading almost always pass. There are seven bills on first reading. They are considered as a group and are seldom discussed. First reading is a formality that allows the bill to be considered. Bills are not assigned to committee or analyzed by council staff until after they have passed first reading. I have not carefully reviewed the bills on first reading, but will before second reading.

Bills on Second Reading. It is on Second reading, after bills have been to committee, that discussion usually takes place.There are nine bills on second reading. None of them seem terribly important but below are a couple worth noting:

BILL NO. BL2013-379 tweaks the backyard chicken ordinance. BILL NO. BL2013-381 by Councilman Tygard would require periodic reports regarding the energy and water savings from Metropolitan Government buildings and facilities constructed using sustainable building principles and practices. This report would determine if LEED certified building are saving any money over non-LEED certified buildings of similar size. This seems like a good move. We need solid data to determine if the cost of expensive energy efficiency measure pay for themselves or if they are just feel-good measures. Bills on Third Reading: Third Reading is the final reading. If a bill passes third reading it becomes law unless it is vetoed by the Mayor, which has only rarely happened. There is not any controversial bills on third reading.The following bill I do not expect to generate controversy but are worth mentioning. 

SUBSTITUTE BILL NO. BL2012-283is the new Metro Solicitation bill that would impose new regulations on commercial door-to-door solicitors.This bill was on the agenda a couple months ago but was deferred because Metro Department of law determined that to withstand a First Amendment challenge the bill must provide an exemption for "expressive art."  That has been fixed. Now there is an exception for " the sale of books and other expressive works."I would probably not bother to argue against the bill but if I were in the Council I would have to vote "no."We are not children needing the government to protect us from salesmen. Once this passes, it would be illegal for a person to stop by your house and ask if he could clean your gutters or rake you leaves unless he had registered with the city, paid a fee for a solicitation permit and had undergone a criminal background check. Too much regulation.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2013-358 approves an agreement between the Metro arts commission and Americans for the Arts for the 2014 Americans for the Arts convention in Nashville. ORDINANCE NO. BL2013-359 approves various agreements associated with the transfer of the Renaissance Hotel located next to the existing convention center on Commerce Street.

Memorializing Resolutions: There are seven memorializing resolutions.Memorializing resolutions do not have the force of law and are often not taken very seriously and often they do nothing but congratulate a sports team for a victory or a person on their retirement. The Council staff does not even analyze them. However, they do represent the will of the Council and when they advocate a policy position they should be taken very seriously. If memorializing Resolution pass committee unanimously then they are incorporated into the "consent agenda.These seven bill are all bills honoring someone and will be rolled into the consent agenda.

Top Stories

The House Education Committee just passed the charter school authorizer bill.

The House Education Committee just passed the charter school authorizer bill.

YES!!!

Top Stories

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey to appear at Tracy fund-raiser

 Ramsey to appear at Tracy fund-raiser
Shelbyville Times-Gazette
Jim Tracy (R-Shelbyville) has announced that Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville) will attend a fund-raiser Thursday in Bedford County to benefit Tracy's campaign for the 4th District U.S. House of Representatives seat. 


"I support my friend Jim Tracy for Congress wholeheartedly and without reservation," said Ramsey in a news release issued by the Tracy campaign.

"Conservatives will have no better friend in Washington than Jim Tracy. Jim's conservatism doesn't reside only in his policy positions and public pronouncements; it lives in his heart and is embedded deep in his character. Jim and I have fought side by side for years in the State Senate for balanced budgets, low taxes and pro-life values. I can't wait for Jim to bring his Tennessee wisdom to Washington."
...

Top Stories

Metro Schools wants $44 million extra next year

Metro Schools wants $44 million extra next year

www.tennessean.com

A preliminary operating budget proposal would up the district's overall spending for the 2013-14 fis...

Top Stories

In case you missed it:

Rep. Curry Todd lived rent-free in lobbyist's home

That is not acceptable.  I was willing to cut Rep. Todd some slack after getting arrested for drunk driving while carrying a loaded weapon, but this is too much.  Representatives should not live in a lobbyist home rent free.  A good, honest Republican needs to enter the primary against Rep. Todd next primary.

Top Stories

Libertarian Party Convention, March 8 & March 9

The Libertarian Party of Tennessee will be having its  state convention on Friday and Saturday, March 8th and 9th in Nashville,  at the  DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Hotel Nashville Airport, 2424 Atrium Way, Nashville, TN 37214. Registration will be 6pm-9pm Friday night and Saturday morning at 8am.

Speakers at this year's event include Hedy Weinberg, Executive Director of the ACLU of Tennessee, speaking on “Policing for Profit;”  Drew Johnson, editor of the Free Press opinion page at the Chattanooga Times Free Press, speaking on  how libertarians can be more effective in the media;  Radley Balko, former senior editor at Reason magazine and current senior writer and investigative reporter for the Huffington Post, discussing the militarization of the police; and Michael Lotfi, Campaign Chairman for Shaun Crowell's Campaign for his 2012 US Senate race speaking about how Libertarians can effectively expand their influence.

Admission is $40 and $20 for students. For more information, follow this link:  Libertarian Party of Tennessee.

Top Stories

Conservatives know nullification is dangerous, unlawful, and unconstitutional

With the controversy that is brewing over SB250, the bill sponsored by Mae Beavers that would nullify any new federal gun laws in Tennessee and would require local law enforcement officers to arrest federal agents carrying out federal law, Republicans are split on the issue.  Those who favor nullification are claiming to be the real conservatives and are demonizing as statist those who support the supremacy clause of the Constitution and think that nullification is foolish, dangerous, and unconstitutional.

The pro-nullification forces are very vitriolic in their denunciation of those with whom they disagree.  Many tea party types are claiming that the conservative position is to support nullification.  If you disagree with them, well maybe you got your understanding of the constitution from liberal academics. 

Rosine Ghawji, the co-chair of  a group called Memphis Tea Party, posted a letter he wrote to Sen. Brian Kelsey on the Federation of Republican Women facebook page. Sen. Kelsey is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and led the fight to defeat SB250.  Ghawji accuses Senator Kelsey of having been brainwashed and says he "doesn’t understand the most basic constitutional construction." He goes on to say, "Brian Kelsey is a perfect example of one whom vows an oath the the US Constitution - BUT CLEARLY doesn't know what is in it - or doesn't care."

The Tenth Amendment Center has posted a picture that features President Obama with a caption that ask, "Was this guy Tennessee Senator Brian Kelsey's law professor?" We conservative activist are being bombarded by self-taught constitutional experts who tell us to ignore the history of failed attempts by states to nullify federal law, to ignore the outcome of the civil war, and to ignore 250 years of constitutional case law. 

If like me you believe the supremacy clause really means something and that nullification is unconstitutional and dangerous but feel like the whole conservative movement is heading in the other direction, take heart. The most vocal conservative activist may be on a bandwagon that is endorsing nullification, but you are not alone. 

The Heritage Foundation is a prestigious well-respected research and educational institution that has been around since 1979.  There mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.:"  It is difficult for anyone to claim they are part of the liberal establishment. A little over a year ago, they published a short essay on their web site explaining why nullification is unlawful and unconstitutional.  "There is no clause or implied power in either the national or the various state constitutions that enables states to veto federal laws unilaterally," they say. Many advocates of nullification claim that Madison and Jefferson supported the theory of nullification. Heritage says that is not so and explains the historical record to prove it. 

National Review  in an article Nullification Temptation said , "Nullification is a dangerous weapon to brandish. Its danger lies in how easily it could destroy not just Obamacare, but the entire Constitution." NR also argues against nullification in an article called Federal Nullification Is a Bad Idea. National Reveiw is the conservative journal founded by William F. Buckley in the 1950's.  They have been the leading source of conservative thought since their founding.  No one could underestimate NR's contribution to the Conservative movement. Also, the Weekly Standard has taken a position against nullification. 

Another prominent think tank often described as libertarian or libertarian-leaning is the Cato Institute.  In an article exploring the constitutionality of Obamacare a Cato Institute journalist wrote, "Under the 10th Amendment, if Congress enacts a law pursuant to one of the 'powers … delegated to the United States by the Constitution,' then that law is supreme, and nothing a state can do changes this. Any state power to 'nullify' unconstitutional federal laws has long been rejected."

There are plenty of sensible respected conservative voices speaking out against nullification. Just because the proponents may yell the loudest it does not make them right.  Do not question your conservative bona fides because you are not swept away by the passion of the moment. With National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Heritage Foundation and Cato on my side, I feel pretty confident of my position. Clearly nullification is unlawful, unconstitutional and dangerous. Below is a link to the Heritage article mentioned above.

Nullification: Unlawful and Unconstitutional

Feb 8, 2012 – Despite good intentions, some have been tempted to embrace nullification: the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto ...

Top Stories

Southeast Conservatives' Breakfast March 16

Even if you don't live in Southeast Nashville, you are invited to join us for.........

Southeast Conservatives' Breakfast

Saturday, March 16

Shoney's in Antioch 

(I-24 Bell Road @ Cane Ridge Road)

Social/Breakfast 8:30-9:00 am

Program 9:00-10:00 am

Guest Speaker

John Harris, Esq.

Executive Director

Tennessee Firearms Association

Carry Permits?  National Gun Registration?  "Assault" weapons?  Clip size? Our 2nd Amendment rights are under attack in Washington!  In the past week, I have heard 2 ridiculous options out of Washington....use a shotgun or pepper spray as personal protection.  Here is your opportunity to hear from one of Tennessee's gun rights experts.

And

Robert Duvall and Dan Davis, Candidates for Chairman of the Davidson County Republican Party on March 23 will speak.

Southeast Conservatives' Breakfast hosted by Robert Duvall and Pat Carl

Top Stories