The real 'state of the Union'

This article does a better job summarizing the State of the Union than Tuesday's Presidential Reading of the Teleprompters ever could:

Delegates at Idaho's Republican convention last year urged seizure of federal lands and resurrection of the gold standard. Conservatives in Montana lined up the out the door of a legislative committee room last week to speak in favor of a bill that would make sheriffs the supreme local authorities, another measure widely believed to be unconstitutional.

In Texas, a nullification proposal threatens state officials who don't comply with jail time and fines. Last year in Austin, an insurance salesman led a Texas State Capitol rally as protesters hoisted signs urging not just nullification, but "secession."

In Alabama, a version of nullification sponsored last year by Republican Sen. Scott Beason passed the Senate, but died in a Democrat-led House committee. He'll resurrect it this year.
"A lot people say, if the Supreme Court decides that it is constitutional, you have to live with it. My feeling is, the people should have the final say," Beason told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "Frankly, the only recourse people have is for the states to try to flex some sovereignty muscle."

Here's what I find most interesting about the article: they make much of the error made by one modern nullification advocate that 'Jefferson was at the Constitutional Convention... he understood how this whole thing was going to be set up.' The AP correctly notes Jefferson was in France during the Convention. In their words "his beliefs on nullification were nothing more than his opinions."

Fair enough. But it's funny how the article acknowledges the Kentucky Resolves written by Jefferson, but NOT the concurrent Virginia Resolve. That document, which agrees with Jefferson's 'opinion,' was written by James Madison, who was not only AT the Constitutional Convention, but is considered by many to be the Father of the Constitution!

Wonder why that little tidbit is left out?

The Founding generation wrestled for years with the issue of how to create a Federal system that was neither impotent nor omnipotent. Dual sovereignty -- where the States reserve most sovereignty, delegating specific, enumerated powers to their Federal agent -- was their solution. It should be obvious on the face that a Federal government able to decide the limits of its own power is dangerous. Only the States, acting alone or in concert, can possibly hope to act as a check on that tendency. Jefferson and Madison both realized this.

As do a growing number of Americans today...

The danger now is that, having neglected the doctrine of dual sovereignty since about, oh, 1865, history tells us the tendency will be to overcompensate in the other direction (items in the AP article above already hint at this). The challenge of this generation is to restore balance -- applying the counterweight of the States to an out-of-control Federal apparatus -- without going so far as to tear the Union itself apart.

"Our Federal Union! It must be preserved!" was President Andrew Jackson's toast delivered at the annual Democratic Jefferson Day dinner on 13 April 1830 in response to the South Carolina senator Robert Hayne's pronullification speech.

A hush fell over the room while the President's meaning sank in. As Vice-President, Calhoun came next. "The Union," the Carolinian countered, his hand trembling with emotion, "next to our liberties, the most dear."