Tag: nullification

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom

Locavore Focus

As the federal government goes on a spending binge, continuing to tread heavily on the American people —

As the state governments, too, carry on the federal government’s wayward tradition —

As even county and metro governments get out of hand —

Perhaps it’s time to shore up truly local government, which might be a bit more concerned with personal freedom and individual responsibility.

And perhaps Sedgwick, Maine, is as good a place to start as any.

On the first Saturday in March, the folks assembled in the town meeting considered and passed a “Food Sovereignty” law. Designed to oust state and federal busybodies who prohibit farmers from selling whole, raw milk to neighbors, the ordinance states that the townsfolk “have the right to produce, process, sell, purchase and consume local foods thus promoting self-reliance, the preservation of family farms, and local food traditions.” Soon after, the Penobscot township passed a similar ordinance, but the notion failed in Brooksville.

Basically, these are attempts by townships to nullify federal and state regulation. It’s worth remembering such ideas are not exactly unheard of.

Thomas Jefferson advocated state nullification of laws — and historian Tom Woods has recently written a very popular book on the subject. The great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises went further, thinking that liberalism (old-fashioned believing-in-liberty liberalism) entailed the right of secession down to the local level.

So it’s not just locavores and food puritans rejoicing over the victories in Maine. Freedom-lovers can rejoice, too!

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
national politics & policies too much government

Brew Stronger Tea

The Tea Party’s House Republicans have begun work, outlining a “plan to attack the federal deficit. The result: A proposal to cut $100 billion,” which amounts, in the words of Tom Mullen, on LewRockwell.com, to a mere “[s]even percent of the deficit.”

Disappointing. But wait, Mullen goes on, “if history has taught us anything, it is that this isn’t ‘just the beginning,’ with more substantial cuts to follow. This will be the high water mark as far as reduction in government spending is concerned.”

Mullen then offers an alternative venue: The states should unite in defiance of Washington, authorizing and defending citizens who withhold income tax payments until Congress balances the budget. He calls this “interposition.”

Radical, yes. But it will prove even less effective than our first House’s first foray.

Why? Many of the states are in just as bad a financial shape — or worse — than the federal union, and are presumably right now primping for federal bailouts.

What to do?

Brew stronger tea.

And throw it at Congress.

No state bailouts. The only thing the House can do, alone, is prevent more debt. Don’t raise the debt ceiling, and force President Obama and Democrats in the Senate to take budget cuts seriously — big budget cuts — now.

As I wrote a few days ago, let’s put the federal government onto a cash, pay-as-you go finance plan immediately. This would require, certainly, no small amount of courage from House Republicans.

Brew stronger tea.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
jury rights and duties

The New Nullifiers

It’s happened before: The people are speaking up. In court. As jurors. As citizens.

A Missoula District Court could not impanel a jury in a marijuana possession case. Potential jurors refused to say that they would follow the law in convicting a person for possessing a sixteenth of an ounce of the popular weed. One juror wondered why the county was “wasting time and money prosecuting the case at all.” The flummoxed Deputy Missoula County Attorney Andrew Paul called it “a mutiny.”

The judge said he’d never seen anything like it.

Too bad.

Jury nullification is an old idea, a democratic idea. I wrote about it a few years ago, in reference to the growing movement to recognize it as a principle of law. Voting isn’t the only check citizens have against bad laws. Juries have a right to judge the law as well as the facts in the case, no matter what usurping judges tell them.

The most spectacular instances of jury nullification in American history regarded slavery. Many northern juries revolted against enforcing the Fugitive Slave laws, to the consternation of slave-owners.

The current case didn’t quite get to full nullification, in legal terms. Instead, it approached nullification practically, forcing prosecutors to bargain the case down.

This citizens’ revolt against some of the absurdities in our War on Drugs indicates that we can expect bigger changes in the future.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Ninth Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism too much government

Two Words to Know and Share

Two old words, newly relevant: Federalism and nullification.

Last Sunday, on Townhall.com, I noted ten state ballot measures to watch. Third on my list was Colorado’s Amendment 63:

If swing-state voters in Colorado join Missouri voters, who in August enacted a state measure protecting citizens from being forced to purchase health insurance through the “Obamacare” mandate, it will go a long way in strengthening GOP backbone to repeal the mandate should Republicans regain control of Congress.

The surface issue is your right to contract, freely, with medical professionals. Or not.

Below the surface lie the doctrines of enumerated powers, individual rights, and state prerogatives. After all, the logic runs, the Constitution — a deal among the states — grants the federal government no power to regulate medicine. And nullification, one of Thomas Jefferson’s favored notions, promises to serve as an actual, effective check on out-of-control federal politicians.

A similar storm brews in California, where the state’s Regulate, Control and Tax Marijuana Act goes way beyond a narrow reading of “medical marijuana.” Flouting federal (and probably unconstitutional) law, this citizen initiative seeks to legalize the plant for recreational use.

At issue, really, is not drugs or medicine, but who’s in control: Distant and privileged politicians and bureaucrats, or the citizens of the states.

On the side of the citizens is the founder’s theory of federalism, with its corollary that the states should serve as experiments in legal innovation.

We sure need innovation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.