Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
All Constitutionalists don't always agree. . .
On Saturday, May 26, 2012, when my radio program was less than a year old on KCAA 1050-AM (I am now with KMET 1490-AM since May of 2015) I welcomed as my guest Dr. Larry Arnn, President of Hillsdale College, on Constitution Radio with Douglas V. Gibbs.
The President of Hillsdale College, Dr. Larry Arnn, was an exciting guest, but the conversation took a turn I did not expect. While I appreciate Hillsdale College greatly, with its campus located in the State of Michigan, largely because the private college accepts no public funds, and requires students to have a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution in order to graduate, I was stunned when Dr. Arnn and I wound up arguing over three constitutional issues.
The three issues Dr. Arnn and I battled regarding were:
1) Judicial Review
2) Implied Powers
3) Nullification
1. Judicial Review, which is the idea that the federal court system has the authority to review laws and determine their constitutionality, is not found anywhere in the Constitution as an authority. Those who support the concept will tell you the authority comes from Marbury v. Madison, and Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion. In short, the court's gave themselves that authority, which is hardly a laissez faire concept. Anyway, I believe that Judicial Review is not an authority the courts legally have, but Dr. Arnn defended Judicial Review as being a valid constitutional concept.
2. Implied Powers was established by Alexander Hamilton when he was arguing regarding his idea for a central bank. The concept opens up the opportunity for "interpreting" the Constitution, using the Necessary and Proper Clause as its source of authority. I believe federal authorities are only expressly enumerated, and that Implied Powers is a dangerous concept that allows the federal government to determine for itself its own authorities. Dr. Arnn defended the concept.
3. As the authors of the U.S. Constitution, and essentially the parents of the federal government, the States are the final arbiters of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, if the federal government passes unconstitutional laws the States have the authority to refuse to implement them or adhere to laws not made in pursuance of the U.S. Constitution. That is called "nullification." The concept is described thoroughly by Thomas Jefferson in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions. When the "Nullification Crisis" 1832 emerged, James Madison railed against the States for nullifying perfectly constitutional laws. Personally, I believe the issue at hand, controversial tariffs imposed by Andrew Jackson's administration, were beyond constitutionality and that South Carolina (the State which refused to pay the tariff, hence, nullification) had a valid argument. Dr. Arnn argued that the States do not have the authority to nullify, and that President Madison's testimony supports that belief. As I told Dr. Arnn, Madison was not arguing against nullification, he was arguing against the misuse of nullification. As the authors of the Constitution, and the final arbiters of constitutionality, you are darn tootin' that the States have the authority of nullification.
You may download the program here: http://podcasts.kcaastreaming.com/gibbs/# (scroll down to May 26, 2012)
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment