Nullification in Oklahoma?

Weekly Opinion Editorial

Nullification in Oklahoma?

by Steve Fair     

   
     Nullification, aka interposition, is a legal theory that a U.S. state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state deems unconstitutional. The theory of nullification never has been legally upheld in court and in fact, the US Supreme Court has rejected it in several cases
*****    
     State Rep. Mike Ritze, (R-Broken Arrow) plans to reintroduce a bill in the 2013 legislative session to “nullify” the individual mandate in the 2010 federal health care legislation in Oklahoma.  “I disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and believe that state governments were intended to serve as a check on the federal government,” said Ritze. “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is better known as ObamaCare, is an example of federal overreach and my legislation will authorize the state to resist it and ban the enforcement of it.”
*****
     If passed, Ritze’s legislation would authorize the Oklahoma Attorney General to defend citizens who fail to purchase health insurance against the federal government and criminalizes the enforcement of the individual mandate.
*****
“My hope is that ObamaCare will be repealed, but I do not think that means we have to wait for the repeal to happen. Oklahoma lawmakers should do what they can to support our choice to make our own health care decisions,”  Ritze says.

*****     

     Can states pick and choose which federal law to obey?    Nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by a compact among the States.  It says the founders of the federal government intended to give the States the final authority to determine the limits of the power of the federal government. Under this theory, the states and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. So if a state believes a federal law shouldn’t apply in that state, they may nullify or reject federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers.

***** 

     Nullification is not a new issue.  In 1798, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions (1798) declared the states had the right to nullify laws when the federal government overstepped its limits.  The resolutions were not approved by any other state and the issue died.  Nullification came back to the forefront in the 1820s when one of the biggest advocates for nullification, Senator John Calhoun was VP.  A South Carolina native, Calhoun argued that overreaching federal tariffs-an idea of President Jackson- were not applicable to South Carolina.  His policy conflicted with Old Hickory and he was forced him to resign as Vice President- the first VP to do so.  Jackson said, “Nullification means insurrection and war; and the other states have a right to put it down.”

***** 

     Judge Andrew Napolitano, of Fox News, says nullification is constitutional.   "Nullification offers hope to those who wish to tame the federal monster as the Framers intended — by using the utterly lawful and historically accepted principle of nullification."  Here is one YouTube video by the Judge on the subject- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G-cQIMmVo4. 

***** 

     John Quincy Adams condemned nullification and said, “Democracy is self-government of the community by the conjoint will of the majority of numbers. What communion – what affinity can there be – between that principle and nullification?...Never – never was amalgamation so preposterous and absurd as that of nullification and democracy!”

***** 

      In an article written by David Barton of Wallbuilders, in 2010, Barton says, “Nullification is the hallmark of selfishness and anarchy; and selfishness and anarchy, whether by citizens or states, is not a cherished virtue. To the contrary, a characteristic of America’s greatness has been an unwavering dedication not only to follow the rule of law but also to expend as much time and energy necessary, no matter how long it takes, to make needed changes through the constitutional process, whether by the use of courts or through elections. While this is admittedly a much slower process, there is never an end-around for doing what is right, nor can right be secured by pursuing wrong.”  You can read the entire article at http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=46525.

***** 

    Ronald Reagan said, “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.” There is no doubt government at all levels has gotten too big and far reaching.   The nullification option may not be the right way, but in some American’s minds, it is the only way.