For most inane, misleading, or factually incorrect statements about nullification in a single article. The winner is journalist Dan Carden, of the NWI [northwest Indiana] Times.
In an article about Indiana State Senator Phil Boots, we read:
That argument for nullification has been made several times in U.S. history, most often by southern state lawmakers seeking to protect the institution of slavery prior to the Civil War and trying to prevent racial integration of public schools during the 20th century.
Dan Carden, since nullification was used “most often” to defend slavery, can you name me just one example? I mean, you have a busy schedule and all, but could you pencil in the time for one example?
On the civil rights issue, as on the whole array of points raised by Carden, I once again refer people to my nullification FAQ.
Carden opens what is supposed to be a straightforward news article with this, well, prejudicial framing:
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 explicitly struck down nullification, the theory that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional and ignore them, the court warned state legislators that endorsing nullification violates their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution.
State Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, doesn’t care.
Is that an accurate summary of the situation? I doubt it. It isn’t that he “doesn’t care,” but that citing the Supreme Court on a matter of ultimate sovereignty merely begs the question. As Madison argued, in the last resort the very logic of our system requires that the states possess a defense mechanism even against the courts.
Check out that FAQ, and congratulations to Dan Carden.