Editorial: Nullification Part II -- Reopening the Debates of the 19th Century

Recently, we have been going through bills at both the state and federal levels just to let people know what is going on and what changes are coming down the pipe that affect us locally. But Senate Joint Resolution 15 is a continuation of efforts by certain members of the Republican party and the right wing to turn back the clock by the concept of nullification.

Nullification was a tool used by the South before the Civil War to nullify certain acts of Congress that they felt they should not have to obey. The problem is that this debate has already been settled by the Civil War and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution -- Federal law always trumps state law. After all, when we go to the Allendale 4th of July Breakfast or other such celebrations around the area, we celebrate the United States of America -- not the Great State of Missouri.

Ignoring the obvious lessons of history, certain politicians successfully passed the Great Nullification Act of 2010; as passed by the voters, it states that Missouri does not have to obey the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress. This may be a moot issue -- two courts have already rightly ruled that the individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. We think that the Supreme Court will uphold those rulings given the 5-4 conservative majority of the court.

But certain politicians in the Missouri Senate seemingly do not leave enough alone -- they are proposing to put an issue on the ballot that would nullify just about everything that they find objectionable. First of all, it declares that Missouri is declaring its "constitutional sovereignty" by asserting its rights under the 10th Amendment, which states that all powers not delegated to the federal government are delegated to the states and people. Fine. But SJR 15 goes way beyond that by stating that Missouri governmental agencies cannot enforce any of the following acts of the federal government:

--Acts regarding the Right to Bear Arms;

--Acts legalizing or funding abortions;

--Federal actions requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or cap and trade;

--The Affordable Care Act;

--Recognition of gay marriages or civil unions;

--Federal hate crimes legislation;

--Laws upholding separation of church and state;

--Laws restricting the right to home school or enroll children in a private or parochial school.

But this is the kicker -- the next section states that their interpretation of the Constitution is the only valid interpretation. For instance, they state that it can't be interpreted as a living, breathing document, ignoring the fact that Jefferson himself believed it to be such and stated that he understood that future generations would interpret the Constitution much differently than how they understood it. If the right wishes to have a debate about the scope of the Constitution and how broadly or narrowly we should interpret it, fine. But the problem with this bill is that it forecloses this debate.

The next section allows Missouri citizens to bring a cause of action to enforce this amendment. This is news to us -- for the last 20 years, the right has constantly been complaining about what they call "frivolous lawsuits" and "lawsuit abuse." Now, they would open the door to numerous lawsuits. The problem with this approach is that certain people would bring lawsuits for any law that they didn't like personally under this and tie up the Court system and waste taxpayer time and resources.

It was never the intent of the Founding Fathers that everything that I like or you like would pass. The exact opposite is true -- ours is a system of checks and balances. People realize this -- Massachusetts has a Republican senator, for instance. The problem here is that "I don't like it" does not mean "unconstitutional." And if the Senate Republicans are concerned about the rule of law and they don't like the current policies of the federal government and want to get rid of them, then do it legally. Open a debate about the role that the government should play versus the states. File a lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act like many people already have and go to the courts. Elect people that will overturn it. It is not credible or helpful to the cause to complain about what is seen as a lack of respect for the rule of law on the part of the federal government and then turn around and use an archaic legal tool that went out with the Civil War.