Yes, contradictions exist when we discuss Nullification or an Article V Convention to amend. Back on December 04, 2013 the DailyKos blog published an article about the December 7, 2013 assembly held at Mount Vernon discussing the Article V amendment process. DailyKos is a very leftist progressive blog and as such is not in favor of anything that might get in their way. And the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are certainly a part of what they consider an obstruction to their aims.
In this article, after listing several of the possible amendments that would restrict their progressive socialism, the author notes:
- “We need to make people aware of this threat to democracy and preemptively discredit those pushing it, before it picks up more steam. In particular, we should contact our State legislative representatives and make very clear our opposition to any such constitutional convention.”
But note, they are not listing cogent arguments in opposition, but merely opposition.
Of course, other parts of the Constitution present problems for them as well. And the discussion also points out that since flyover country (the Midwest etc.) has an equal voice, this amendment process might actually have a chance.
When I located this article again Saturday [yesterday], I wonder if the DailyKos had also written some posts on Nullification. I easily found five articles, and there may be more. One by one, here they are:
[UPDATE, Jan. 15, 2014: A federal judge has rejected the lawsuit challenging subsidies for Obamacare via federally run exchanges. ]
DailyKos doesn't sound too worried.
This is part one of a three part series.
- “In the first post in this series, I discussed the push for secession and nullification now being made by Catholic Right Neo-Confederates, notably Thomas J. Woods, Jr. Now, almost a century and a half after that approach was soundly defeated [ed: the American Civil War], some Catholic social conservatives are resorting to these pernicious ideas, apparently in order to prevail on such issues such as reproductive rights and gun control.”
- “But as a nation, we have been down this road before, and know from bitter experience that nullification - and by extension, its not-so-distant-kinfolk, secession, can destroy any semblance of the United States as a governable nation.”
Now for Part 1:
This post, the second but called Part One of the refutation of Nullification, covers mostly the history of America, the colonies, the States, etc. Explain why nullification matters and how it can lead to localized tyranny and theocracy, historical arguments against nullification, and secession. The post sets up the arguments in Part 2 and is actually a good read. More time was spent bringing out the details than I had done in my previous post. Significantly, Cocozelli notes:
- As dubious as nullification may sound to liberals, let's note that even the conservative Heritage Foundation calls it “Unlawful and Unconstitutional.” The libertarian Cato Institute is only slightly less absolute, citing a limited use for nullification, but cautions: “Can a state impede federal authorities from enforcing their own law if the state deems the law to be unconstitutional. The answer is “No,” although more radical nullification proponents would disagree.”
The Constitutional arguments against nullification are found here. The discussion is good and fairly complete given its size. Be certain that Nullification itself is defeated here. It is dead before going out the door.
- The post finishes with quotes from Madison.
Indeed, James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 44 observed regarding the supremacy clause of the Constitution: "Without the substance of this power, the whole Constitution would be a dead letter." He then presciently warned:
- "The question, therefore, whether this amount of power shall be granted or not, resolves itself into another question, whether or not a government commensurate to the exigencies of the Union shall be established; or, in other words, whether the Union itself shall be preserved."
A quick summary:
Repeating Ayn Rand:
“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
There is a contradiction in the view that the Article V amendment process should be feared when our political enemies fear it, and have no effective counter other than disinformation.
There is a contradiction if the view that Nullification, the theory that our political enemies have strong arguments against and is effectively dead, should be the tool we spend all our precious time and energy on.
From that Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher:
Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
The fact is the liberals are aware of both Nullification and Article V amendment processes. And they are not worried about Nullification. They already have their plan of attack for that, and it won't require a lot of their effort and time to pursue the attack. The Progressives can probably get the MSM to handle most of nullification of Nullification efforts free. Nullification is dead right out the door.
That is not the case with the Article V amendments. Progressives are concerned. They are not concerned about runaway conventions, which they might love if it were possible. No, they are concerned it might actually restrict them.
Amen to that.