Written By: Thomas Woods
Read By: Alan Sklar
Nullification is the democratic principle based on the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution. The term "Nullification" is drawn from the "Principles of 98" , which were responses by Virginia and Kentucky to the passage of the "Alien and Sedition Acts", both were issued in 1798. Basically, the State Governments of Virginia and Kentucky passed resolutions stating that the laws that the Federal Government had passed were unconstitutional and thereby null and void. Since the laws were null, the States were not going to enforce those laws.
Thomas Jefferson , is credited with coming up with this idea. Because during the founding of the Union, every other nation in the known world was based on a Central controlling Government. But Jefferson had the Policy that the Government that Governs nearest to the People Governs Best. So by his measure each State in the Union should be able to stand up to Washington D.C. and say we will not enforce your unconstitutional laws.
Here's where it gets sticky, and why most State Governments just do what they're told by the Feds. There are always certain political ideas that a loud minority will make lots of noise about just to make it into an issue and get Washington to do something about it. For example, Health Care. You'll hear lots of complaints about how many people don't have Health Care, and that is why it was important for the Feds to pass the Health Care bill. But Washington in it's infinite Wisdom can't just pass a Health Care bill, no, they have to make it Mandatory, and if you don't buy insurance , you can be "fined" by the IRS. This is where Nullification, can come into play. Individual States can stand up for their people and simply not allow the Government to Fine or penalize anyone for not having insurance. But it would take a State Government with the guts to do it. And because of the Constitution, the Federal Government can do nothing about it. The reason most states bow to Washington's wishes though, is usually due to them needing Federal Funding.
Now proponents of Central Government will sometimes say that it doesn't make sense to live in a country where one States laws are different than another. Thomas Jefferson would disagree. For him and the founders that was one of the main points of why they setup the system the way it is. So if you live in a State and they have a law you don't like , say you'd rather drive 70 on the Highway than 65. Then you can move to a State where the Speed Limit is 70. That was the point. And in the event that something needed to be outlawed on a National Level, the Federal Government should propose a Constitutional Amendment, and when enough States support it, then it becomes the law of the land.
The part that people today don't like about amending the Constitution is that it would take seemingly a long time. And in today's "we want it yesterday" mentality , Americans seem willing to put up with losing Freedoms bit by bit, while gaining perceived Government services. There hasn't been a Constitutional Amendment Ratified by the States since 1992. And that one was about limiting changes to Congressional Pay. Interestingly enough, the 27th Amendment was initially introduced in Congress in 1789, so it only took 202 years to become an amendment. Clearly we are so easily distracted by the whatever the crisis of the day is.
The Review:
The book it self is very deep and somewhat complex. I have to admit , I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, so it was difficult to follow along at times. Overall it was an interesting read, and the author includes alot of Full quotes from old documents. Including the full readings of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 at the end of the book. The most interesting thing Mr. Woods purposes is that each State should form an independent office of Constitutional advisement. Basically a group of bipartisan Constitutional Scholars who would review Federal Laws, and then advise State Legislators on weather or not the law is enforceable by the State.
The book is read by Professional Reader Alan Sklar. As a reader I felt he was just ok. He wasn't able to keep my attention at all times. I can't say I recommend him as a reader.
Even though the book itself wasn't the most captivating read, I think it I need to recommend that all Americans should read it, and understand it. Because unless more people understand how our Government SHOULD work, then our Government is just going to do what IT wants, and not what it's people want.
Rating 2.5 of 5
Tom Woods on the Principles of 98
-B
No comments:
Post a Comment