What is known as
"The Nullification Crisis" in US history occurred in 1832-33. It concerned a new Federal tariff that would
raise the costs of imported manufactured goods.
The intent was to protect domestic manufacturers from cheap (mainly English)
foreign competition. Many of those in
the South, which had little or no manufacturuing and thus had to purchase most such
goods on either the domestic or foreign market, were very upset by the passage
of this legislation. In response to it,
the South Carolina legislature passed an "Ordinance of Nullification" which
read in part as follows (1):
" And we, the people
of South Carolina, to the end that it may be fully understood by the Government
of the United States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined
to maintain this, our Ordinance and Declaration, at every hazard, . . . we will
consider the passage by Congress, of any act... to coerce the State, shut up
her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the acts hereby
declared null and void, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the
country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the
Union: and that the people of this state . . . will forthwith proceed to
organize a separate Government, and do all other acts and things which
sovereign and independent States may of right do...."
Less than 30 years later it was indeed
South Carolina which led 11 Southern states into secession over the expansion
of slavery into the Western territories, and the perceived threat posed to the
institution of slavery itself. In this
case, President Andrew Jackson, himself a slave-owning Southerner, responded
very forcefully, threatening the use of force just to collect Federal tariffs
in South Carolina ports, much less deal with any secession. He made it clear that neither nullification
nor secession would be tolerated, that he considered even nullification to be
treason, and that the Federal government would respond to either by force. The
"Great Compromiser," Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, worked out a deal to achieve
a gradually declining tariff, and the issue died down.
While secession of course led to the Civil
War, nullification has not been on the national political agenda until fairly
recently. A quick Google search reveals
two organizations devoted to promoting and organizing for nullification by the legislatures
of several states of Federal statutes which they
consider to be "unconstitutional" (2, 3).
Now one might think that this sort of thing is just typical right-wing
fun and games. When the right-wing
dominated Supreme Court does the Right thing in determining the Constitutionality
of actions of the other two branches of government in favor of Reaction, that's
just fine with them. But when it
doesn't, why then, let's go back to 1832 and Nullification.
But it's not just fun and games. Very recently the legislature of the other
Carolina, the one to the north of the original Nullifier/Seceder, decided that
it could not only nullify Federal legislation that it didn't like. It could actually proclaim that a part of the
Constitution it didn't like didn't
apply to North Carolina. And so, the
following resolution was passed (4): " SECTION
1. The North Carolina General Assembly asserts that the Constitution of the
United States of America does not prohibit states or their subsidiaries from
making laws respecting an establishment of religion. "SECTION 2. The North
Carolina General Assembly does not recognize federal court rulings which prohibit
and otherwise regulate the State of North Carolina, its public schools or any
political subdivisions of the State from making laws respecting an
establishment of religion."
Thus in essence the North Carolina General Assembly was (and it is "was;"
the resolution has since been withdrawn) saying that neither A) the "non-establishment"
clause of the First Amendment, which indeed refers only to the Congress, nor B)
the Federal Supremacy Clause of Article VI, apply to the states in matters of
religion. Actually, one could make a Constitutional
argument that their interpretation is correct, for the first Amendment does
refer only to the Congress, and the Federal Supremacy clause refers only to the
Constitution and laws made pursuant to its provisions. But the truly important issues here only
partially concern the fun and games of disputes over Constitutional Law and its
interpretation. What must be of the most
concern is what this resolution was about,
not whether the North Carolina General Assembly is following the provisions of
the Constitution in adopting it.
Indeed, the Republican Majority of the North Carolina General Assembly
wants to do nothing more or less than establish a state religion in North
Carolina. While the resolution did not
specify any particular religion, presumably they are not thinking of Islam,
Judaism, Hinduism, or let's say, Zoroastrianism (practiced primarily in Iran
with about 200,000 adherents [5]. Actually,
Zoroastrianism might not be such a bad choice.
Its central tenants are [5]: " that
man must enlist in this cosmic struggle [between good and evil] because of his
capacity of free choice. Thus Zoroastrianism is a highly ethical religion
in which the choice of good over evil has almost cosmic importance. Zarathustra
[that's right; he of "Thus spake' fame] taught that humans are free to choose
between right and wrong, truth and lie, and light and
dark, and that their choices would affect their etern[al] destiny." Rather humanistic, actually.)
No, it is likely that they would choose "Christianity," but
not just any old version. Certainly not
Catholicism or one of the Protestant denominations that recognizes a woman's
right to choose, fights for LGBT rights, and marches out in front for Civil and
Voting Rights. Yes indeed, folks we are
looking here at the state establishment
of a religion (and that's otherwise known as theocracy) that would criminalize
abortion, likely propose, as one North Carolina preacher did last year (6), to
" round up all "lesbians, queers and homosexuals,' and deposit them
in an open camp surrounded by an electrified fence, and except for air-dropping
food, leave them there to die," and then place "God's law" (meaning a
particular reading by a particular group of men of the King James version of
the Bible), above the state Constitution, just as Rick Santorum would do
nationally, on issues like abortion rights (7).
Forget
the Constitutional niceties folks. This
is the threat that tolerant believers and non-believers alike are facing in
this country. And if we don't wake up
to it soon, it will all be over before we know it (8). As Ralph Reed said when he was Executive
Director of the Christian Coalition a long time ago: "I paint my face black and
travel at night. You don't know it's over
until you're in a body bag" (9).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
1. U.S.
History.com: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h333.html .
2. "Tom
Wood's Liberty Classroom," http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/ .
3. "Nullify
Now," http://www.nullifynow.com/ .
4. Ohio.com, "Nullification
Nuts in North Carolina," http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruction/blog-of-mass-destruction-1.298992/nullification-nuts-in-north-carolina-1.386847 .
5. ReligionFacts, http://www.religionfacts.com/zoroastrianism/index.htm .
6. Jonas, S., "Is Homophobia Curable?" http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13549
7. Jonas,
S., " The Imperative of the Republicans' Rightward Imperative,"
Published
on BuzzFlash on Wed, 01/18/2012, http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13269 .
8. Jonas, S., The
15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S.,
1981-2022: A futuristic Novel, Brewster, NY, Trepper & Katz Impact
Books, Punto Press Publishing, 2013, at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/15%25-Solution-Steve-Jonas/dp/0984026347/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365113393&sr=1-6&keywords=The+15%25+Solution .
9. ibid., p. 17.
