Subscribe via RSS Feed

We Fought a War over Nullification, and Nullification Lost

[ 23 ] January 6, 2012 |

Rick Santorum on nullification:


So much for South Carolina. From the standpoint of your modern GOP, this makes Ricky a dangerous radical.

Share with Sociable

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. R Johnston says:

    From the standpoint of the modern GOP, walking and chewing gum at the same time makes you a dangerous radical. The real reason they love Reagan so much is that he can neither walk nor chew gum any longer.

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    Of all the times I’ve read, seen, or heard him in the media, this is the only time Santorum seemed even a little bit smart or rational.

    And he picked a fine time to talk about nullification. LOL!
    If this gets a lot of play in the very near future. Both NH, the “Up Yours!” state, and SC, the “Fuck all, ya’ll!” state, may nullify his candidacy.

    Rick Perry can then pick up the nullification baton and run with it.
    Until he runs his mouth about it, which is always ready to run a 100 meter dash – while, unfortunately for him, his brain can’t keep up with it because it can’t go any faster than a marathon pace.

    And why would Santorum pick this time to talk about nullification?
    Maybe he is as dumb as everything but that 2+ minute clip led me to believe he was.

  3. HonorableBob says:

    …the “Fuck all, ya’ll!” state…

    Thought you were talking about California and their nullification of federal marijuana laws.

    • Njorl says:

      That’s nonsense. California does not interfere at all with Federal enforcement of marijuana laws. They do not reject nor interfere with the right of the federal government to make and enforce such laws.

      South Carolina’s nullification ordinance declared the federal tariff laws unconstitutional and not enforceable in South Carolina. South Carolina mobilized the state militia to resist federal attempts to collect the tariff.

      It would take about 1 minute of casual research to learn this.

      • Malaclypse says:

        Yes, but the troll feels as though CA is nullifying federal law, and really, aren’t the troll’s feeling what is really important here?

      • c u n d gulag says:

        1 minute is way too long to spend to try to learn anything when you can spout Conservative talking points at the drop of a hat.

        Besides, who wants to learn anything?

        ‘All HonorableBob needed to know he learned in Kindergarten Home School.’

      • HonorableBob says:

        Passing laws and even licensing marijuana shops certainly “interferes” with federal law.

        And while we’re on the subject, how ’bout Sancutary Cities and their instructions to employees not to cooperate with the feds when investigations of illegal aliens are conducted?

        You’d like to split hairs, but the truth is, you don’t care about a consistent set of rules. You just want your agenda….at any cost.

        • Pseudonym says:

          Is California now sending out its militia to prevent the DEA from making arrests? I must have missed the news.

          Lack of cooperation is not the same as nullification. Words have meanings. California is not disputing the right of the DEA or ICE to enforce federal laws, it merely declines to assist them in doing so.

          I think your cutsy statements about marijuana and immigration shows your lack of understanding of Liberty.

  4. Joel says:

    I’m going to give Santorum the benefit of a “thank you” for actually being sane and reasonable (and correct) on this point.

  5. mark f says:

    I want to see Mitt Romney answer the same question. The need to pander and the need to not sound sound totally bonkers would cause so much tension. It’d be like when Zelig’s psychiatrist told Zelig that she was faking being a doctor.

  6. rea says:

    [Singing]: They fought the law, and the law won . .

  7. sleepyirv says:

    It’s nice to be reminded you can theoretically have a polite conversation with a GOP candidate over SOMETHING if you ever actually had to have a beer with them.

  8. Vance Maverick says:

    He is reasonable, and correct, though the bit about “United States” moving from plural to singular is more myth than truth. (Language Log reference, naturally!)

    • ploeg says:

      It’s maybe a bit invalid to make a judgment based on Supreme Court decisions, since one’s linguistic tics tend to be fixed fairly early in life, and one does not tend to be able to write a Supreme Court decision until one reaches one’s 50s (at least in this era). The first Supreme Court justice to be born after 1840 was not empaneled until 1894, and the first justice to be born after 1850 was not empaneled until 1906. It wasn’t until 1911 that the entire panel was populated with justices who were born after 1840.

      • Aaron says:

        That kind of blew my mind.

        • rea says:

          Think, for example, of Justice Holmes, who left the Court in 1932, and was a Civil War veteran (his famous encounter with Lincoln on the front lines–”Keep your head down, you damn fool!”)

      • Vance Maverick says:

        Coming back to this late — that post links to a previous one finding a similar slow and inconsistent change from other sources. Moreover, what you point out about the Supreme Court is true also about the country, which is somewhat younger and faster, but can’t turn on a dime.

  9. actor212 says:

    Shorter Santorum:

    Blah, blah, blah, blahitty blah blah

  10. Davis says:

    James Madison lived long enough to denounce nullification; but what did he know about the Constitution?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.