Unconstitutional: Who Decides? States via Nullification or Supreme Court?

Post author:Stubborn_Facts
Post published:December 7, 2010
Post category:Nebraska / Network Archives / States Archives

: Helpful words from Thomas Jefferson

“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean nothing or everything, at pleasure.“

Many people are seeking solutions to rein in the growth of government, most particularly on how to limit Federal over-reach. While the work we’ve been doing here at GiN reveals many problems within our state government, there is no question that the Federal government has gotten decidedly “too big for its britches”.

With the advent of the State Sovereignty / Tenth Amendment movement in the past couple of years, a debate was kicked off regarding who has the authority to ultimately decide whether a law in Constitutional. Who is the final arbiter of that question?

While we have been monitoring that debate, we believe there is still much work to be done before we arrive at answers that are consistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, that do not lend themselves ultimately to chaos, and that are actually just.

In conducting research on this question, Linda discovered a fascinating and, we believe, important letter, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1823. While a bit lengthy, it is well worth the read. Jefferson’s letter is written to a Judge Johnson, in response to a request for an opinion on a recent Supreme Court ruling. We believe Judge Johnson was, in fact, Justice William Johnson, an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, at the time the letter, set forth below, was written.

In answering the Judge, Jefferson beautifully articulates some core principles of America’s founding, reveals some interesting details on several topics, and most importantly, addresses a core question regarding the issue of just what entity should be the final arbiter regarding whether a law is constitutional.

Excerpted from: Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies, from the papers of Thomas Jefferson, Volume 3

Tags: #CLCs, 10th Amendment, 17th amendment, adams midnight appointements, alexander hamilton, american history court rulings, american history supreme court, american union, arbiter of constitutional questions, article v constitution, balance of powers, balanced federalism, chief justice marshall, CLibertyC, cohens, Constitution, constitutional amendements, constitutional convention, constitutional liberty coalition, constitutionality, Featured, federal government, federal over-reach, federalists, for life and liberty, GiN, grassrootsne, growth of government, history of the supreme court, interposition, james madison, jefferson letters, jefferson original writings, jefferson to johnson, judge johnson, judge made law, judicial branch, judicial over reach, judicial power, judicial powers us government, justice marshall marbury v madison, living constitution, marbury v madison, marshall, Nebraska, Nullification, nullification book, original republicans, Philosophy, Principles & History, president jefferson, repeal, Republic vs Democracy, Republicans, role of state governments, role of states, secretary of state madison, separation of powers, Shelli Dawdy, state nullification, State Sovereignty, supreme court, Tenth Amendment, thomas jefferson, thomas jefferson letters, thomas woods, true federalism, us constitution, us constitution amendment process, us supreme court decisions, us supreme court rulings

Stubborn_Facts

Shelli Dawdy is first and foremost the mother of three children whom she has taught at home via the classical method since removing her children from school in 2001. During her early years as a homeschool mother, she worked part-time as a freelance writer. Born and raised in the Iowa, Shelli and her husband moved to the state of South Dakota in 1997, attracted to its more limited government and friendly tax environment. In 2006, Shelli and her family relocated to Lincoln, Nebraska, when her husband’s employer offered a new position. She took a break from work and politics for a time, recognizing the need to focus solely on her childrens’ schooling with two now of high school age. Distressed by many things she was witnessing on the national political scene and disillusioned about the Republican Party, she decided to start writing again, this time online. Motivated to get involved with others at the grassroots level, she networked with activists on the social media tool, Twitter. She was involved in organizing the first tea party rallies inspired by Rick Santelli’s “rant” on CNBC in February 2009. Recognizing that activism should generate on the local level, she founded Grassroots in Nebraska in March of 2009. The group’s mission is a return to Constitutional, limited government, according to its original meaning. While the group has held several tea party rallies, it’s focus is to take effective action. Among its many projects, GiN successfully coordinated testimony for the hearing of the Nebraska Sovereignty Resolution, networked with other groups to ensure a large show of public support at the hearing, and coordinated follow up support to ensure its passage in April 2010. While working to build up GiN throughout 2009, she was asked to work as writer and producer of the documentary film, A New America, which lays out how Progressivism is responsible for how America has moved away from its Constitutional roots. You can see more of her work on Grassroots in Nebraska (GiN) and StubbornFacts

Stubborn_Facts

You Might Also Like

Coinbase: First $1,000,000 USD in merchant processing is now free!

The Disappearing Gold

Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream