WEBVTT

NOTE Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of '98

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.400
This week begins a series of ten lectures on aspects of American history that are interesting to me.

2
00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:14.200
They are idiosyncratically chosen and, well, I should say, it's not entirely coincidental.

3
00:00:14.200 --> 00:00:16.800
The topics are not just random.

4
00:00:16.800 --> 00:00:21.800
I tended to focus on areas that most seemed to tick people off when my book came out.

5
00:00:21.800 --> 00:00:27.200
And I want to rub salt in the wound by expanding on them, going into much greater detail

6
00:00:27.200 --> 00:00:33.200
on subjects that what I find sort of funny is that a lot of my critics seem to know basically nothing about.

7
00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:39.200
So I want to really drive them crazy talking about things like nullification that you're not supposed to talk about.

8
00:00:39.200 --> 00:00:44.200
A wonderful experience for me a couple weeks ago was I was speaking at a conference

9
00:00:44.200 --> 00:00:49.200
that was taking place inside one of the house office buildings in Washington D.C.

10
00:00:49.200 --> 00:00:53.200
And I get up there and gave a talk on nullification and the principles of 1798.

11
00:00:53.200 --> 00:00:59.200
And for those of you who don't know what that is, by the time we get to the end of today and you know what it is,

12
00:00:59.200 --> 00:01:06.200
you'll understand what a glorious moment for me that was to be able to stand up there and say things that were so subversive

13
00:01:06.200 --> 00:01:13.200
and yet, at the same time, so characteristically American. I mean, there's the old America right there of Thomas Jefferson.

14
00:01:13.200 --> 00:01:20.200
Alright, well I'm going to start right in then, talking about the title of this first talk,

15
00:01:20.200 --> 00:01:24.200
is Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of 98. What does that mean?

16
00:01:24.200 --> 00:01:29.200
Well as we go along, you may think that I don't mean to be insulting your intelligence

17
00:01:29.200 --> 00:01:34.200
if I read to you the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution or explain what it is.

18
00:01:34.200 --> 00:01:38.200
I realize that we have a diverse audience, we have people from other countries,

19
00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:42.200
we have the webcast all over the place, I don't want to take anything for granted.

20
00:01:42.200 --> 00:01:54.200
And in my own background, where I teach, I've got people who would succeed at any college and are very highly skilled, and I have people who, let's just say, aren't so skilled.

21
00:01:54.200 --> 00:02:04.200
And I've sort of been able to formulate a style that is able to appeal to them all and to explain things to them all.

22
00:02:04.200 --> 00:02:10.200
and I will be stopping for questions at the end and feel free to ask anything you like

23
00:02:10.200 --> 00:02:15.200
and you shouldn't think, well, you know, if I ask this question then he'll think I wasn't listening

24
00:02:15.200 --> 00:02:20.200
or this is a silly question. I'm telling you, I've heard all the silly questions.

25
00:02:20.200 --> 00:02:26.200
There really aren't any silly questions because you should, you know, if you have the question then probably somebody else in the room has it

26
00:02:26.200 --> 00:02:31.200
and it could actually just be that I left something out or I was unclear on something, it's totally legitimate

27
00:02:31.200 --> 00:02:44.200
In addition to that, one of the things after you've taught for a number of years that you learn is how to make even a not the best question in the world sound like an intelligent question.

28
00:02:44.200 --> 00:02:51.200
If somebody asks an odd question, you have this skill of turning it around and making it sound like a brilliant question.

29
00:02:51.200 --> 00:02:58.200
The only time I was stumped on that was when I was asking students could they list for me one of the rights protected in the Bill of Rights.

30
00:02:58.200 --> 00:03:03.200
In the Bill of Rights, I said the Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments of the Constitution.

31
00:03:03.200 --> 00:03:06.200
So can you just give me an example of one?

32
00:03:06.200 --> 00:03:14.200
And I kid you not, the student said, thou shalt not kill.

33
00:03:14.200 --> 00:03:18.200
So I thought, all right, the poor kid's thinking of the Ten Commandments.

34
00:03:18.200 --> 00:03:21.200
And I'm trying to say ten amendments as clearly as possible.

35
00:03:21.200 --> 00:03:24.200
And this one, I didn't see how I could turn.

36
00:03:24.200 --> 00:03:26.200
So I just pretended I didn't hear that.

37
00:03:26.200 --> 00:03:30.500
But then he continues shouting out other commands, you know, have no false gods,

38
00:03:30.500 --> 00:03:34.000
and I thought, there's really nothing I can do.

39
00:03:34.000 --> 00:03:40.800
So if I say, hey, look over there and I run away, that's a sign that it was a bad question.

40
00:03:40.800 --> 00:03:47.300
All right, anyway, let's get started with the year 1798, which is such a critical year

41
00:03:47.300 --> 00:03:52.400
in American history because very, very important documents are drafted in that year.

42
00:03:52.400 --> 00:03:55.400
And you can tell that they are central and important documents,

43
00:03:55.400 --> 00:03:58.800
that they are documents in the service of liberty,

44
00:03:58.960 --> 00:04:02.480
they are documents that the powers that be very much detest.

45
00:04:02.640 --> 00:04:08.280
You can tell that because on the 200th anniversary of their drafting,

46
00:04:08.440 --> 00:04:10.920
no government agency commemorated them.

47
00:04:11.080 --> 00:04:15.920
Absolute silence in 1998 and it's no surprise.

48
00:04:16.080 --> 00:04:20.600
In the late 1790s, diplomatic relations between the United States and France

49
00:04:20.760 --> 00:04:24.840
reached really a low point. They had been deteriorating for several years

50
00:04:24.840 --> 00:04:34.840
And by the later 1790s what developed was what has come to be known among students of American history is the Quasi-War with France.

51
00:04:34.840 --> 00:04:39.840
Quasi-War because it's not a full-fledged declared war on the part of either party.

52
00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:44.840
It does not involve a massive invasion of one country or the other.

53
00:04:44.840 --> 00:04:52.840
It is in effect a series of naval clashes in which both sides are engaging each other on the seas.

54
00:04:52.840 --> 00:04:58.640
and the French are, in some cases, seizing American shipping and so on.

55
00:04:58.640 --> 00:05:00.940
That's, in effect, the nature of the quasi-war with France.

56
00:05:00.940 --> 00:05:07.140
It is by no means a total war, but the United States was on enough of a war footing

57
00:05:07.140 --> 00:05:13.040
that President John Adams would go out in public, oftentimes with a sword at his side

58
00:05:13.040 --> 00:05:16.340
to indicate to people that we're on a sort of quasi-war.

59
00:05:16.340 --> 00:05:18.340
I don't know what he would have had in a full-fledged war,

60
00:05:18.340 --> 00:05:20.940
but a quasi-war apparently equals a sword.

61
00:05:20.940 --> 00:05:26.140
I don't know if he's expecting to run into a Frenchman, but there you have it.

62
00:05:26.140 --> 00:05:35.940
So this is going on, and the significance of this is some legislation that's passed in 1798,

63
00:05:35.940 --> 00:05:40.540
passed by the Congress and apparently reluctantly signed by John Adams,

64
00:05:40.540 --> 00:05:44.940
called the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

65
00:05:44.940 --> 00:05:50.740
Now these acts, to make a long story short, do some things along these lines.

66
00:05:50.740 --> 00:05:57.740
The Alien Acts, for example, one of the features of that, all this is explained in my Chapter 4, at least this part of what I'm saying.

67
00:05:57.740 --> 00:06:14.740
But among other things, the Alien Act had the function of basically going after aliens in the country who were in some way disloyal or whose political allegiances were not so clear.

68
00:06:14.740 --> 00:06:19.740
The idea being that during wartime you have to put more controls on people's liberty

69
00:06:19.740 --> 00:06:21.740
we've all heard this argument many times

70
00:06:21.740 --> 00:06:25.740
and there was a concern that this had a partisan motivation

71
00:06:25.740 --> 00:06:28.740
that it was actually aimed at Albert Gallatin

72
00:06:28.740 --> 00:06:33.740
who was a Swiss born important Pennsylvania Republican

73
00:06:33.740 --> 00:06:37.740
who later became Secretary of the Treasury under Thomas Jefferson

74
00:06:37.740 --> 00:06:40.740
so this would possibly be used in a partisan way

75
00:06:40.740 --> 00:06:43.740
let's recall that there was a party known as the Federalist Party

76
00:06:43.740 --> 00:06:54.740
There was a party to which President John Adams belonged, to which George Washington had belonged and associated with,

77
00:06:54.740 --> 00:06:59.740
and there were the Republicans of Thomas Jefferson, not the Republicans of today of course,

78
00:06:59.740 --> 00:07:03.740
but the Republicans of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and the like,

79
00:07:03.740 --> 00:07:07.740
and there was a concern on the part of the Republicans that the Alien and Sedition Acts

80
00:07:07.740 --> 00:07:13.740
were really just a grandiose rationalization for criminalizing political opposition

81
00:07:13.740 --> 00:07:20.740
and tossing Republicans in jail, and particularly the Sedition Act, because the Sedition Act

82
00:07:20.740 --> 00:07:25.740
in effect criminalizes excessive criticism of the Federal Government,

83
00:07:25.740 --> 00:07:31.740
that if you do something that tends to bring the Federal Government into contempt or disrepute,

84
00:07:31.740 --> 00:07:36.740
then you could be brought up on charges, you could be fined, you could be tossed in jail,

85
00:07:36.740 --> 00:07:42.740
And there was concern that this could be used, again, as a means for the Federalists simply to suppress the Republicans.

86
00:07:42.740 --> 00:07:51.740
And it did happen in some cases. There were at least a couple of dozen people imprisoned over this and Republican newspaper editors.

87
00:07:51.740 --> 00:07:57.740
And, of course, these newspaper editors believed they were engaging in the normal exercise of the freedom of the press,

88
00:07:57.740 --> 00:08:03.740
but they were told that, no, in fact, you have crossed the boundary into seditious speech.

89
00:08:03.740 --> 00:08:09.740
Now, Jefferson himself was, of course, Thomas Jefferson was the vice president at the time.

90
00:08:09.740 --> 00:08:17.740
And this was part of the beauty of the original constitutional structure, was that whoever got the most votes in the presidential election was elected the president.

91
00:08:17.740 --> 00:08:21.740
And whoever got the second most votes was elected the vice president.

92
00:08:21.740 --> 00:08:31.740
So this sometimes meant that you had, you know, sort of like the odd couple, that you got two different guys in there and they weren't running together as a ticket or whatever.

93
00:08:31.740 --> 00:08:34.740
However, sometimes they have got totally different governing philosophies.

94
00:08:34.740 --> 00:08:37.740
So that's Thomas Jefferson's position. He's in there with John Adams.

95
00:08:37.740 --> 00:08:40.740
He's a Republican, Adams is a Federalist.

96
00:08:40.740 --> 00:08:44.740
Jefferson's very concerned about this legislation and yet his own president has signed it.

97
00:08:44.740 --> 00:08:51.740
So he's in a bit of an awkward spot in that it would be a bit unseemly for him to go out on the offensive against it,

98
00:08:51.740 --> 00:08:57.740
seeing that he belongs to the very executive branch whose task it is to enforce these laws.

99
00:08:57.740 --> 00:09:06.740
Well, Jefferson feared the partisan nature of the legislation, certainly, as one of his concerns, that his party would be criminalized in effect.

100
00:09:06.740 --> 00:09:14.740
There's also some complaining between Jefferson and Madison in their correspondence with each other that somebody is opening their mail.

101
00:09:14.740 --> 00:09:17.740
This is quite serious that this is taking place.

102
00:09:17.740 --> 00:09:27.740
There was a case of a gentleman who said, and I don't know how the FCC will feel about this, so I'll change the bad word.

103
00:09:27.740 --> 00:09:37.740
There was one gentleman who said, I hope that President John Adams, I hope that the presidential saluting canon hits President Adams in the, we'll say, behind.

104
00:09:37.740 --> 00:09:44.740
And this poor guy was fined $100 for that. So that's what the legislation was about, and as I say, Jefferson feared that it would be used in a partisan way.

105
00:09:44.740 --> 00:09:58.740
And if you actually look at section two of the Sedition Act of 1798, it is quite clear that you are not to criticize the president, and you are not to criticize either house of congress, and so on and so forth.

106
00:09:58.740 --> 00:10:05.740
But it skips right over the vice president. You can say anything you want to about him. He belongs to the other party.

107
00:10:05.740 --> 00:10:11.740
So, I mean, the partisan nature of this was not exactly being concealed with terrific energy.

108
00:10:11.740 --> 00:10:15.740
And Jefferson is not an idiot and could perceive this.

109
00:10:15.740 --> 00:10:20.740
But of course there's much more at stake than merely partisan politics.

110
00:10:20.740 --> 00:10:23.740
There's also a constitutional question at stake.

111
00:10:23.740 --> 00:10:28.740
Now, modern students today, when they hear the terms of the Sedition Act of 1798,

112
00:10:28.740 --> 00:10:30.740
immediately think First Amendment.

113
00:10:30.740 --> 00:10:33.740
This is a violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech.

114
00:10:33.740 --> 00:10:39.740
And that was Jefferson's view. But apparently at that time that was not the majority view.

115
00:10:39.740 --> 00:10:46.740
The consensus appears to have been that the First Amendment did not in fact protect seditious speech.

116
00:10:46.740 --> 00:10:51.740
The understanding was that the First Amendment meant that there was, the typical phrase that was used,

117
00:10:51.740 --> 00:10:54.740
there's no prior restraint when you go to publish.

118
00:10:54.740 --> 00:10:59.740
That is to say there's no censorship board that's going to prevent you from publishing what you want to publish.

119
00:10:59.740 --> 00:11:05.740
So you have free speech, but once that speech gets out there, if it's seditious, well then you could get in trouble for it.

120
00:11:05.740 --> 00:11:09.740
But nobody stopped you from publishing it in the beginning. That was the understanding of what that meant.

121
00:11:09.740 --> 00:11:16.740
No prior restraint, but nevertheless you would be held responsible for your speech if it were, for example, seditious.

122
00:11:16.740 --> 00:11:22.740
And in fact, the Sedition Act in some quarters was considered to be a liberalization of the understanding of sedition

123
00:11:22.740 --> 00:11:25.740
because, for one thing, truth could be admitted as a defense.

124
00:11:25.740 --> 00:11:36.740
You could say, well, yes, I said terrible things about the government, but they do happen to be true, and under this Act, you could actually be exonerated if what you said actually turned out to be true.

125
00:11:36.740 --> 00:11:47.740
So Jefferson then fell back on the 10th Amendment, because if the 1st Amendment was not absolute, there's no absolute consensus on seditious speech vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment, then there's the 10th Amendment.

126
00:11:47.740 --> 00:11:53.740
Now, the 10th Amendment is absolutely critical, and I assume people in the room know what the 10th Amendment is, but I'm still going to tell you.

127
00:11:53.740 --> 00:11:58.740
Last month I was at a private school in Wisconsin called Brookfield Academy.

128
00:11:58.740 --> 00:12:05.740
I had just given a talk the previous night in Milwaukee and then I spoke to some high schoolers at Brookfield Academy.

129
00:12:05.740 --> 00:12:09.740
Well, if you live in Wisconsin and you're listening to this and you're not sending your children to Brookfield Academy,

130
00:12:09.740 --> 00:12:12.740
I don't know what's the matter with you because this place is unbelievable.

131
00:12:12.740 --> 00:12:20.740
I mean, in between classes, instead of a big jungle with savages screaming and crimes being committed and whatever,

132
00:12:20.740 --> 00:12:28.740
People are playing a quick game of chess. Typical dorks just like me. Wonderful. Hope they didn't hear that.

133
00:12:28.740 --> 00:12:33.740
I mean that in the best possible endearing sense. But I asked them, each one of the classes I was in, I said,

134
00:12:33.740 --> 00:12:38.740
Does anybody know what the 10th Amendment says? 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

135
00:12:38.740 --> 00:12:43.740
Thomas Jefferson said it's the cornerstone of the whole document. Anybody know what it means? I kid you not. I got this answer.

136
00:12:43.740 --> 00:13:00.740
The Tenth Amendment says that all powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the states listed in Article 1, Section 8, and not prohibited to the states as listed in Article 1, Section 10, are reserved to the states and to the people.

137
00:13:00.740 --> 00:13:10.740
Well, after I regained consciousness I said, congratulations, that's wonderful, that's exactly the answer I want, I'm changing jobs and coming out to Wisconsin.

138
00:13:10.740 --> 00:13:15.740
Whereas typically, if you ask that in a college classroom,

139
00:13:15.740 --> 00:13:18.740
what is the 10th Amendment? You can pretty much hear crickets.

140
00:13:18.740 --> 00:13:21.740
No response at all. I don't know what you're talking about.

141
00:13:21.740 --> 00:13:24.740
They're probably going to give you the 10th Commandment or something when you ask them.

142
00:13:24.740 --> 00:13:27.740
So the 10th Amendment, according to Jefferson, is the great cornerstone.

143
00:13:27.740 --> 00:13:34.740
And it's often said by people that one of the objections that people originally had to the Constitution

144
00:13:34.740 --> 00:13:36.740
was that it lacked a Bill of Rights.

145
00:13:36.740 --> 00:13:43.740
But more specific than that, specifically what a lot of people wanted was something like the 10th Amendment

146
00:13:43.740 --> 00:13:51.740
which was a guarantee of self-government, that the states have only delegated to the federal government those powers that are listed in Article 1, Section 8

147
00:13:51.740 --> 00:13:56.740
they reserve the bulk to themselves. So Jefferson applies this to the Alien and Sedition Acts.

148
00:13:56.740 --> 00:14:01.740
He says, where did the states delegate to the federal government the power to criminalize these things?

149
00:14:01.740 --> 00:14:04.740
Well, nowhere that I can see. I don't see it in Article 1, Section 8.

150
00:14:04.740 --> 00:14:08.740
So therefore, the federal government is usurping a state power.

151
00:14:08.740 --> 00:14:13.740
So this is Jefferson's argument against the legislation.

152
00:14:13.740 --> 00:14:15.740
Now, what are his options here in terms of this?

153
00:14:15.740 --> 00:14:18.740
I mean, certainly states could secede from the Union.

154
00:14:18.740 --> 00:14:22.740
Jefferson believed that. It drives people crazy to point that out.

155
00:14:22.740 --> 00:14:23.740
So let me say that one more time.

156
00:14:23.740 --> 00:14:26.740
Jefferson believed in the right of a state to secede from the Union.

157
00:14:26.740 --> 00:14:28.740
He was not crazy. He was not a lunatic.

158
00:14:28.740 --> 00:14:35.420
Jefferson was not a lunatic, he was a rather intelligent man, and he believed this, but

159
00:14:35.420 --> 00:14:40.180
he wanted to make the point that secession would be a move that you would take really

160
00:14:40.180 --> 00:14:43.920
only when things had come to an intolerable state.

161
00:14:43.920 --> 00:14:49.340
And it would be rash, it would be just premature to consider secession at that moment, but

162
00:14:49.340 --> 00:14:53.640
Jefferson did have friends, as some of you well know, like John Taylor, who were advocating

163
00:14:53.640 --> 00:15:00.640
Jefferson said that this is not yet the time for that, not yet the time for that, so that's too drastic for something just as this.

164
00:15:00.640 --> 00:15:11.640
Jefferson could simply counsel submission to the legislation, you know, let's just go along with it, but of course to Jefferson this is unthinkable because, you know, after a great effort we have this Constitution.

165
00:15:11.640 --> 00:15:16.640
Jefferson could simply counsel submission to the legislation, you know, let's just go along with it.

166
00:15:16.640 --> 00:15:22.640
But of course to Jefferson this is unthinkable because, you know, after a great effort we have this Constitution.

167
00:15:22.640 --> 00:15:28.640
If we then permit this to take place, an unconstitutional usurpation of state powers,

168
00:15:28.640 --> 00:15:32.640
then we've given away the whole store, that's intolerable as well.

169
00:15:32.640 --> 00:15:39.640
He could wait for the next election, he could wait for 1800 and just elect a new president who might repeal the legislation.

170
00:15:39.640 --> 00:15:45.640
It's set to expire the day before the next president takes office, so you could just wait.

171
00:15:45.640 --> 00:15:50.640
But waiting, I mean, who knows at that time how rigorously it's going to be enforced?

172
00:15:50.640 --> 00:15:54.640
It turns out it wasn't enforced particularly obnoxiously, but who could know that at that time?

173
00:15:54.640 --> 00:16:01.640
And, you know, for all Jefferson knows, all the Republican newspaper editors could be languishing in jail by then, so you don't necessarily want to wait.

174
00:16:01.640 --> 00:16:09.640
There's also the concern that, of course, elections do not always mean that a wonderful person takes office.

175
00:16:09.640 --> 00:16:14.640
I mean, sometimes people vote for dumb people.

176
00:16:14.640 --> 00:16:20.640
I know you just want to get up and leave that I would say something like that, but sometimes people vote for dumb people.

177
00:16:20.640 --> 00:16:24.640
It hasn't happened recently, of course, we haven't had this happen, but this could happen.

178
00:16:24.640 --> 00:16:27.640
So you can't wait for that necessarily.

179
00:16:27.640 --> 00:16:32.420
And finally, for people who began to take Jefferson's position, which I'm about to

180
00:16:32.420 --> 00:16:38.200
lay out what Jefferson finally decided on, the thinking was that if the Federal Government

181
00:16:38.200 --> 00:16:44.040
violates, if some politician, some political leader violates or in some way abuses, let's

182
00:16:44.040 --> 00:16:47.720
say, one of the delegated powers, one of the powers that the Federal Government enjoys

183
00:16:47.720 --> 00:16:52.160
under Article 1, Section 8, if they abuse one of those powers, then you vote them out.

184
00:16:52.160 --> 00:16:56.880
But if they usurp, if they take over one of the state's reserved powers, well, that's

185
00:16:56.880 --> 00:16:59.280
This is not something you just vote somebody out for.

186
00:16:59.280 --> 00:17:04.640
This is something that's a dangerous breach of the constitutional compact and that needs

187
00:17:04.640 --> 00:17:09.840
to be met much more swiftly and more resolutely and more immediately.

188
00:17:09.840 --> 00:17:15.920
So Jefferson came up with an idea that became known as nullification.

189
00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:22.800
Nullification was spelled out in a document that Jefferson drafted anonymously in 1798,

190
00:17:22.800 --> 00:17:47.800
is known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, and in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson is going to lay out the objections to the Alienance Addition Acts and then a possible course of action that the states might consider following in order to counter this federal usurpation.

191
00:17:47.800 --> 00:17:51.800
Constitutions, Jefferson understood, do not enforce themselves.

192
00:17:51.800 --> 00:17:55.800
If you violate them, there are no fangs that come out and bite you.

193
00:17:55.800 --> 00:17:58.800
You have to enforce them through vigilance.

194
00:17:58.800 --> 00:18:01.800
You can't just expect them to be enforced automatically.

195
00:18:01.800 --> 00:18:04.800
Jefferson proposed basically the following.

196
00:18:04.800 --> 00:18:08.800
That since the states came before the federal government,

197
00:18:08.800 --> 00:18:11.800
obviously, this does not need to be explained to anybody

198
00:18:11.800 --> 00:18:15.800
other than a certain institute out in California that will remain nameless.

199
00:18:15.800 --> 00:18:20.800
We'll tell you that over lunch if you need to know that, but the point is the states were obviously there first.

200
00:18:20.800 --> 00:18:25.800
They created the federal government and endowed it with certain enumerated powers.

201
00:18:25.800 --> 00:18:33.800
By the way, whether this actually worked out in the long run can be judged by glancing at the federal government now and seeing,

202
00:18:33.800 --> 00:18:40.800
is this actually the scrupulously limited government, limiting itself to its delegated powers that the framers envisioned?

203
00:18:40.800 --> 00:18:42.800
I think it's obvious enough.

204
00:18:42.800 --> 00:18:47.800
So what Jefferson's view was that the states created the federal government, they sent delegates to a constitutional convention,

205
00:18:47.800 --> 00:18:55.800
they approved the constitution, they ratified it state by state, so the constituent unit always was understood to be the state.

206
00:18:55.800 --> 00:19:01.800
Well, they have not, according to Jefferson, they've not created a Frankenstein's monster

207
00:19:01.800 --> 00:19:07.800
that gets to interpret the scope of its own powers and tell the states themselves what their own constitution means.

208
00:19:07.800 --> 00:19:12.800
If the Federal Government has the final word on the scope of its own powers,

209
00:19:12.800 --> 00:19:17.800
if the Federal Government gets to be the exclusive judge as to what powers were delegated to it and what not,

210
00:19:17.800 --> 00:19:22.800
and what the meaning of those words in Article 1, Section 8 is, then what's going to happen obviously

211
00:19:22.800 --> 00:19:27.800
is that the Federal Government will, given that no one can challenge its interpretation of the Constitution,

212
00:19:27.800 --> 00:19:33.800
will interpret that instrument more and more broadly so as to amass more power to the Center.

213
00:19:33.800 --> 00:19:38.400
So Jefferson's next step was to say, states created the federal government,

214
00:19:38.400 --> 00:19:41.400
they endowed it with certain limited powers,

215
00:19:41.400 --> 00:19:45.800
but if the federal government should go beyond the powers that were delegated,

216
00:19:45.800 --> 00:19:50.400
then the states have the right to interpret the Constitution for themselves

217
00:19:50.400 --> 00:19:53.400
and to judge that an infraction has taken place

218
00:19:53.400 --> 00:19:57.800
and to refuse to enforce the offending law, that is to nullify the offending law.

219
00:19:57.800 --> 00:20:00.800
It doesn't mean that they would be repealing the law,

220
00:20:00.800 --> 00:20:06.800
But they would simply be saying that insofar as their state is concerned, the law will not be enforced.

221
00:20:06.800 --> 00:20:13.800
Now here's how Jefferson words this in one of the passages from the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

222
00:20:13.800 --> 00:20:17.800
This is the crux of Jefferson's argument right here.

223
00:20:17.800 --> 00:20:18.800
He says,

224
00:20:30.800 --> 00:20:35.800
The title of a constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto.

225
00:20:35.800 --> 00:20:41.800
They constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers,

226
00:20:41.800 --> 00:20:46.800
reserving each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government.

227
00:20:46.800 --> 00:20:55.800
And that when so ever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.

228
00:20:55.800 --> 00:21:01.860
To this compact each state exceeded as a state and is an integral party, its co-states forming

229
00:21:01.860 --> 00:21:04.380
as to itself the other party.

230
00:21:04.380 --> 00:21:08.780
That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge

231
00:21:08.780 --> 00:21:13.660
of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion

232
00:21:13.660 --> 00:21:19.080
and not the constitution the measure of its powers, but that as in all other cases of

233
00:21:19.080 --> 00:21:25.260
compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge of

234
00:21:25.260 --> 00:21:31.900
of itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.

235
00:21:31.900 --> 00:21:34.780
That's a beautiful passage, it's a beautiful passage.

236
00:21:34.780 --> 00:21:37.740
I used to, and by the way, I'm not up here to make fun of my students because I like

237
00:21:37.740 --> 00:21:43.180
them, they're decent kids, they just, you know, it's mostly not their fault that they

238
00:21:43.180 --> 00:21:48.620
haven't been taught things, but I used to assign the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

239
00:21:48.620 --> 00:21:53.780
No one can understand this language, okay, so in a way, it sort of makes you think, are

240
00:21:53.780 --> 00:21:58.140
Are they trying deliberately to make us dumb so that we can't read Jefferson telling us

241
00:21:58.140 --> 00:22:01.540
here, hey, you have the right to nullify and whatever?

242
00:22:01.540 --> 00:22:07.020
Well, the next year, the Kentucky legislature, and by the way, these resolutions are passed

243
00:22:07.020 --> 00:22:10.280
by the Kentucky legislature.

244
00:22:10.280 --> 00:22:16.000
This was a common thing that in colonial times, like the Virginia Resolve against the Stamp

245
00:22:16.000 --> 00:22:20.800
Act, when you want to make a statement at the highest level of the state that indicates

246
00:22:20.800 --> 00:22:32.800
If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained,

247
00:22:32.800 --> 00:22:40.800
an annihilation of the state governments and the creation upon their rulings of a de facto rule of law,

248
00:22:40.800 --> 00:22:46.800
fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained.

249
00:22:46.800 --> 00:22:52.800
An annihilation of the state governments and the creation upon their rulings of a general, consolidated government

250
00:22:52.800 --> 00:22:55.800
will be the inevitable consequence.

251
00:22:55.800 --> 00:23:00.800
That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures,

252
00:23:00.800 --> 00:23:05.800
that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it,

253
00:23:05.800 --> 00:23:11.200
stop nothing short of despotism, since the discretion of those who would administer the government

254
00:23:11.200 --> 00:23:14.900
and not the Constitution would be the measure of their powers.

255
00:23:14.900 --> 00:23:18.400
The several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent,

256
00:23:18.400 --> 00:23:21.700
have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction,

257
00:23:21.700 --> 00:23:26.200
and a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts

258
00:23:26.200 --> 00:23:30.700
done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy.

259
00:23:30.700 --> 00:23:37.700
All right, well, that's the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

260
00:23:37.700 --> 00:23:42.700
Now, Jefferson is portraying this course of action as the moderate course.

261
00:23:42.700 --> 00:23:45.700
I mean, today it's extremist and wacko.

262
00:23:45.700 --> 00:23:47.700
This was the moderate course.

263
00:23:47.700 --> 00:23:51.700
It was the middle ground between secession and submission.

264
00:23:51.700 --> 00:23:58.700
It was a way of telling his friends, who he thought some of his friends were too anxious to secede,

265
00:23:58.700 --> 00:24:10.700
But here is a way that we can stay in the Union and enjoy whatever benefits accrue to us from that and not have to give that up, but at the same time be able to resist and be able to resist usurpations of state powers.

266
00:24:10.700 --> 00:24:20.700
This is the moderate course. That's the same position that John C. Calhoun took in 1832-33 when some people in South Carolina were saying we need to secede over the tariffs.

267
00:24:20.700 --> 00:24:24.700
Calhoun said the moderate approach was nullification.

268
00:24:24.700 --> 00:24:29.700
There are some people, by the way, who believe in secession and do not believe in nullification.

269
00:24:29.700 --> 00:24:35.700
They think that nullification is just a crazy idea that can't work, but it does seem to be of a piece.

270
00:24:35.700 --> 00:24:41.700
The ideas of nullification and secession do seem to derive from the same conceptions of the Federal Union.

271
00:24:41.700 --> 00:24:47.700
Well, let's also look at the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, drafted by James Madison.

272
00:24:47.700 --> 00:24:52.700
James Madison, rightly or wrongly, is referred to as the father of the Constitution.

273
00:24:52.700 --> 00:25:09.700
Madison came to regret having written this and spent the rest of his career trying to explain that the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 did not actually mean what they obviously did mean.

274
00:25:09.700 --> 00:25:18.700
Partisan humor used to poke a lot of fun at the fact that Madison seemed to be changing his mind.

275
00:25:18.700 --> 00:25:22.700
There's a whole cottage industry of Madison admirers out there who write books showing that,

276
00:25:22.700 --> 00:25:24.700
no, Madison was perfectly consistent in his whole career.

277
00:25:24.700 --> 00:25:29.700
Well, if that's how you want to spend your career, you know, arguing that Madison is totally consistent,

278
00:25:29.700 --> 00:25:38.700
I mean, I guess it's one way to spend a career, but my friend Kevin Gutzman at Western Connecticut State University

279
00:25:38.700 --> 00:25:40.700
has argued very much to the contrary.

280
00:25:40.700 --> 00:25:42.700
But let's look at the Virginia resolutions.

281
00:25:42.700 --> 00:25:44.700
Madison said,

282
00:26:12.700 --> 00:26:42.700
What he's getting at there is that he already sees in the 1790s a trend whereby certain general phrases in the Constitution, such as the General Welfare Clause, for example, would be interpreted so broadly that the interpretation would permit the Federal Government to exercise powers really that were not dreamed of by the framers of the Constitution and what he's saying is that in Article I, Section 8, that lists the powers of the Congress.

283
00:26:42.700 --> 00:26:51.200
And if the federal government had actually been authorized to put into effect any measure that it thought would tend toward the general welfare,

284
00:26:51.200 --> 00:26:58.200
then why did they bother specifically enumerating the federal government's powers if they had whatever power would advance the general welfare?

285
00:26:58.200 --> 00:27:04.200
It seems it would render the specific listing of powers nougatory and absurd.

286
00:27:04.200 --> 00:27:08.200
Now Madison gets closer to the heart of the matter by saying,

287
00:27:08.200 --> 00:27:18.700
This assembly, speaking of Virginia, doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties,

288
00:27:18.700 --> 00:27:25.200
as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,

289
00:27:25.200 --> 00:27:30.700
as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact,

290
00:27:30.700 --> 00:27:38.540
and that in the case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact,

291
00:27:38.540 --> 00:27:47.420
the states who are parties thereto have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil

292
00:27:47.420 --> 00:27:54.700
and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

293
00:27:54.700 --> 00:27:59.500
This is really the phrase that is most cited out of the Virginia resolutions,

294
00:27:59.500 --> 00:28:05.900
that the states have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,

295
00:28:05.900 --> 00:28:09.300
the evil being the usurped power, the usurpation of power,

296
00:28:09.300 --> 00:28:16.100
and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

297
00:28:16.100 --> 00:28:23.900
Now, there's been much written on the differences between the Kentucky resolutions of Jefferson and the Virginia resolutions of Madison.

298
00:28:23.900 --> 00:28:31.900
There's much that has been written to suggest that Madison is calling for a measure that is not as extreme as what Jefferson is calling for.

299
00:28:31.900 --> 00:28:38.900
Jefferson expressly calls for nullification, whereas with Madison we have simply the states are duty-bound to interpose.

300
00:28:38.900 --> 00:28:45.900
He tends to use the term interposition to, in effect, stand between the federal government and their people.

301
00:28:45.900 --> 00:28:49.900
Like Arthur Dent standing between the bulldozer and his home.

302
00:28:49.900 --> 00:28:57.900
There are some geeks in the room with me who recognize Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy references.

303
00:28:57.900 --> 00:29:02.900
This is an interesting point that needs to be dwelled upon.

304
00:29:02.900 --> 00:29:07.900
I think some of this has to do with the fact that later, Madison's protests were so strong,

305
00:29:07.900 --> 00:29:11.900
that no, I never meant to imply that, that people have taken him at his word.

306
00:29:11.900 --> 00:29:13.900
Well, I guess he never meant to imply that.

307
00:29:13.900 --> 00:29:21.820
A better explanation for Madison's later second thoughts comes from Albert Taylor Bledsoe,

308
00:29:21.820 --> 00:29:27.980
who wrote an important book about secession and the rights of secession after the war between

309
00:29:27.980 --> 00:29:28.980
the states.

310
00:29:28.980 --> 00:29:35.140
And Bledsoe said that Madison seemed more anxious in his later years in preserving the

311
00:29:35.140 --> 00:29:38.980
union than in preserving the consistency of his own thoughts.

312
00:29:38.980 --> 00:29:43.060
So in later years, he wants to try to hold the union together in anything that would

313
00:29:43.060 --> 00:29:50.620
tend to have the states become more and more independent-minded, he wanted to discourage.

314
00:29:50.620 --> 00:29:54.460
But again, my friend Kevin Gutzman, who's written, I mean, he's been in the Journal

315
00:29:54.460 --> 00:29:57.460
of the Early Republic, he's been in Journal of Southern History, I mean, all the major

316
00:29:57.460 --> 00:30:00.460
journals on this point.

317
00:30:00.460 --> 00:30:04.980
He points out that scholars who try to claim for Madison a much more moderate ground than

318
00:30:04.980 --> 00:30:11.280
the radical Jefferson are really on very shaky ground because, for example, Jefferson had

319
00:30:11.280 --> 00:30:22.280
Ludwig had said that the states were the ultimate judges, both that a violation of the Constitution has occurred as well as the mode and measure of redress, how we address this violation.

320
00:30:22.280 --> 00:30:25.280
And some historians have denied that Madison took that view.

321
00:30:25.280 --> 00:30:33.280
Well, Gutzman says if Madison really did not believe that the state was the ultimate judge of both the violation and the mode of redress,

322
00:30:33.280 --> 00:30:39.280
he certainly did not make that clear in either the resolutions themselves or the Publius letters.

323
00:30:39.280 --> 00:30:50.280
A careful reading of them does not leave the impression that Virginia would willingly have submitted to continued enforcement of the acts, even in the event that no other state agreed with it.

324
00:30:50.280 --> 00:31:06.280
Again, from another article of Gutzman, one of Madison's most notable tactical adjustments, as the years had gone on, had been his campaign as a retired former president to be cloud the events of 1798 by denying they had meant what they plainly had meant.

325
00:31:06.280 --> 00:31:09.280
and then finally from his article in the Journal of the Early Republic

326
00:31:09.280 --> 00:31:16.280
the distinction so often drawn between Jefferson's strident and Madison's moderate tone seems strained

327
00:31:16.280 --> 00:31:23.280
there is no difference between null, void and of no force or effect and invalidity

328
00:31:23.280 --> 00:31:27.280
between nullifying a statute, Jefferson's word, on the one hand

329
00:31:27.280 --> 00:31:30.280
and interposing to prevent its enforcement on the other

330
00:31:30.280 --> 00:31:33.280
In fact, these are the same ideas.

331
00:31:39.280 --> 00:31:41.280
Now, here's a guy you've never heard of, most people.

332
00:31:41.280 --> 00:31:45.280
But that's okay, because now we're going to resurrect this poor guy.

333
00:31:45.280 --> 00:31:50.280
I want to talk briefly in this connection of a figure who is totally forgotten,

334
00:31:50.280 --> 00:31:55.280
and yet he's a great constitutional legal thinker named Abel Upsher,

335
00:31:55.280 --> 00:32:10.280
He was a Virginia legal thinker who served brief terms as Secretary of the Navy in the early 1840s and as Secretary of State as well.

336
00:32:10.280 --> 00:32:20.280
Hoppcher wrote, he wrote a pamphlet in 1833, and I'll get to a minute why 1833, this is 1798 after all,

337
00:32:20.280 --> 00:32:26.280
but he wrote a pamphlet in 1833, an exposition of the Virginia resolutions of 1798.

338
00:32:26.280 --> 00:32:30.280
It's one of these things that, you know, in the 19th century when you write a pamphlet or you write a book,

339
00:32:30.280 --> 00:32:35.280
you know, the title is a paragraph long, so the title goes on the next three pages of the title of the thing,

340
00:32:35.280 --> 00:32:48.280
He's going to look specifically at the Virginia resolutions of Madison and prove, even in the 19th century, prove that they did mean what Jefferson meant in the Kentucky resolutions.

341
00:32:48.280 --> 00:32:55.280
Now, Upshur is a fascinating figure whose work needs to be collected into a volume, and I intended to do that at one point.

342
00:32:55.280 --> 00:33:01.280
I have a bunch of his essays that are from obscure journals in my file cabinet.

343
00:33:01.280 --> 00:33:07.280
in the Federal Cabinet. He had a great book that I'll be talking about probably in the second lecture today

344
00:33:07.280 --> 00:33:14.280
that was a line by line reputation of Joseph Story's commentaries on the Constitution.

345
00:33:14.280 --> 00:33:20.280
Upshaw wrote a book in 1840, a brief inquiry into the nature of our federal government,

346
00:33:20.280 --> 00:33:26.280
and it just takes story apart, and yet everybody's heard of story, whereas Upshaw's book, you know,

347
00:33:56.280 --> 00:34:03.280
23 pamphlet. How on earth did I find that? I ripped it off from a museum. No, I made

348
00:34:03.280 --> 00:34:08.600
that up. That's just not true. I just totally made that up. No, actually, one of the beautiful

349
00:34:08.600 --> 00:34:14.740
things about being at a university with a great library is the discoveries you make

350
00:34:14.740 --> 00:34:18.760
just standing around in the stacks. I mean, there's no, it's no substitute to use interlibrary

351
00:34:18.760 --> 00:34:22.260
loan to get books, because then you never find all the seven books around the one you

352
00:34:22.260 --> 00:34:29.260
I'm sorry, last night I remember hearing Homer Simpson say that he has a backyard that makes his front yard look like an idiot.

353
00:34:29.260 --> 00:34:33.260
That's a funny way of phrasing that, so it's stayed in my head.

354
00:34:33.260 --> 00:34:38.260
But in snooping around in the stacks, I found there's a box of old pamphlets.

355
00:34:38.260 --> 00:34:41.260
And sure enough, there's this pamphlet by Upshur.

356
00:34:41.260 --> 00:34:44.260
Of course, it hasn't been touched in years and years.

357
00:34:44.260 --> 00:34:49.260
And so I probably wasn't supposed to photocopy, because since that probably wasn't the case,

358
00:34:49.260 --> 00:34:54.260
I probably wasn't supposed to photocopy it because since that probably accelerated the decay.

359
00:34:54.260 --> 00:34:58.260
So I really shouldn't be saying this publicly, but I did photocopy it because I figured,

360
00:34:58.260 --> 00:35:02.260
look, I'll preserve the thing. I'll get the thing published, for heaven's sake. We'll publish this thing.

361
00:35:02.260 --> 00:35:05.260
And then years later, I haven't done a darn thing on that front.

362
00:35:05.260 --> 00:35:07.260
But I'm going to share with you some things that Upshur said.

363
00:35:07.260 --> 00:35:12.260
I used to make this part of my assignment in my Foundations of American History course

364
00:35:12.260 --> 00:35:17.260
where the paper assignment is I give you Upshur's work, Upshur's pamphlet,

365
00:35:17.260 --> 00:35:20.760
And then I give you some speeches by Daniel Webster, who takes the opposite view from Upshire.

366
00:35:20.760 --> 00:35:22.260
And then I want you to assess this.

367
00:35:22.260 --> 00:35:26.260
And what are they saying, and what is the crux of their disagreement?

368
00:35:26.260 --> 00:35:30.260
And there's a beautiful assignment, and anybody who is looking for an American History Science,

369
00:35:30.260 --> 00:35:33.760
it's a beautiful assignment, because it's totally non-plagiarizable.

370
00:35:33.760 --> 00:35:37.760
Because since this pamphlet hasn't been reprinted anywhere, no one's written anything on it.

371
00:35:37.760 --> 00:35:40.760
So they're going to look all over the internet for Upshire, and they're saying,

372
00:35:40.760 --> 00:35:45.440
Oh, man, I can't find this anywhere. No, you can't. I made it that way.

373
00:35:45.440 --> 00:35:48.840
All right, anyway, Upshur says this. He says,

374
00:35:48.840 --> 00:35:52.440
In these resolutions, Virginia Resolutions of 1798,

375
00:35:52.440 --> 00:35:55.160
the following propositions are distinctly affirmed.

376
00:35:55.160 --> 00:35:57.920
And he lists five propositions.

377
00:35:57.920 --> 00:36:03.320
That the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the states as such.

378
00:36:03.320 --> 00:36:07.400
That the government established by that compact possesses no power whatever,

379
00:36:07.400 --> 00:36:12.960
Accept what the plain sense and intention of that compact gives to it.

380
00:36:12.960 --> 00:36:20.360
That every act done by that government, not plainly within the limits of its powers, is void.

381
00:36:20.360 --> 00:36:27.800
That each state has a right to say whether an act done by that government is plainly within the limits of its powers or not.

382
00:36:27.800 --> 00:36:32.680
And finally, that the states are not bound to submit to, but may resist,

383
00:36:32.680 --> 00:36:39.580
Any act of that government which it shall so decide to be beyond the limits of its powers.

384
00:36:39.580 --> 00:36:43.680
Now the question is, in what mode is this resistance to be applied?

385
00:36:43.680 --> 00:36:50.180
I mean, okay, so he's shown us that the Virginia resolutions are calling for resistance, but what kind of resistance?

386
00:36:50.180 --> 00:36:56.880
Well, the context and the wording of the resolution make clear that Madison envisions a resistance

387
00:36:56.880 --> 00:37:04.440
that will preserve the Union unimpaired, but at the same time put down the usurped power.

388
00:37:04.440 --> 00:37:13.320
And it must be undertaken, the interposition of the state must be undertaken in such a way as to arrest the progress of the evil.

389
00:37:13.320 --> 00:37:16.980
Now, Upshur says, this is very significant, he says,

390
00:37:16.980 --> 00:37:20.220
It is to be remarked that we have here a distinct declaration

391
00:37:20.220 --> 00:37:24.220
that there is within the Constitution of the United States some principle

392
00:37:24.220 --> 00:37:28.300
by which the encroachments and usurpations of the Federal Government may be resisted.

393
00:37:28.300 --> 00:37:33.700
I say within the Constitution and not extra-constitutional and revolutionary,

394
00:37:33.700 --> 00:37:36.980
which is the argument that you hear today.

395
00:37:36.980 --> 00:37:40.180
So then Upshur goes and looks at all the different types of resistance

396
00:37:40.180 --> 00:37:42.420
other than nullification that could exist

397
00:37:42.420 --> 00:37:47.620
and shows that every single one of them falls short of the criteria laid out by Madison.

398
00:37:47.620 --> 00:37:52.180
He says, for example, petition and official remonstrances and protests.

399
00:37:52.180 --> 00:37:54.940
He says, this is not resistance at all.

400
00:37:54.940 --> 00:38:00.220
He says, petition is a simple appeal for mercy and forbearance.

401
00:38:00.220 --> 00:38:05.780
Petition and protests affirm a right and threaten the enforcement of it,

402
00:38:05.780 --> 00:38:10.860
but they do not in themselves enforce it and therefore are not resistance.

403
00:38:10.860 --> 00:38:25.860
There is, in addition, the appeal to arms, violent resistance, but Hoppe believes this is only for an extreme case, and certainly, if the usurpations of the Federal Government are to be met only by an appeal to arms every single time,

404
00:38:25.860 --> 00:38:32.860
Well, number one, either we'll just never have peace or that will be viewed as such an extreme measure that no one will ever resist

405
00:38:32.860 --> 00:38:40.860
because, you know, most of the time people would just prefer to continue living their lives and not be bothered by this type of turmoil.

406
00:38:40.860 --> 00:38:48.860
Another possibility is repeal of the unconstitutional law by Congress to go to try to get the unconstitutional law repealed.

407
00:38:48.860 --> 00:38:59.860
But, Upshur says it's not likely this is going to work. It's not likely that the usurper is either going to acknowledge the usurpation or lay down willingly the usurped power.

408
00:38:59.860 --> 00:39:08.860
And he says you must remember too that the usurper in the present case, he's talking about, I'll tell you, he's talking about the tariffs in 1833.

409
00:39:08.860 --> 00:39:15.860
He says you must remember the usurper in the present case is a majority of the people, usurping upon the rights of the minority.

410
00:39:15.860 --> 00:39:21.860
In the history of the tariff laws, ought to convince you how un-apt such usurpers are to give way.

411
00:39:21.860 --> 00:39:25.860
This remedy, therefore, would be of little value in practice.

412
00:39:25.860 --> 00:39:32.860
Besides, it is in principle a simple appeal to the wrongdoer, and is therefore no more a mode of resistance than the right of petition.

413
00:39:32.860 --> 00:39:36.860
Everything is left at last to the will and discretion of the usurping power.

414
00:39:36.860 --> 00:39:41.860
I should just mention parenthetically that in 1833, Upshur is talking about nullification

415
00:39:41.860 --> 00:39:48.860
in the context of South Carolina's nullification of what they consider to be unconstitutional federal tariff laws.

416
00:39:48.860 --> 00:39:55.860
And they are appealing to the Virginia-Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in so doing, in nullifying federal tariff laws.

417
00:39:55.860 --> 00:40:00.860
And so Upshur, in that context, is talking about those resolutions.

418
00:40:00.860 --> 00:40:04.860
Another possible mode of resistance is to amend the Constitution.

419
00:40:04.860 --> 00:40:10.860
But again, for Upshur, this misses the point because the problem, he would say, is not with the Constitution itself.

420
00:40:10.860 --> 00:40:14.860
What we want to do is preserve the Constitution unimpaired as it is.

421
00:40:14.860 --> 00:40:17.860
The problem is we've had a breach of that instrument.

422
00:40:17.860 --> 00:40:20.860
So an amendment to the Constitution misses the whole point.

423
00:40:20.860 --> 00:40:22.860
And then finally, secession.

424
00:40:22.860 --> 00:40:28.860
We say secession, whatever the legality of it, the point is it does not seem to meet the conditions called for by Madison

425
00:40:28.860 --> 00:40:33.860
because it is not a mode of resistance that preserves the Union unimpaired.

426
00:40:33.860 --> 00:40:37.860
Instead, it is a running away of the oppressor.

427
00:40:37.860 --> 00:40:46.860
And far from arresting the progress of the evil, by removing a resisting state, it's actually enabling the evil to continue.

428
00:40:46.860 --> 00:40:49.860
It removes all restraint from the wrongdoer.

429
00:40:49.860 --> 00:40:56.860
So, the only option left, according to Upshur, is nullification.

430
00:40:56.860 --> 00:41:02.860
Madison's language and words do not admit of any other construction, regardless of what he said later in his life.

431
00:41:02.860 --> 00:41:12.860
Now, a final point from Upshur is that nullification does not proceed upon any supposed right of the state to repeal a constitutional law,

432
00:41:12.860 --> 00:41:22.860
but upon the right of the state to declare that an unconstitutional law really is so, and to refuse obedience to it for that reason.

433
00:41:22.860 --> 00:41:30.860
He says, remember that a law beyond the constitution is no law at all, and there is no right anywhere to enforce it.

434
00:41:30.860 --> 00:41:39.860
A state which refuses to submit to such a pretended law is strictly within the Union because she is in strict obedience to the Constitution.

435
00:41:39.860 --> 00:41:47.860
Now, the other states responded to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, at least some of them did.

436
00:41:47.860 --> 00:41:54.860
Most of the southern states did not, but the northern states, a number of them did, and all unfavorably.

437
00:41:54.860 --> 00:42:02.860
Massachusetts issued an official report sharply condemning these ideas saying they're unheard of, they're novelties,

438
00:42:02.860 --> 00:42:07.860
they have no place in the American constitutional tradition, so on and so forth.

439
00:42:07.860 --> 00:42:12.860
Now, this is a point that we'll take up probably tomorrow morning

440
00:42:12.860 --> 00:42:17.860
because what we're going to see is that those states themselves that were so vocal in 1798

441
00:42:17.860 --> 00:42:22.860
about how crazy these ideas were and no one could possibly use them

442
00:42:22.860 --> 00:42:31.860
Within 10 years, they were using some of the same language that Virginia and Kentucky used in 1798.

443
00:42:31.860 --> 00:42:36.860
So you get the impression that at least some of the reason they were against the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions

444
00:42:36.860 --> 00:42:41.860
is that they liked the Alien and Sedition Acts. They were hotbeds of federalism there.

445
00:42:41.860 --> 00:42:46.860
They liked the legislation. They didn't like this proposed means of resisting it.

446
00:42:46.860 --> 00:42:53.860
One of the points that's consistently made in what we've just looked at and in the discussion of nullification

447
00:42:53.860 --> 00:43:00.860
is the idea that there is no common judge that can adjudicate disputes between the states and the federal government.

448
00:43:00.860 --> 00:43:08.860
And to say that the Supreme Court is a common judge is to miss the point entirely.

449
00:43:08.860 --> 00:43:12.860
Because as Jefferson would say, the Supreme Court is part of the federal government.

450
00:43:12.860 --> 00:43:19.860
Jefferson had made this point all along, you can pursue this in, there's a book from the, I believe the early 90s, by Quirk and DeGrasse,

451
00:43:19.860 --> 00:43:23.860
in which he says that the federal government is in a dispute between the states and the federal government.

452
00:43:23.860 --> 00:43:28.860
It would be rendering judgment in a case to which it itself is a party.

453
00:43:28.860 --> 00:43:32.860
So in no way can that be considered legitimate.

454
00:43:32.860 --> 00:43:38.860
Jefferson had made this point all along, you can pursue this in,

455
00:43:38.860 --> 00:43:47.860
There's a book from, I believe, the early 90s by Quirk and Bridwell, if I remember the authors correctly, called Judicial Dictatorship, published by Transaction.

456
00:43:47.860 --> 00:43:54.860
They point out, as obviously many authors written on Jefferson's thought have pointed out, Jefferson does not believe in judicial review.

457
00:43:54.860 --> 00:44:03.860
He doesn't believe the Supreme Court ought to have a monopolistic privilege on interpreting the Constitution,

458
00:44:03.860 --> 00:44:06.500
Because then that simply means that they're running the country.

459
00:44:06.500 --> 00:44:10.020
Because if they get to interpret it and they have the final authoritative word,

460
00:44:10.020 --> 00:44:13.780
well, then they dictate, they know if they get to say what the Constitution means,

461
00:44:13.780 --> 00:44:15.060
then they're running the country.

462
00:44:15.060 --> 00:44:19.940
And it's very dangerous to entrust so few people with that type of power.

463
00:44:19.940 --> 00:44:21.060
So he doesn't like that.

464
00:44:21.060 --> 00:44:24.500
He believes in something called concurrent review,

465
00:44:24.500 --> 00:44:26.980
whereby all three branches of the federal government

466
00:44:26.980 --> 00:44:30.420
have a responsibility to maintain constitutionality.

467
00:44:30.420 --> 00:44:32.820
So that even if the Supreme Court upholds something,

468
00:44:32.820 --> 00:44:35.340
But the president believes it's unconstitutional.

469
00:44:35.340 --> 00:44:37.580
He doesn't have to bow down before the Supreme Court and say,

470
00:44:37.580 --> 00:44:41.300
well, I guess I have to just get rid of my scruples about this.

471
00:44:41.300 --> 00:44:43.140
The Supreme Court upheld it.

472
00:44:43.140 --> 00:44:47.020
He has a responsibility not to sign it.

473
00:44:47.020 --> 00:44:50.540
And likewise, the Congress should not pass something

474
00:44:50.540 --> 00:44:52.260
they believe to be unconstitutional.

475
00:44:52.260 --> 00:44:53.820
So that was Jefferson's take.

476
00:44:53.820 --> 00:44:58.260
He does not believe there's a common judge ruling over

477
00:44:58.260 --> 00:45:01.420
that can adjudicate disputes between the states and the federal government.

478
00:45:01.420 --> 00:45:05.580
The Supreme Court does not count. It would be as if we said,

479
00:45:05.580 --> 00:45:08.380
I'm having a dispute with you. How are we going to resolve it?

480
00:45:08.380 --> 00:45:12.500
And I said, well, you know, my brother Sal will adjudicate it.

481
00:45:12.500 --> 00:45:17.780
I mean, like, you wouldn't agree to that because obviously Sal is going to have a difficult time being impartial.

482
00:45:17.780 --> 00:45:23.580
And in such cases, more and more, the federal government will rule in favor of itself.

483
00:45:23.580 --> 00:45:30.300
Well, in 1799, 1780, 1799, 1800, it was drafted in late 1799

484
00:45:30.300 --> 00:45:34.460
and then first presented on January 7th, 1800,

485
00:45:34.460 --> 00:45:38.380
we have what's sometimes called Madison's Report of 1800.

486
00:45:38.380 --> 00:45:43.700
And Madison, in effect, what he's written here is a reply to the replies.

487
00:45:43.700 --> 00:45:47.620
It's a reply to the other states, to the extent that any of them

488
00:45:47.620 --> 00:45:50.340
acknowledge the Virginia-Kentucky resolutions, they sometimes,

489
00:45:50.340 --> 00:45:53.220
as we saw in the case of Massachusetts, issued statements of their own,

490
00:45:53.220 --> 00:45:56.060
where now Virginia is going to reply to these replies

491
00:45:56.060 --> 00:45:59.580
and try to clarify its position.

492
00:45:59.580 --> 00:46:03.580
And in that report, Madison says this,

493
00:46:29.580 --> 00:46:43.580
In the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated, and consequently, that as the parties to it, they must decide in the last resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

494
00:46:43.580 --> 00:46:52.580
From this view of the resolution, it would seem inconceivable that it can incur any just disapprobation from those who, laying aside all momentary impressions

495
00:46:52.580 --> 00:46:56.580
and recollecting the genuine source and object of the Federal Constitution

496
00:46:56.580 --> 00:47:01.580
shall candidly and accurately interpret the meaning of the Virginia General Assembly.

497
00:47:01.580 --> 00:47:06.580
If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the Constitution,

498
00:47:06.580 --> 00:47:13.580
could not justify the parties to it in interposing, even so far as to avert the progress of the evil,

499
00:47:13.580 --> 00:47:19.580
and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it,

500
00:47:19.580 --> 00:47:35.020
to it, there would be an end of all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.

501
00:47:40.260 --> 00:47:48.340
Now as I said, the reaction from the other states largely negative, we get this Virginia Report replying to those.

502
00:47:48.340 --> 00:47:55.220
Now, there are a number of objections to nullification that are raised by these other states and by people to this day.

503
00:47:55.220 --> 00:48:00.300
I don't want to make this whole series totally self-referential,

504
00:48:00.300 --> 00:48:05.180
but chapter four of my politically incorrect guide to American history deals with the principles of 98,

505
00:48:05.180 --> 00:48:09.100
which have just totally fallen down the memory hole.

506
00:48:09.100 --> 00:48:12.100
That chapter is sympathetic to these ideas,

507
00:48:12.100 --> 00:48:17.700
and you would think I had called for the dismembering of children, given the response I got to it.

508
00:48:17.700 --> 00:48:27.700
These are ideas that were developed by Thomas Jefferson and what I found is that the critics never wanted to mention Jefferson's name because Jefferson's really an admired person.

509
00:48:27.700 --> 00:48:36.700
If you mention that Jefferson came up with these ideas, well, that might make them seem respectable so we can't ever mention it.

510
00:48:36.700 --> 00:48:43.700
They're just ideas that just suddenly occurred in American history. They had no source. They were out there or Calhoun came up with them or whatever.

511
00:48:43.700 --> 00:48:46.700
You have to keep saying, no, Jefferson came up with these ideas.

512
00:48:46.700 --> 00:48:49.700
And I suppose when you start saying that, they'll just start saying,

513
00:48:49.700 --> 00:48:52.700
well, Jefferson held slaves too, and then they'll just change the subject.

514
00:48:52.700 --> 00:48:55.700
But it was, these are Jefferson's ideas.

515
00:48:55.700 --> 00:49:01.700
But anyway, here are some objections that you get to nullification.

516
00:49:01.700 --> 00:49:05.700
And as I say, the objections that I got in the present

517
00:49:05.700 --> 00:49:10.700
tended not to acknowledge the Jeffersonian origin of these ideas.

518
00:49:10.700 --> 00:49:12.700
Basically, they're as follows.

519
00:49:12.700 --> 00:49:21.700
And when I use shorthand, I say the Principles of 98, that's a term that refers to the principles that were laid out in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

520
00:49:21.700 --> 00:49:36.700
The Federal Government is limited, it's got just the powers delegated to it, the State's reserve, not only the remainder of those powers, but also the right to interpret the Constitution such that if they feel the Federal Government has violated the Constitution and usurped one of their powers, they can resist through nullification.

521
00:49:36.700 --> 00:49:40.700
That's the Principles of 98. And you could just say Principles of 98, people would know what that meant.

522
00:49:40.700 --> 00:49:52.700
Well, one argument, this is one that you hear today, is that, well, wouldn't that mean that some states would be, you know, following some laws, and some states would be following other laws, or wouldn't that just be chaotic?

523
00:49:52.700 --> 00:50:02.700
Well, yes and no, it would mean that. The way it was envisioned basically was as follows, that you've got a law that the states claim is unconstitutional.

524
00:50:02.700 --> 00:50:10.260
basically was as follows, that you've got a law that the states claim is unconstitutional,

525
00:50:10.260 --> 00:50:14.900
and then what they're claiming is that since it's unconstitutional, we're not going to

526
00:50:14.900 --> 00:50:21.260
enforce it, and what they would do is, Calhoun's understanding was that the state would call

527
00:50:21.260 --> 00:50:26.780
a special state nullification convention, because as you can read in Gordon Wood and

528
00:50:26.780 --> 00:50:32.680
others, it was thought in early American history that the people of the states expressed the

529
00:50:32.680 --> 00:50:37.680
They use their highest sovereign voice through the instrument of a special convention.

530
00:50:37.680 --> 00:50:40.680
That's why they use special conventions to ratify the Constitution.

531
00:50:40.680 --> 00:50:46.680
It's the grave matter, so we use this highest instrument of the sovereignty of the people to accomplish it.

532
00:50:46.680 --> 00:50:49.680
And likewise, nullification is a very grave matter.

533
00:50:49.680 --> 00:50:52.680
And so likewise we appeal to that same sovereign source.

534
00:50:52.680 --> 00:50:55.680
And of course when the southern states secede from the Union, what do they do?

535
00:50:55.680 --> 00:50:57.680
Special secession convention.

536
00:50:57.680 --> 00:51:00.680
They did the ratification of the Constitution, in effect, in reverse.

537
00:51:00.680 --> 00:51:11.680
If you have this convention, you decide to nullify or not, and if a state does in fact vote that way, to nullify whatever the law is,

538
00:51:11.680 --> 00:51:18.680
then the understanding is that as of that moment, as far as that state is concerned, the law is to be considered as suspended.

539
00:51:18.680 --> 00:51:23.680
And this also helps to alert the other states, if they've been snoozing, to wake them up and say,

540
00:51:23.680 --> 00:51:28.680
hey, this is a terrible law, violates the Constitution, pay attention to it.

541
00:51:28.680 --> 00:51:37.680
If three-quarters of the states should, in fact, amend the Constitution so as expressly to give the Federal Government the disputed power,

542
00:51:37.680 --> 00:51:42.680
so that there is no longer any question about an ambiguity that the nullifying state can appeal to,

543
00:51:42.680 --> 00:51:47.680
if they expressly give this disputed power in express language to the Federal Government,

544
00:51:47.680 --> 00:51:55.680
at that point, the recalcitrant state that's nullifying it, or states, would be required, in effect, they'd be basically asked,

545
00:51:55.680 --> 00:52:00.680
The State would ask, can you live with this? Can you live with this law, or would you prefer to separate?

546
00:52:00.680 --> 00:52:08.680
It's a seed from the Union. So ultimately, if push came to shove, and this were a very, very popular law,

547
00:52:08.680 --> 00:52:14.680
that's how it would be resolved. Ultimately, the State would have to either enforce it or withdraw.

548
00:52:14.680 --> 00:52:22.680
A similar objection, though, is that it does seem like this would create chaos if the States could nullify Federal laws.

549
00:52:22.680 --> 00:52:28.680
In a way, this is kind of a value judgment, because there's always some kind of chaos in the United States.

550
00:52:28.680 --> 00:52:31.680
It depends on what kind of chaos you like.

551
00:52:31.680 --> 00:52:37.680
Now, James Kilpatrick, who wrote this book called The Sovereign States, it's out of print, you should get it.

552
00:52:37.680 --> 00:52:42.680
And then he later repudiated the book, because it's typical.

553
00:52:42.680 --> 00:52:51.680
It should be one of Rothbard's laws, is that people who, as time goes on, they become more influential in the establishment,

554
00:52:51.680 --> 00:52:55.680
He repudiated this book, which made me think it must be great.

555
00:52:55.680 --> 00:52:59.680
He's repudiating it because people hate it, it must be wonderful, it's a great book.

556
00:52:59.680 --> 00:53:05.680
But Kilpatrick says that, all right, if you're going to say that it's chaotic for there to be nullification,

557
00:53:05.680 --> 00:53:11.680
well, understand that there is also a kind of chaos involved when the Federal Government has the power,

558
00:53:11.680 --> 00:53:15.680
and in effect is enabled, to pass unconstitutional laws.

559
00:53:15.680 --> 00:53:20.120
and in effect is enabled to pass unconstitutional laws.

560
00:53:20.120 --> 00:53:23.320
I mean, that's a kind of chaos where there really is no fundamental law

561
00:53:23.320 --> 00:53:26.400
if the federal government can just, without any penalty,

562
00:53:26.400 --> 00:53:30.160
get in the habit and become habituated to passing unconstitutional laws.

563
00:53:30.160 --> 00:53:33.000
That's a kind of disorder as well.

564
00:53:33.000 --> 00:53:35.120
Which one is the more dangerous?

565
00:53:35.120 --> 00:53:37.640
Okay, which one is the more dangerous is a good question.

566
00:53:37.640 --> 00:53:42.040
Now, there's also a value judgment here from a point of view of libertarians.

567
00:53:42.040 --> 00:53:45.160
I mean, my view would be that suppose today we announce that,

568
00:53:45.160 --> 00:53:52.160
You know, nullification is operative once again, and the states started nullifying, let's say just at random, every other federal law.

569
00:53:53.160 --> 00:54:00.160
How could this be bad, right? Would anybody object to this? Would our lives be ruined by this? Like every other law, it doesn't matter what it is, just at random.

570
00:54:00.160 --> 00:54:04.160
Every other law, they nullified it. You know, I see no problem with it.

571
00:54:04.160 --> 00:54:13.160
But the fact is, though, that it actually would probably not lead to some of these wild scenarios that people have suggested it would.

572
00:54:13.160 --> 00:54:22.160
Consider this fact, secession certainly is a more extreme remedy than mere nullification.

573
00:54:22.160 --> 00:54:30.160
I think it's demonstrable that from the late 18th through the 19th century, through the end of the war between the states,

574
00:54:30.160 --> 00:54:40.160
I do think you can demonstrate that probably a consensus of opinion in the US was that a state does retain a right of secession in an emergency situation.

575
00:54:40.160 --> 00:54:46.160
I think we can base that on the fact that New England threatened to secede several times,

576
00:54:46.160 --> 00:54:50.160
a lot of important figures insisted on the right of secession, and so on and so forth.

577
00:54:50.160 --> 00:54:52.160
I think we can take that position.

578
00:54:52.160 --> 00:54:57.160
And we have abolitionists who appeal to the idea of secession, like William Lloyd Garrison.

579
00:54:57.160 --> 00:55:02.160
We have pro-slavery people appealing to secession and supporting it.

580
00:55:02.160 --> 00:55:05.160
Free traders supporting it.

581
00:55:05.160 --> 00:55:10.160
You've got all different people supporting the idea of secession.

582
00:55:10.160 --> 00:55:18.160
And yet, the country was not exactly overwhelmed by actual secessions in early American history.

583
00:55:18.160 --> 00:55:24.160
Because most people, I think, do not have much desire to be in a state of crisis for frivolous reasons.

584
00:55:24.160 --> 00:55:29.160
And nullification and secession are very dramatic steps.

585
00:55:29.160 --> 00:55:34.160
But there can be no doubt that the ever present threat of secession or nullification

586
00:55:34.160 --> 00:55:39.160
does have the salutary effect of restraining the federal government's exercise of power.

587
00:55:42.160 --> 00:55:44.160
Let's see, I'm going to skip. I've already talked.

588
00:55:44.160 --> 00:55:48.160
There's no need to dwell too much on Madison's report.

589
00:55:48.160 --> 00:55:54.160
Now, Abel Uxher again, the great Virginian legal thinker, deals with some of these objections

590
00:55:54.160 --> 00:55:58.160
in his great treatment of the subject, and he says this.

591
00:55:58.160 --> 00:56:02.160
He says, if the states no longer wish to remain in union, they will, of course, separate.

592
00:56:02.160 --> 00:56:18.160
But if they are really desirous to preserve the Union, their own interest affords a sufficient pledge that they will not endanger it by throwing themselves upon their reserved rights, except in extreme cases, which require it.

593
00:56:18.160 --> 00:56:24.160
The government of the United States is the mere agent of the states for specified purposes,

594
00:56:24.160 --> 00:56:29.160
and it is inconceivable that the states who appointed that agent for their own use and advantage

595
00:56:29.160 --> 00:56:35.160
would, without cause, so embarrass its action as to render its agency of no value.

596
00:56:35.160 --> 00:56:37.160
And then he goes on.

597
00:56:37.160 --> 00:56:41.160
If the states may abuse their reserved rights in the manner contemplated by the president,

598
00:56:41.160 --> 00:56:54.160
If the states may abuse their reserved rights in this way, the Federal Government, on the other hand, may abuse its delegated rights.

599
00:56:54.160 --> 00:57:03.160
There is danger from both sides, and as we are compelled to confide in the one or the other, we have only to inquire which is most worthy of our confidence.

600
00:57:03.160 --> 00:57:11.160
It is much more probable, says Upsher, that the Federal Government will abuse its power than that the states will abuse theirs.

601
00:57:11.160 --> 00:57:19.160
And if we suppose a case of actual abuse on either hand, it will not be difficult to decide which is the greater evil.

602
00:57:19.160 --> 00:57:27.160
If a state should abuse its right of interposition by arresting the operation of a constitutional law,

603
00:57:27.160 --> 00:57:38.160
The worst that could come of it would be to suspend the operation of the law for a time, as to that state, while it would have all its effects within the other states.

604
00:57:38.160 --> 00:57:44.160
This would certainly be unjust, he says, but in most cases would be attended with very little practical evil.

605
00:57:44.160 --> 00:57:49.160
Besides, according to the doctrine for which I am contending, this evil would be temporary only.

606
00:57:49.160 --> 00:57:54.160
It must cease in some way or other as soon as the other states act upon the subject.

607
00:57:54.160 --> 00:58:03.160
I acknowledge, however, that it is at best an evil, but it is an evil inseparable from our system and one which cannot be avoided except by submitting to a greater evil.

608
00:58:03.160 --> 00:58:33.160
Okay, and finally, in terms of objections, I heard this one raised, this was raised by somebody, I guess I'd written an article, or basically a book review of a great book by Bill Watkins, and somebody posted it on Free Republic, no snickering people, and somebody had said, well, this

609
00:58:33.160 --> 00:58:43.160
I don't think that's a stupid objection, like self-evidently idiotic objection, but it begs the question.

610
00:58:43.160 --> 00:58:49.160
By the way, this is one of my pet peeves. Nobody understands that the phrase begs the question.

611
00:58:49.160 --> 00:58:55.160
It doesn't mean, like, I'm begging to ask the question, or dying to ask the question, I'm begging you to ask.

612
00:58:55.160 --> 00:58:59.160
It means that it just glides over the question. It just glides over the question.

613
00:58:59.160 --> 00:59:06.160
... it means that it just glides over the question. It just in effect disregards the fundamental matter at stake.

614
00:59:06.160 --> 00:59:13.160
First, let's read the Supremacy Clause, then I'll try to justify my position that nullification is not incompatible with the Supremacy Clause.

615
00:59:13.160 --> 00:59:16.160
From Article 6 of the Constitution, we read this.

616
00:59:16.160 --> 00:59:20.160
This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,

617
00:59:20.160 --> 00:59:23.160
and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States,

618
00:59:23.160 --> 00:59:28.160
shall be supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby

619
00:59:28.160 --> 00:59:48.160
So the argument would be that if the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and you have one state nullifying a law that is duly promulgated, then aren't you in fact violating the Supremacy Clause?

620
00:59:48.160 --> 00:59:55.160
Well the whole point is, does the law itself conform to the Constitution? That's the question.

621
00:59:55.160 --> 01:00:01.160
This is the question. This is saying the Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.

622
01:00:01.160 --> 01:00:06.160
Well, what if the law is not in pursuance thereof? Then the Supremacy Clause does not seem to apply here.

623
01:00:06.160 --> 01:00:10.160
But more than that, the whole question, I mean, you can agree with that statement.

624
01:00:10.160 --> 01:00:14.160
I mean, whether you like the Constitution or not, it's possible you could agree with that statement.

625
01:00:14.160 --> 01:00:23.160
But then say the whole question is, which party gets to decide which powers have been delegated to the Federal Government?

626
01:00:23.160 --> 01:00:28.660
And according to the Nullification Theorists, the states have to be able to have a voice in deciding that.

627
01:00:28.660 --> 01:00:33.060
Okay, this does not really touch the crux of the issue.

628
01:00:33.060 --> 01:00:35.960
This simply says the Constitution is the supreme law.

629
01:00:35.960 --> 01:00:39.960
Fine, but what about the interpretation of that document?

630
01:00:39.960 --> 01:00:44.460
And what about who gets to decide what is the extent of the delegated powers?

631
01:00:44.460 --> 01:00:48.060
That is not addressed in the Supremacy Clause.

632
01:00:48.060 --> 01:00:50.760
Now, I mentioned briefly a book by Bill Watkins.

633
01:00:50.760 --> 01:00:56.760
William Watkins has a book called Reclaiming the American Revolution

634
01:00:56.760 --> 01:01:00.760
and the subtitle is The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy

635
01:01:00.760 --> 01:01:06.760
and it's not a terribly long book but it's a great book, it's very important.

636
01:01:06.760 --> 01:01:10.760
Unfortunately it's one of these books that it's published by Paul Grave McMillan,

637
01:01:10.760 --> 01:01:15.760
wonderful mainstream press and it's excellent for him that he published with them

638
01:01:15.760 --> 01:01:20.960
Sometimes they publish hardcover editions that, you know, it's $40, and you think,

639
01:01:20.960 --> 01:01:24.060
ugh, $40, I mean, you're killing me.

640
01:01:24.060 --> 01:01:28.160
I think Amazon has got it at some kind of a discount, but one way or another you should

641
01:01:28.160 --> 01:01:30.760
look at it, you should get it, because it's very important.

642
01:01:30.760 --> 01:01:34.800
And here's the significant thing, how many books in the past 100 years have been written

643
01:01:34.800 --> 01:01:38.520
on the Virginia-Kentucky resolutions of 1798?

644
01:01:38.520 --> 01:01:44.840
Just Watkins' book, last year, that's it, okay, absolute silence.

645
01:01:44.840 --> 01:01:49.760
And you know, I devote a chapter to it and I'm like the great Satan, you know, I should

646
01:01:49.760 --> 01:01:54.780
be writing more about, you know, what about this or that multicultural group and their

647
01:01:54.780 --> 01:01:55.780
contributions.

648
01:01:55.780 --> 01:01:59.280
I mean, every book in existence talks about that.

649
01:01:59.280 --> 01:02:03.280
Nobody talks about this and yet it's absolutely fundamental to understanding American history

650
01:02:03.280 --> 01:02:04.280
and they don't know it.

651
01:02:04.280 --> 01:02:07.520
And as I said, I think the stuff tomorrow and possibly if I get to it this afternoon,

652
01:02:07.520 --> 01:02:08.520
I think you'll agree with me.

653
01:02:08.520 --> 01:02:10.440
This is very, very important material.

654
01:02:10.440 --> 01:02:19.440
Well, the last point that I'm going to make today, or the series of points, involves where these ideas came from.

655
01:02:19.440 --> 01:02:22.440
They didn't just come fully formed out of Jefferson's head.

656
01:02:22.440 --> 01:02:28.440
And here's stuff that is really, I think, sort of cutting edge in terms of the scholarship on this.

657
01:02:28.440 --> 01:02:34.440
Because although there haven't been terribly many books on it, there have been some excellent journal articles.

658
01:02:34.440 --> 01:02:44.440
And here I must again defer to my friend Kevin Gutzman, and I will give you the citations for this, or anybody listening can write to me and I'll email them to you.

659
01:02:44.440 --> 01:02:52.440
But Gutzman's got this book coming out, I don't know what the date is, but sometime in the future from University of Virginia Press.

660
01:02:52.440 --> 01:02:58.440
He's absolutely excellent. I mean, I think he's one of the most underrated historians there is.

661
01:02:58.440 --> 01:03:09.440
He's been making tremendous discoveries and tremendous, I think he's been responsible for a sort of interpretive revolution of all this material.

662
01:03:09.440 --> 01:03:18.440
What Gutzman has argued in a series of journal articles, most recently I think it was the Journal of Politics, if I remember correctly,

663
01:03:18.440 --> 01:03:28.440
He's arguing that you can actually date these ideas, or at least the germ of these ideas, to the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

664
01:03:28.440 --> 01:03:37.440
In 1788, Virginia is having their convention, as the other states were, to decide whether or not they're going to ratify the Constitution.

665
01:03:37.440 --> 01:03:44.440
Well, at that convention, Patrick Henry, who was, of course, the great hero of the Stamp Act crisis,

666
01:03:44.440 --> 01:03:49.440
expressed his fear that, for example, the necessary and proper clause of the Constitution,

667
01:03:49.440 --> 01:03:53.440
which, of course, said the Federal Government would have all powers necessary and proper

668
01:03:53.440 --> 01:03:57.440
to carry into effect the powers granted in Article 1, Section 8.

669
01:03:57.440 --> 01:04:02.440
He was afraid that this clause would inevitably be interpreted by the Federal Government

670
01:04:02.440 --> 01:04:08.440
as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised

671
01:04:08.440 --> 01:04:13.440
into an unlimited government that would menace the people's liberties.

672
01:04:13.440 --> 01:04:24.440
He was likewise concerned about the General Welfare Clause, since government could, of course, justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare.

673
01:04:24.440 --> 01:04:37.440
Well, here's the significance. At that convention, Edmund Randolph stands up. Edmund Randolph, Virginia governor, he'd been attorney general for Virginia, he becomes the first U.S. attorney general.

674
01:04:37.440 --> 01:04:42.520
General, Randolph, who was really the leading Federalist that is pro-Constitution speaker

675
01:04:42.520 --> 01:04:49.040
at the convention, got up and said that Patrick Henry's fears were unfounded. He said those

676
01:04:49.040 --> 01:04:54.920
phrases could not have the expansive meaning that Henry attached to them, because according

677
01:04:54.920 --> 01:05:00.360
to Randolph, the only powers possessed by the Federal Government would be those expressly

678
01:05:00.360 --> 01:05:05.880
conceded to it by the states. And he used the word expressly. And that was the understanding

679
01:05:05.880 --> 01:05:15.880
He said, this is Randolph,

680
01:05:26.880 --> 01:05:32.880
So, therefore you can't, you won't be able to just take these open-ended phrases and make them into whatever you like,

681
01:05:32.880 --> 01:05:37.880
because the federal government has only those powers that are expressly granted

682
01:05:37.880 --> 01:05:42.880
and you won't be able to just take phrases and start growing interpretations out of them.

683
01:05:42.880 --> 01:05:48.880
Now, so that was the nature of Randolph's response.

684
01:05:48.880 --> 01:05:51.880
And then he went on to say this,

685
01:05:51.880 --> 01:05:55.880
If I did believe with the honorable gentleman

686
01:05:55.880 --> 01:05:59.880
that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people,

687
01:05:59.880 --> 01:06:01.880
I would detest this government.

688
01:06:01.880 --> 01:06:05.800
So in other words, if I believe the opposite, that unless the people expressly retain a

689
01:06:05.800 --> 01:06:09.760
power, the presumption is that the government has it, well, I would detest this government.

690
01:06:09.760 --> 01:06:12.880
But I never thought so, nor do I know.

691
01:06:12.880 --> 01:06:18.160
And now here's the crux, because Randolph is on a committee of five people whose task

692
01:06:18.160 --> 01:06:23.600
it is to draft an instrument of ratification of the Constitution, that is the document

693
01:06:23.600 --> 01:06:25.760
that will accompany their ratification.

694
01:06:25.760 --> 01:06:30.280
It's Randolph's task and that of George Nicholas, we'll talk about in a minute, John Randolph's

695
01:06:30.280 --> 01:06:37.280
The purpose on this committee, James Madison's on this committee, the purpose is to draft an instrument of ratification

696
01:06:37.280 --> 01:06:46.280
so that as they ratify, Virginia will be declaring for everyone to see the understanding that they put on the Constitution

697
01:06:46.280 --> 01:06:50.280
and their understanding about what they are getting themselves into by doing this.

698
01:06:50.280 --> 01:06:56.280
Randolph is talking about this when he says if in the ratification, so in the instrument of ratification,

699
01:06:56.280 --> 01:07:13.280
We put words to this purpose, that all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression, and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained by the Congress or any officer of the United States.

700
01:07:13.280 --> 01:07:23.280
I say if we do this, I conceive that as this style of ratification would manifest the principles on which Virginia adopted it,

701
01:07:23.280 --> 01:07:32.280
we should be at liberty to consider, as a violation of the Constitution, every exercise of a power not expressly delegated therein.

702
01:07:32.280 --> 01:07:40.280
I see no objection to this. It is demonstrably clear to me that rights not given are retained and that liberty of religion and other rights are secure.

703
01:07:40.280 --> 01:07:45.280
So this is the understanding that Virginians are going to have when they ratify the Constitution.

704
01:07:45.280 --> 01:07:51.280
That it's a limited government and that it has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

705
01:07:51.280 --> 01:07:54.280
Now another member of the committee was George Nicholas.

706
01:07:54.280 --> 01:07:56.280
Now these figures, they're significant people.

707
01:07:56.280 --> 01:08:00.280
George Nicholas is going to become the first Attorney General of the new state of Kentucky.

708
01:08:00.280 --> 01:08:05.280
Edmund Randolph had credentials a mile long.

709
01:08:05.280 --> 01:08:09.280
Their opinions mean something and they mean all the more given that they're on the committee

710
01:08:09.280 --> 01:08:20.280
Nicholas told the convention that if Virginia did ratify the Constitution, it would ratify it on the basis of its understanding of that document.

711
01:08:20.280 --> 01:08:21.280
He said this,

712
01:08:21.280 --> 01:08:31.280
If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning,

713
01:08:31.280 --> 01:08:38.280
that he understands its meaning, signification and intent to be what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,

714
01:08:38.280 --> 01:08:43.280
that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him,

715
01:08:43.280 --> 01:08:49.280
and that he is to be exonerated from it, whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted,

716
01:08:49.280 --> 01:08:55.280
I ask whether in this case these conditions on which he ascended to it would not be binding on the other twelve.

717
01:08:55.280 --> 01:08:59.280
In like manner, these conditions will be binding on Congress.

718
01:08:59.280 --> 01:09:04.280
They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.

719
01:09:04.280 --> 01:09:13.280
Now, Nicholas was understood to be a spokesman for Madison, and he explains the Constitution like this.

720
01:09:13.280 --> 01:09:18.280
Randolph believes that implicitly the Constitution holds this.

721
01:09:18.280 --> 01:09:31.280
Nicholas is saying, and as does Randolph later, that our ratification instrument will make it as clear as day, render it totally explicit, that we are ratifying the Constitution as a kind of a league among states.

722
01:09:31.280 --> 01:09:40.280
And we reserve rights to ourselves, to judge, and in fact even to recall powers that we have delegated.

723
01:09:40.280 --> 01:09:47.160
So what Gutzman's argument is that in the Virginia ratifying convention they draft an

724
01:09:47.160 --> 01:09:51.600
instrument of ratification that makes clear the nature of the union as Virginia understands

725
01:09:51.600 --> 01:09:56.480
it, the terms on which they're entering, that they understand this not as being absorbed

726
01:09:56.480 --> 01:10:00.920
into one big aggregated people, but as a league of states.

727
01:10:00.920 --> 01:10:07.160
They say this expressly and the people who are saying this are Federalists.

728
01:10:07.160 --> 01:10:12.160
These are supporters of the Constitution. These aren't anti-Federalist people who are suspicious of the Constitution.

729
01:10:12.160 --> 01:10:20.160
This is Edmund Randolph, the very, very prominent Federalist at the ratifying convention.

730
01:10:20.160 --> 01:10:25.160
So, in fact, these ideas are deriving from them.

731
01:10:25.160 --> 01:10:30.160
Now, within months of the new Constitution coming into effect,

732
01:10:30.160 --> 01:10:36.160
already there are Virginians who are concerned about the direction the Federal Government is taking.

733
01:10:36.160 --> 01:10:42.160
They don't like Hamilton's program, they don't like his assumption of the state debts,

734
01:10:42.160 --> 01:10:47.160
which it's not clear that constitutionally he has the authority to do that, etc.

735
01:10:47.160 --> 01:10:57.160
And in 1790, Patrick Henry drafted a resolution in Virginia that expressed the radical state's rights position

736
01:10:57.160 --> 01:11:05.160
that was asserted at the ratifying convention, that was promised to the delegates there by Randolph, would be the understanding.

737
01:11:05.160 --> 01:11:16.160
This was renewed and reinforced in the resolution that was adopted by the Virginia legislature and it's taken right out of the ratifying convention.

738
01:11:16.160 --> 01:11:29.160
Henry says that, remember, we entered this union on the understanding you have only the powers expressly delegated to you and I don't see that you have the power to do the things, the economic things you've started to do.

739
01:11:29.160 --> 01:11:33.720
Now, here's how Gutzman concludes, he says the pedigree of the principles of 98

740
01:11:33.720 --> 01:11:37.840
can be traced through James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798

741
01:11:37.840 --> 01:11:41.520
to Patrick Henry in this resolution and ultimately to Edmund Randolph.

742
01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:44.920
It was he who paved the road to Virginia ratification

743
01:11:44.920 --> 01:11:48.080
by assuring his fellow members of the Virginia elite

744
01:11:48.080 --> 01:11:52.240
that the Constitution they were being asked to ratify in the summer of 1788

745
01:11:52.240 --> 01:11:54.360
would have very limited significance,

746
01:11:54.360 --> 01:11:56.600
that it was more another league of sovereign states

747
01:11:56.600 --> 01:12:25.600
The idea, again, is that the ratification of the Constitution of Virginia would also be accompanied by a statement of what that convention understood to be a statement of what ratification meant, and it would be a binding statement.

748
01:12:25.600 --> 01:12:55.600
Okay, let's see. Oh, and incidentally, we also note in the 1790s, I also make note of John Taylor, who's a great political thinker who's, the running joke about him was that he wrote in such an obscure manner and difficult to follow that John Randolph used to say John Taylor needs to be translated into English because you can't follow anything, it's like reading a modern philosophical journal or something with apologies to Kevin, Kevin Vallier out here.

749
01:12:55.600 --> 01:13:25.600
Taylor was a friend of Jefferson's, who wrote a number of really important, one of his books at least, is published, Tyranny Unmasked, published by Liberty Fund, but in the 1790s, Taylor began to argue that to protect the states from the usurpations of the federal government, the state legislatures need to protect them, need, in effect, to interpret the Constitution. So, I mean, in effect,

750
01:13:25.600 --> 01:13:32.340
He doesn't come up with these special state convention ideas, but he's moving in that direction.

751
01:13:32.340 --> 01:13:41.900
He's proposing that the states should act in a way and perform functions that are in the tradition of what we now think the Supreme Court should be doing.

752
01:13:41.900 --> 01:13:48.900
Well, finally, Thomas Jefferson, later on in his career, said,

753
01:13:48.900 --> 01:13:57.900
When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power,

754
01:13:57.900 --> 01:14:01.900
it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another,

755
01:14:01.900 --> 01:14:06.900
and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separate.

756
01:14:06.900 --> 01:14:15.900
Now, Jefferson, in a statement like that, makes clear that it is not enough simply to have three branches of government.

757
01:14:15.900 --> 01:14:22.900
You know, hey, we've got the... I get this all the time on exams, that how is the federal government kept limited?

758
01:14:22.900 --> 01:14:30.900
And I get told, well, we've separated the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and so they can't encroach upon each other's prerogatives.

759
01:14:30.900 --> 01:14:37.900
All right. Okay. That's been done. But so what? I mean, why would that keep the government limited?

760
01:14:37.900 --> 01:14:41.900
I mean, it might mean that... I mean, I understand the Montesquieu position on this,

761
01:14:41.900 --> 01:14:47.900
that I understand why it makes sense that you don't want the same person drafting the law as enforcing it

762
01:14:47.900 --> 01:14:51.900
or drafting it as interpreting it because then you just interpret it so as to exclude yourself.

763
01:14:51.900 --> 01:14:55.900
I understand that. There's nothing about that that inherently keeps the federal government limited.

764
01:14:55.900 --> 01:14:59.900
I mean, what happens if the three branches, as Jefferson said was happening in 1825,

765
01:14:59.900 --> 01:15:03.900
1925. He said the three branches are just ganging up on the American people and they're

766
01:15:03.900 --> 01:15:10.140
ganging up on the states. What's to stop that? Well, that shows that what you need are checks

767
01:15:10.140 --> 01:15:15.560
by the states. The states need to have some way in a corporate manner, not just as a bunch

768
01:15:15.560 --> 01:15:19.000
of scattered individuals who haven't got a chance against the federal government, but

769
01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:24.420
in their capacity as states, they have to have some way to keep federal power in check

770
01:15:24.420 --> 01:15:28.680
or otherwise you are going to get exactly what Jefferson warned about, which is a government

771
01:15:28.680 --> 01:15:33.680
where all powers are adrift to the center.

772
01:15:33.680 --> 01:15:36.680
That was what Jefferson was trying to warn about

773
01:15:36.680 --> 01:15:38.680
and he proposed this idea of nullification

774
01:15:38.680 --> 01:15:40.680
as the only way that he could see

775
01:15:40.680 --> 01:15:43.680
and that followers in the tradition could see

776
01:15:43.680 --> 01:15:46.680
as a way to keep the federal government in check.

777
01:15:46.680 --> 01:15:49.680
If that's even possible, but at least to try

778
01:15:49.680 --> 01:15:51.680
or at least hold it off as long as possible

779
01:15:51.680 --> 01:15:54.680
it seems that some form of nullification is necessary.

780
01:15:54.680 --> 01:16:04.680
Yet today, even to raise the issue is to be called all kinds of names and, you know, accused of this and that and being an extremist or whatever.

781
01:16:04.680 --> 01:16:10.680
But that, I think, more than anything else, tells us about our present political condition.

782
01:16:10.680 --> 01:16:14.680
Okay, well, I'll be happy to take some questions then at this point.

783
01:16:14.680 --> 01:16:18.680
Yes, I'm going to put my glasses back on so you're not just a bunch of blurs.

784
01:16:18.680 --> 01:16:44.680
Do you think that Madison's thinking sort of went in an art from when he wrote The Federalist to The Principles of 1998 and then later on sort of going back to where he was in The Federalist because he talked about that the government would be both national and federal which really doesn't make a lot of sense, but do you think that really squares what he wrote in The Virginian Way?

785
01:16:48.680 --> 01:16:55.680
The question involves the trajectory of Madison's thought.

786
01:16:55.680 --> 01:16:57.680
It doesn't seem that he moves in an arc.

787
01:16:57.680 --> 01:17:00.680
He's sort of a nationalist around the time of the convention.

788
01:17:00.680 --> 01:17:06.680
At one point at the convention, he even said that the Congress, the Federal Congress,

789
01:17:06.680 --> 01:17:11.680
should have a veto over state laws, which was totally rejected.

790
01:17:11.680 --> 01:17:17.680
But then you get the Virginia resolutions, where he's a big decentralist.

791
01:17:17.680 --> 01:17:47.680
and then later in his life he's he's pro-centralist again and does it seem like he moves in a kind of an arc and it does seem that way to me as I say I know there are people who try to square this circle I remember when I was getting ready for my general exams in grad school I read this book by Lance Banning on Madison one of the great authorities on Madison called the sacred fire of liberty and he tries to make a strained argument there is no inconsistency in Madison at all that there are just different he has the same he just had different

792
01:17:47.680 --> 01:18:17.680
I mean, to me, since I have no particular dog in this hunt one way or the other, if it turns out that Madison really is secretly consistent, but you just need to be some kind of a cryptographer to figure it out, that's fine with me, I mean, it doesn't matter to me, I could be wrong on this, but it is interesting, though, that Madison goes also on his interpretation of the Constitution, he's against the National Bank, then he's in favor of the National Bank, because, you know, maybe it'll, you know, because of the feebleness of the National Bank, and then he's in favor of the National Bank, and then he's in favor of the National Bank, and then he's in favor of the National Bank, and then he's in favor of the National Bank,

793
01:18:17.680 --> 01:18:25.680
During the war of 1812, you start thinking, boy, national bank is a wonderful thing now, you start thinking,

794
01:18:25.680 --> 01:18:29.680
because the New England banks won't lend us any money, and so he suddenly becomes in favor of the bank,

795
01:18:29.680 --> 01:18:37.680
but then before he leaves, he vetoes the bonus bill, which would have applied federal monies to road and canal building,

796
01:18:37.680 --> 01:18:43.680
on extremely strict constructionist grounds, on the same grounds that he once rejected the bank.

797
01:18:43.680 --> 01:18:54.680
He says that you can't appeal to the general welfare clause here because then that would mean that there was no point in listing the specific powers of the federal government if it could do anything for the general welfare.

798
01:18:54.680 --> 01:18:59.680
Roads and canals might be for the general welfare but in that case you have to amend the constitution.

799
01:18:59.680 --> 01:19:08.680
So that's why Madison's not my favorite of these guys. I'm rather inclined more in Jefferson's direction, I guess, obviously.

800
01:19:08.680 --> 01:19:10.680
Yes, Jason?

801
01:19:10.680 --> 01:19:20.680
Do you attribute Madison's backpedaling on the Virginia resolutions later on to the fact that his guys were in power?

802
01:19:40.680 --> 01:20:10.680
Often times secession arguments are made from a philosophy of natural rights, where people are appealing to some sort of broader metaphysical apparatus in order to justify their traditions, and I wonder if nullification was seen in a similar light, or whether it was seen as more conventional, like, can you make appeals to common law, or whether there is a tradition of this going back, so, is it more like a legal code of conduct?

803
01:20:10.680 --> 01:20:15.680
Is this the same kind of radicalism that we see in arguments for secession?

804
01:20:17.680 --> 01:20:19.680
Can you tell me?

805
01:20:40.680 --> 01:20:48.680
People who are Straussians, I have to use this as a perfect example, will say that there's no constitutional right to secede.

806
01:20:48.680 --> 01:20:54.680
All there is is a natural right to have a revolution, to overthrow the government.

807
01:20:54.680 --> 01:21:00.680
But there's nothing that, within the law, permits secession, and that it would be absurd to say so.

808
01:21:00.680 --> 01:21:06.680
Whereas the Southern Confederacy and other people would say that there is a constitutional right.

809
01:21:06.680 --> 01:21:15.380
We're not just appealing to abstract principles, as useful as abstract principles are, but we also have legal rights, and they appeal to the 10th Amendment.

810
01:21:15.380 --> 01:21:20.580
We never delegated any power to suppress secession, so therefore it's not a power the federal government has.

811
01:21:20.580 --> 01:21:24.980
They can't suppress it, so we have to be allowed to secede.

812
01:21:24.980 --> 01:21:35.680
So as far as nullification goes, it seems to me that by and large they are making a conventional type argument, in terms that they're not saying...

813
01:21:35.680 --> 01:21:38.600
In other words, for example, what we just looked at here,

814
01:21:38.600 --> 01:21:42.440
Upshur, in his pamphlet, says that this is a mode of redress

815
01:21:42.440 --> 01:21:45.160
that he conceives of as being under the Constitution,

816
01:21:45.160 --> 01:21:48.560
not being extra constitutional or a revolutionary right.

817
01:21:48.560 --> 01:21:52.640
And given that you can actually trace out a lineage of thought,

818
01:21:52.640 --> 01:21:57.760
given that this lineage of thought, that the states have all these

819
01:21:57.760 --> 01:22:00.400
residuary powers and they have this right of judging,

820
01:22:00.400 --> 01:22:03.240
and that goes all the way back to the Virginia ratifying convention,

821
01:22:03.240 --> 01:22:07.720
You can see the development of a line of thought that is sort of legalistic.

822
01:22:07.720 --> 01:22:10.960
It says, these are the terms on which we ratified the Constitution.

823
01:22:10.960 --> 01:22:14.600
This is the understanding we were given of that document.

824
01:22:14.600 --> 01:22:18.720
And nullification just develops from the understanding that we were given at that time.

825
01:22:18.720 --> 01:22:23.560
I think there's a desire to appeal to law as much as possible

826
01:22:23.560 --> 01:22:29.480
because opponents of nullification were trying to make it seem like just an abstract right

827
01:22:29.480 --> 01:22:32.520
that has no basis in anything specific and written down.

828
01:22:32.520 --> 01:22:40.520
And at that time there's a real desire to make arguments from strict historical prescription and say, you know, it comes from this, it comes from that.

829
01:22:40.520 --> 01:22:45.520
I think that's my thing. So, I mean, I think that is really basically the way it comes.

830
01:22:45.520 --> 01:22:55.520
And on the secession point, by the way, that's why arguably the southern states at the time of the war,

831
01:22:55.520 --> 01:23:25.520
and the War Between the States arguably have a better legal right to secede, a better claim to secede than the colonies did to withdraw from the British Empire because the colonies had, I mean there was no legal tradition where they could appeal to, oh we have the right to withdraw, that was entirely a natural rights position that you've encroached on our powers and it's terrible and we're getting out of here. Whereas with the southern states, they have that, they can fall back on that, but they can also make,

832
01:23:25.520 --> 01:23:32.520
And whether you accept it or not, the fact is they can at least make a plausible argument that is based legally.

833
01:23:32.520 --> 01:23:37.520
And I'm sorry, by the way, my tendency is to pace back and forth, so I don't know if I'm jumping out of frame.

834
01:23:37.520 --> 01:23:40.520
Okay, that's good. Okay, any other? Yes, sir?

835
01:23:40.520 --> 01:23:47.520
You mentioned just now about the argument about the colonies. I remember that Virginia took a different argument when they

836
01:23:47.520 --> 01:23:53.520
claimed that they recognized Charles as King of England before England did, Charles King of Virginia.

837
01:23:53.520 --> 01:23:56.520
And they said that they have the rights, because they have dominion status.

838
01:23:56.520 --> 01:23:59.520
Yeah, that's true. Yeah, that's actually true.

839
01:23:59.520 --> 01:24:03.520
And it's interesting that Virginia actually declared independence.

840
01:24:03.520 --> 01:24:06.520
They feel that they declared independence in June 1776.

841
01:24:06.520 --> 01:24:12.520
So, you know, sort of like yawn when July 2nd and then July 4th comes along.

842
01:24:12.520 --> 01:24:18.520
Yeah, that's true. I mean, a useful document to read on how Virginia conceived of itself,

843
01:24:18.520 --> 01:24:41.520
is, and which I think also in some way is like kinship, there's a kinship with the ideas I've looked at here, is by Richard Bland, wrote a document, 1765, that naturally now with the cameras on everything, I can't think of the name of it, but I'll tell you the beginning of next time, where he fleshes all this out in a lot of detail.

844
01:24:41.520 --> 01:25:04.520
If the Constitution is of no authority, like I said, the tenor spooner would say, and I'm talking about a contract, then is there any means of really going to a legal tradition rather than just natural lives of no authority?

845
01:25:11.520 --> 01:25:13.920
in the line of argument, which I'll try to explain,

846
01:25:13.920 --> 01:25:18.720
then, you know, is there much value in trying to appeal to a historical tradition

847
01:25:18.720 --> 01:25:21.320
that's based in that very government?

848
01:25:21.320 --> 01:25:24.920
And, you know, ought we not simply to make natural rights-based arguments

849
01:25:24.920 --> 01:25:27.120
and say, to heck with all this?

850
01:25:27.120 --> 01:25:30.720
Well, what Spooner argued in his No Treason

851
01:25:30.720 --> 01:25:35.920
was that given that unanimous consent in politics is basically impossible.

852
01:25:35.920 --> 01:25:40.320
So when you have contract theories of government, like John Locke comes up with,

853
01:25:40.320 --> 01:25:44.000
that try to derive political obligation from the idea of a tacit consent,

854
01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:48.160
that, no, we didn't all sign a document, or I didn't expressly say,

855
01:25:48.160 --> 01:25:50.960
here, I'm delegating this authority to that institution.

856
01:25:50.960 --> 01:25:54.800
Given that that has not happened and is not liable to happen,

857
01:25:54.800 --> 01:25:58.000
on what ground can we base political obligation?

858
01:25:58.000 --> 01:26:04.320
And not wanting to say, well, we can't, people like Locke would come up with the idea of tacit consent.

859
01:26:04.320 --> 01:26:09.040
Well, the fact that you're standing there and you're not leaving implies that you're tacitly consenting to it.

860
01:26:09.040 --> 01:26:13.840
and that sort of thing developed and Spooner just shot, just blew this right out of the water

861
01:26:13.840 --> 01:26:18.740
and said that, you know, no other, there's no other aspect of human relations in which this would be considered legitimate

862
01:26:18.740 --> 01:26:23.440
where it's just implied that I exceed to something because I'm standing there or whatever.

863
01:26:23.440 --> 01:26:28.040
If I haven't given my consent to it, then I don't see how it can legitimately have authority over me

864
01:26:28.040 --> 01:26:32.740
and if it doesn't have a unanimous authority, then I don't see how you can legitimately appeal to it.

865
01:26:32.740 --> 01:26:38.940
Well, I mean, you know, you have to say there's a certain logical appeal to that argument.

866
01:26:38.940 --> 01:26:43.940
My point would simply be that a lot of people are not going to accept that line of thinking.

867
01:26:43.940 --> 01:26:46.940
That's just a fact. A lot of people are not going to accept that line of thinking.

868
01:26:46.940 --> 01:26:52.940
So it is useful when your historical tradition happens to be one in favor of liberty,

869
01:26:52.940 --> 01:26:57.940
to appeal to it and show that you are not doing something that's just entirely theoretical

870
01:26:57.940 --> 01:26:59.940
and removed from the traditions of your country,

871
01:26:59.940 --> 01:27:02.940
but to show that it's coming from the very heart of that tradition.

872
01:27:02.940 --> 01:27:07.940
I think it's an additional series of arguments in your arsenal.

873
01:27:07.940 --> 01:27:13.940
in our arsenal. And given how uphill the battle is, I think the more arguments we have in our arsenal, the better.

874
01:27:13.940 --> 01:27:16.940
Are we out of time? Okay, we're out, so thanks very much.