http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxB42cjHTGg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) ...as per usual when I came back in the link didn't work with article. ...cal
Nullification (U.S. Constitution)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
State efforts to nullify federal law have not been legally upheld. The courts have found that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and federal law therefore trumps state law in the event of a conflict. The courts have found that the Constitution, by granting final appellate power to the Supreme Court in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, empowers the federal courts (not the states) to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal and state laws.
One of the earliest and most famous examples of attempted nullification is to be found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. In these resolutions, authors Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued that the states are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution and can "interpose" to protect state citizens from the operation of unconstitutional national laws. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were not accepted by any of the other states.
While some interests in northern states occasionally considered the possibility of nullification or secession after Jefferson's party gained control of the federal government in the years after 1801, for example at the Hartford Convention, the idea of nullification increasingly became associated with matters pertaining to slavery. The most famous statement of the theory of nullification, authored by John C. Calhoun, appeared in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. Four years later, during the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina undertook to nullify a federal tariff law and a subsequent federal bill authorizing the use of force against the state. President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary. James Madison, author of the Virginia Resolution, also weighed in at this time, stating that the Virginia Resolution should not be interpreted to mean that each state has the right to nullify federal law. The issue was made moot by a enactment of compromise tariff bill.
Northern states in the 1840s and 1850s attempted to block enforcement of the pro-slavery federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. The most famous examples of this centered around northern states' personal liberty laws. These personal liberty laws had the practical effect, in many local situations, of nullifying the effectiveness of the federal fugitive slave statutes. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 in the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), finding that the Fugitive Slave Act was authorized by the Constitution's fugitive slave clause (Article IV, Section 2). The Court found that Pennsylvania's personal liberty law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the fugitive slave clause. The Court thus rejected Pennsylvania's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Supreme Court again dealt with the issue of northern abrogation of the federal fugitive slave statutes in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth. The courts of Wisconsin had held the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional and had ordered the release of a prisoner who was prosecuted in federal district court for violation of the Act. The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin did not have the power to nullify federal law or to prevent federal officials from enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The Court held that in adopting the Supremacy Clause, the people had made federal law superior to state law and had provided that in the event of a conflict, federal law would control. Further, the Court found that the people had delegated the judicial power, including final appellate authority, to the federal courts with respect to cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Therefore, the people had given the federal courts final authority to determine the constitutionality of federal statutes. Accordingly, the Court held that the Wisconsin court did not have the power to declare unconstitutional statutes that had been upheld by the federal courts or to interfere with federal enforcement of those statutes.
Nullification and the related doctrine of interposition resurfaced in the 1950s in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which decided that segregated schools were illegal. At least ten southern states passed various measures preserving segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision. The advocates of these measures argued that the Brown decision was unconstitutional and that the states had the inherent power to prevent that decision from being enforced within their borders. However, the Supreme Court rejected this idea in the case of Cooper v. Aaron, finding that the state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Thus, Cooper v. Aaron held that state attempts to nullify federal court rulings are ineffective.
[edit] External links
- Nullification Revisited, An article examining the constitutionality of nullification (from a favorable aspect, and with regard to both recent and historical events)
- Nullification Overview, A research paper examining nullification bluntly (from a student perspective, and keeping other events in mind.)
- Know Your States' Rights, Review of historian Thomas Woods' book on the subject in the American Conservative
Andrew Jackson wikipedia
Excerpt:
Jackson received a sporadic education in the local "old-field" school. During the American Revolutionary War, Jackson, at age thirteen, joined a local militia as a courier.[9] His eldest brother, Hugh, died from heat exhaustion during the Battle of Stono Ferry, on June 20, 1779. Jackson and his brother Robert were captured by the British and held as prisoners; they nearly starved to death in captivity. When Jackson refused to clean the boots of a British officer, he slashed at the youth with a sword, giving him scars on his left hand and head, as well as an intense hatred for the British.[10] While imprisoned, the brothers contracted smallpox. Robert died a few days after their mother secured their release, on April 27, 1781. After his mother was assured Andrew would recover, she volunteered to nurse prisoners of war on board two ships in Charleston harbor, where there had been an outbreak of cholera. She died from the disease in November 1781, and was buried in an unmarked grave, leaving Jackson an orphan at age 14.[10] Jackson's entire immediate family had died from hardships during the war; Jackson blamed the British.
Jackson was the last U.S. President to have been a veteran of the American Revolution.
Those damn Rothschilds anyways, nullify the Fed??? Or the opposite? Both ends against the middle, ey? ...cal
http://www.pacinst.com/terrorists/chapter2/jackson.html
Andrew Jackson was elected to the Presidency in the year 1828. His bravery and military skill in defeating the British in the War of 1812 are well known. He fought many battles in open combat, but now he was facing an entirely different enemy. This enemy claimed to be American just like him, claimed to want the best for America just like him, and occupied high positions of responsibility just like him.
The Jesuits were going to destroy America as determined by the sinister Councils at Vienna, Verona, and Chieri, and it was during the Presidency of Andrew Jackson that they began to apply their treachery in full force. These Jesuits moved among the American people and looked just like Americans. They were, in fact, American citizens, but their loyalty was to the pope of Rome. Their purposes were those of the papacy. These people were traitors and a serious threat to the continued existence of the United States.
Two of these traitors were John C. Calhoun and Nicholas Biddle.A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his
victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. — Marcus Cicero, speaking to Caesar, Crassus, Pompey and the Roman Senate.
Andrew Jackson won the Presidency in 1828 by a very wide margin. His Vice-President was John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Calhoun realized that the love for freedom was very strong in the hearts of all Americans. He realized that slavery was rapidly being hemmed in because nearly all the territories purchased from Spain and France were made free. Without a continual expansion of slavery, it would eventually be defeated. In order to derail the current anti-slavery trends in America, Calhoun began a newspaper in Washington called the United States Telegraph. In this paper, he began to advocate the idea called States Rights.
The Doctrine of States Rights would lead inevitably to the complete abolishment of the United States. It presumed that a state had an inherent right to do whatever it wanted. Under the principles of States Rights, if a state wanted to secede from the Union, it could do so. This would eventually eliminate the United States.
Calhoun took a festering sore and turned it into the reason for the Southern states to secede from the Union. The festering sore was the high tariff placed on foreign imports, which made European goods more expensive. Since Europe bought large amounts of Southern cotton and other commodities the tariff meant that Southern merchants made less money for their exports. This tax helped Northern manufacturers because now, the Southern merchant would buy more from him.
Calhoun convinced the Southern states that they were getting a very bad deal and that they had the right to leave the Union over this issue.
Shortly after Calhoun started his paper, there was a meeting called to honor the memory of Thomas Jefferson. At this meeting, Andrew Jackson was asked to speak. He arose and declared, “Our Federal Union. It must be preserved.” After saying this, Jackson sat down. Calhoun then arose and declared,The South, being an agricultural region, was easily convinced that a high tariff on foreign imports was injurious to them. He next undertook to explain to the South that these high duties were placed on specific articles, and was done, as special favor, to protect local interests. Thus he said to the people of the South, You are being taxed to support Northern manufacturers. And it was on this popular issue he planted his nullification flag… This new bastard democracy meant the right to destroy, peaceably or by force, (when ready,) the Federal Union. — John Smith Dye, The Adder’s Den, p. 22.
Calhoun put the Union second to our liberties. The union and the Constitution are what established our liberties. If the Union were dissolved, the States would be at each other’s throats just like the countries of Europe down through history. The resources of the states would be constantly used up, always preparing for war with each other. This was the objective of Calhoun and the papacy from the beginning. Their goal was to destroy the United States.The Union next to our liberties most dear. May we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the States, and distributing equally the benefits and burdens of the Union. — Ibid. p. 19.
Calhoun used the tariff to create friction between the North and the South. Congress could have easily changed the tariff, so that was no reason for secession. Many spoke out against his underhanded methods. Daniel Webster said:
Daniel Webster knew that the issue went far deeper than a tariff. Calhoun was the Jesuit plant being used to split America in two!Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole controversy, and all the desperate means which its support requires, has no other foundation than a difference of opinion between a majority of the people of South Carolina on the one side, and a vast majority of the people of the United States on the other. The world will not credit the fact. We who hear and see it can ourselves hardly yet believe it. — Ibid, p. 25.
John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives declared:
Adams was correct in his observation. The tariff issue died, but the smoldering embers of division had split America in half. The blood of the Civil War can be traced back to the Jesuit, John C. Calhoun.In opposition to the compromise of Mr. Clay, no victim is necessary, and yet you propose to bind us hand and foot, to pour out our blood upon the altar, to appease the unnatural discontent of the South — a discontent having deeper root than the Tariff, and will continue when that is forgotten. — Ibid, p. 25.
As we watch Calhoun seek to rend America in two, let us remember the words of ex-Catholic priest, Charles Chiniquy.
Calhoun was not a loyal citizen of the United States. He worked to advance the pope’s agenda. He seemed to be an American, but, was really a Jesuit in the pope’s army in the effort to destroy America.Rome saw at once that the very existence of the United States was a formidable menace to her own life. From the very beginning she perfidiously sowed the germs of division and hatred between the two great sections of this country and succeeded in dividing South from North on the burning question of slavery. That division was her golden opportunity to crush one by the other, and reign over the bloody ruins of both, a favored, long-standing policy. — Charles Chiniquy, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Chick Publications, p. 291, emphasis supplied.
Priest Phelan makes this statement.
John C. Calhoun was one of the papal altar boys, doing as he was told.Why, if the government of the United States were at war with the Church, we would say tomorrow, ‘To Hell with the government of the United States;’ and if the church and all the governments of the world were at war, we would say: ‘To Hell with all the governments of the world.’ Why is it the pope has such tremendous power? Why the pope is the ruler of the world. All the emperors, all the kings, all the princes, all the presidents of the world are as these ALTAR BOYS of mine. — Priest Phelan, Western Watchman, June 27, 1912, emphasis supplied.
Andrew Jackson, in his message to Congress in 1832 stated this:
Jackson knew that Calhoun’s plot was devised to destroy the United States and its Constitutional liberties, and this was unacceptable to him. Jackson was standing in the way of the Congresses of Vienna, Verona, and Chieri, and the Jesuits had to deal with him.The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the consent of the other states, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of millions comprising this nation, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be wholly repugnant, both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted, and the objects which it is expressly formed to obtain. — John Smith Dye, The Adder’s Den, p. 25.
Nicholas Biddle, another one of their agents, carried out phase two of the Jesuit attack. Biddle was a brilliant financier, having graduated from the University of Pennsylvania at the age of thirteen. He was a master of the science of money. By the time Jackson came to the Presidency in 1828, Biddle was in full control of the Federal government’s central bank. This was not the first time that a central bank had been established. Twice before, first under Robert Morris, and then under Alexander Hamilton, had a central bank been tried, but in both cases it had failed because of fraudulent actions on the part of the bankers who were in control. After the War of 1812, a central bank was tried again, and it was in this third attempt that we find Mr. Biddle.
Who was behind Nicholas Biddle and the attempt to have a central bank in the United States?
The instigators behind Biddle in his efforts to establish the Central Bank were the Rothschilds. For whom was the Rothschild family working?The blunt reality is that the Rothschild banking dynasty in Europe was the dominant force, both financially and politically, in the formation of the Bank of the United States. — G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Opinion Publishing, p. 331.
Over the years since N.M. [Rothschild], the Manchester textile manufacturer, had bought cotton from the Southern states, The Rothschilds had developed heavy American commitments. Nathan… had made loans to various states of the Union, had been, for a time, the official European banker for the U.S. government and was a pledged supporter of the Bank of the United States. — Derek Wilson, Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty, Charles Scribner’s Sons, p. 178.
The Rothschilds long had a powerful influence in dictating American financial laws. The law records show that they were the power in the old Bank of the United States. — Gustavus Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes, Random House, p. 556.
The Rothschilds were Jesuits who used their Jewish background as a facade to cover their sinister activities. The Jesuits, working through Rothschild and Biddle, sought to gain control of the banking system of the United States.Aware that the Rothschilds are an important Jewish family, I looked them up in Encyclopedia Judaica and discovered that they bear the title ‘Guardians of the Vatican Treasury’…. The appointment of Rothschild gave the black papacy absolute financial privacy and secrecy. Who would ever search a family of orthodox Jews for the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church? — F. Tupper Saussy, Rulers of Evil, Harper Collins, page 160, 161
Andrew Jackson was not happy with the central bank. When Biddle sought to renew the bank’s charter in 1832, President Jackson put his re-election bid on the line and vetoed Congress’ attempt to renew the charter. He vetoed it for three reasons. The bank was becoming a monopoly; it was unconstitutional, and it was a grave danger to the country by having the bank heavily dominated by foreign interests (the Jesuits).
Jackson felt that the very security of America was in danger from these foreign interests. He said:
Jackson’s comments were nothing new. Others understood the power wielded by those who ran the bank. Mayer Rothschild said:Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Is there not cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Controlling our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than a naval and military power of the enemy. — Herman E. Kross, Documentary History of Banking and Currency in the United States, Chelsea House, pp. 26, 27.
This is the Jesuits’/Rothschilds’ golden rule. The one who has the gold makes the rules!Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws. — G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, American Opinion Publishing, p. 218.
Griffin then writes:
Thomas Jefferson has this to say about the central bank.The Rothschild dynasty had conquered the world more thoroughly, more cunningly, and much more lastingly than all the Caesars before or all the Hitlers after them. — Ibid, p. 218.
The Jesuits used Biddle and Rothschild to gain the upper hand in American banking because they knew they could then control the people and effectively re-write the Constitution according to papal law. Jackson was trying to stop them.A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army... We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. — Ibid. p. 329.
Let us take a closer look at the central bank and see why it is so dangerous. Most people do not understand the central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank. Here is a very simplified scenario that pretty much explains one of the operations of the Federal Reserve.
It is necessary to understand that the Federal Reserve Bank is not owned by the United States government as many believe. The central bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, is a private bank, owned by some of the richest and most powerful people in the world. This bank has nothing to do with the U.S. government other than the connection, which allows the operation described below. The Federal Reserve Bank has a total, government-enforced monopoly in money. Before we had the central bank, each individual bank competed with other banks; the customers, the consumers, got the best deal. Not any more.
We all know that today the United States government borrows money and operates under astronomical debt. Why is this? Common sense dictates that a policy of such enormous debt will sooner or later destroy the organization that practices it, because the interest on its debt must increase beyond its income, making payoff impossible.
Now to our scenario. Here, roughly, is how the operation proceeds. Suppose the United States government wants to borrow a billion dollars. The government issues a bond for this amount, much as a water company does when it wants to raise money for a new pipeline or a new dam. The government delivers this bond for the billion dollars to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank takes the bond and writes an order to the Department of Printing and Engraving to print the billion dollars’ worth of bills. After about two weeks or so, when the bills are printed, the Department of Printing and Engraving ships the bills to the Federal Reserve Bank, which then writes a check for about two thousand dollars to pay for printing the billion dollars’ worth of bills. The Federal Reserve Bank then takes the billion dollars and lends the billion dollars to the United States government, and the people of the country pay interest at an exorbitant rate each year on this money, which came out of nothing. The owners of the Federal Reserve Bank put up nothing for this money.
We see, therefore, that when the United States government goes into debt one dollar, a dollar plus the interest goes into the pockets of the owners of the Federal Reserve Bank. This is the largest, the most colossal theft ever perpetrated in the history of mankind, and it is so slick, so subtle, and so obfuscated by propaganda from the news media that the victims are not even aware of what is happening. You can see why the Jesuits want to keep this operation secret.
The Constitution of the United States gives to Congress the power to coin money. If Congress coined its own money as the Constitution directs, it would not have to pay the hundreds of billions of dollars of interest that it now pays each year to the bankers for the national debt, for money that came out of nothing. Money coined by Congress would be debt free.
Biddle responded to Jackson’s refusing to allow him to re-establish the central bank by shrinking the nations money supply. He did this by refusing to make loans. By so doing, he upended the economy and money disappeared. Unemployment ran high. Companies went bankrupt because they could not pay their loans. The nation went into a panic depression. Biddle felt he could force Jackson to keep the central bank. So confident was he that he publicly boasted that he had caused the economic woes in America. Due to his foolish bragging, others came out in defense of Jackson and the central bank died. It died until its re-establishment in 1913. It was re-established then by the same people, (Jesuits of Rome) for the same purpose of bringing America to her knees and planting the temporal power of the pope in America.
The Jesuits’ scheming for a central bank in America was temporarily stopped during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. He had opposed Calhoun’s States Rights doctrine, and he stopped Biddle’s attempt to continue the Central Bank. When other things fail, the Jesuit Oath declares that it is commendable to murder someone who stands in their way.
The Jesuit Order was dead serious about taking over the United States. They infiltrated into government at the highest levels, and used their agents in controlling the American banking system. They would also use assassination when necessary to destroy any opposition to their plans. Andrew Jackson was almost assassinated by a Jesuit plant, who bragged of powerful Europeans, (the Jesuits) that would set him free in case he was caught. Other Presidents came along who also incurred the undying wrath of Rome. Several have been assassinated, and a few escaped certain death. The next chapter, which discusses the Presidencies of William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, and James Buchanan, will fill in the details.The President had earned the undying hatred of monetary scientists, both in America and abroad. [The Jesuits were furious.] It is not surprising, therefore, that on January 30,1835, an assassination attempt was made against him. Miraculously, both pistols of the assailant misfired, and Jackson was spared by a quirk of fate. It was the first such attempt to be made against the life of a President of the United States. The would-be assassin was Richard Lawrence who either was truly insane or who pretended to be insane to escape harsh punishment. At any rate, Lawrence was found not guilty due to insanity. Later, he boasted to friends that he had been in touch with powerful people in Europe who had promised to protect him from punishment should he be caught. — Ibid. p. 357.
Chapter 3: Harrison, Taylor, and Buchanan <<< Click
Return to Pacific Institute’s home page <<< Click
