State legislator says she plans to introduce 'nullification' bill

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 at 3:12pm


On the far-right Mike Church Show on the Sirius radio network this week, Rep. Susan Lynn, R-Mount Juliet, said she may introduce legislation purporting to let Tennessee declare null and void any federal law the state deems unconstitutional. She said she would target the pending health-care reform legislation as the first federal law to nullify.

She also said she favors a state constitutional amendment giving citizens the right to choose their own health care.

“We have to do both,” Lynn said. “We have to have a law immediately, and then we also have to have a constitutional amendment to protect our citizens through our constitution.”

Rep. Mike Turner, chairman of the House Democrats’ political caucus, said Tuesday Lynn’s comments harkened back to Civil War-era arguments. In the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, South Carolina passed a law nullifying federal tariffs, but the state backed down after President Andrew Jackson sent Navy warships to the Charleston harbor.


Lynn responded, “I can’t even imagine that’s a serious comment.”

“At the state level is where we regulate insurance and the professional practice of health care,” she told The City Paper. “The federal government has no power to regulate these things.”

Nullification is an idea that's growing out of the conservative states’ rights movement. It’s trumpeted on far-right blogs and Web sites as gaining steam around the country. According to one commentator, bills will be introduced in the legislatures of as many as 20 states next year.

Lynn, who is running for the state Senate in 2010, said Republican lawmakers talked about nullification Tuesday before a conference call to discuss January's special legislative session on education reform.

“It came up in chitchat before the conference call and it really seemed like almost everyone was interested in it,” she said. “People are very interested and they are looking at it.”

But even two of Lynn’s most conservative House colleagues told The City Paper they were skeptical about whether states can choose which federal laws to follow and which to ignore.

“I don’t think we can do it, honestly,” said Rep. Stacey Campfield, R-Knoxville.

Rep. Glen Casada, chairman of the House Republican political caucus, said: “Susan’s a sharp girl, but I don’t know, I didn’t realize states had that right to nullify specific laws passed by the federal government.”

With its new Republican legislative majority, Tennessee has jumped to the forefront of tea party causes. Last session, the legislature overwhelmingly adopted Lynn’s resolution demanding that the federal government recognize Tennessee’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Lawmakers also approved the so-called Firearms Freedom Act, which purports to bar federal regulation of made-in-Tennessee guns and ammunition. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has since warned Tennessee’s gun dealers in a letter that the law is meaningless.

Just before Christmas, Lynn and another state lawmaker, Rep. Debra Maggart, asked state Attorney General Bob Cooper to take “appropriate legal action” against the federal government if the health-care bill becomes law.


Lynn said Cooper, a Democrat, has agreed to meet with her Wednesday. “I don’t know that he will take action but I hope he will,” she said.


47 Comments on this post:

By: joekirkpatrick on 12/29/09 at 3:00

Joe Kirkpatrick for Governor

Seems that since the 11th Amendment was recently upheld, which denies the US Government the standing to sue a state in civil court, it is worth a try.

Excellent work, Susan. I'd find it interesting to know how many people Mike knows PERSONALLY in the 57th without health insurance.

Also, given the ATF's record at Waco and Ruby Ridge, it might be time for the General Assembly to lock and load.

Isn't it ironic that the commielibs have always argued that the Civil War was fought over civil rights and not states' right and now they are arguing just the opposite?

I personally prefer a non-violent, Second American Revolution to a violent Second US Civil War. Which do you prefer, Jeff? It seems about time for you people to decide because we are going to have one or the other.

I believe it is time to transcend the era of "political correctness" for one of "constitutional correctness." Wouldn't you agree?

By: DustyU on 12/29/09 at 3:26

RR must be rolling in his grave.
So many Nashville businessmen complaining about all the crazy homeless downtown but in Tennessee we seem to have more holding public office.
If the Feds have to send in troops to enforce laws they will.


By: trtay2004 on 12/29/09 at 3:33

I'm assuming Representative Lynn will also reject all Federal Money the state receives also. Way to go Ms. Lynn. Keep making us look ignorant here.

By: athome on 12/29/09 at 3:48

Assume that Lynn's correct that Tennessee could "nullify" a Federal law. (She's not of course.) Tennessee received over $12 billion more in Federal aid than its citizens paid in Federal taxes last year. It's clear that the Fed's can condition aid upon adoption of specific laws - that's why the drinking age is 21. If we "nullify", we lose $12 billion. Sounds like she wants an income tax. Why is Susan Lynn in favor of an income tax?

By: govskeptic on 12/29/09 at 4:10

Ms. Lynn's suggestion legislation is no more off course
than Rep. Mike Turner's. One wishes to be a Senator
and the other Speaker or Majority Leader, or Minority
Leader, something important! The fact that an agency of
the government such as ATF says a law is meaningless
means no more than if I say one is meaningless. Only
the U.S. Supreme Court can make that determination!

By: athome on 12/29/09 at 4:12

Yea, but why is she in favor of an income tax?

By: DavidShort on 12/29/09 at 5:09

Nullification is the right first step in combatting a Federal government that is going off the deep end. They do not have the authority to enslave the medical industry nor to chain us, each, to our brothers. This administration is attempting to take us as far away from the Capitalistic country we should be to one that will most likely resemble the former Soviet Union. The tactics differ, but the aim is the same. Besides, the Federal government will not take up arms against one of the states. That would be the rallying call for the rest of the Union to dissolve. While I don't see this as a necesarily bad thing, I am hoping it does not have to come to that to reign in a power-mad Communist dictator in training.

By: cashnthings on 12/29/09 at 9:05

You go susan about time someone stands up to the federal goverment and says that states rights trump it.The federal goverment only has powers we give it yet they try to take and take it is time we all stood up and said no more.....

By: HokeyPokey on 12/30/09 at 7:25

oh boy yes lets all join the tea party.

Then we'll have a three party system.

and the commie lib Muslin fascists will win every election.

oh boy yes lets all join the tea party, I encourage you. Really.

By: DustyU on 12/30/09 at 7:51

I think Lincoln said it best.

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a State -- to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution -- no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in and by the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and independent States;" but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show. The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States; but the word, even, is not in the national Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty," in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it, "A political community without a political superior?" Tested by this, no one of our States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union, by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the supreme law of the land. The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status.


By: border collie on 12/30/09 at 8:26

Everyone sees the healthcare bill as the answer for the un-insured. it is not. people are desperate for help in any way they can get it. grasping at straws. healthcare as we know it will be gone and WILL NOT be improved. taxpayers will be more burdoned and the real problems will continue to be ignored!
many of the people on disability do not need to be receiving benefits.
many who are uninsured and sitting on the couch could work---the job market just happens to be pitiful at the moment. so they are excused momentarily
drug manufactures will continue to charge ungodly amounts for medicine-NO-ONE stops them
the hospitals will continue to charge you $5-10 for a single motrin- someone should have stopped this a long time ago
people will probably receive more unneeded tests and expensive scans such as MRI's because if the government cannot control tncare and the abuse then how can we magnify the problem and spread it all over the country and BE BETTER at managing the healthcare $ -not going to happen
the MD's will realize their salaries are capped and the couple hundred thousand they could accrue in school loans are not worth it- less MD's entering school -not to mention the malpractice insurance premiums they pay-will increase
The fat cats at the drug companies and medical supply companies will continue to fleece America and lobby for their big $$ and nothing will change in that arena
as for insurance companies- it will drive many out of business-but that is no reason for celebration-the existing will raise premiums and thus your auto, home owners, and such will follow suit.
the un-insured, non-working, government subsidized housing receipients will have free medical care but the other affects will only be felt by the taxpayers, homeowners, legal citizens who have to comply will the law
lastly, the people compiled to write this bill have some strange ideas about what is appropriate- a few have written books in the 80's that have very strange concepts about who deserves care and who can wait indefinately- the elderly who can no longer contribute to the labor force are put to the bottom of the goes on and on.....scary!
everyone needs healthcare- just because your butt popped out in an American hospital bed doesn't mean you are entitled to it-

By: iamkingdude on 12/30/09 at 9:06

Yes Dusty "Lincoln said it best", and since he was in the room when the Constitution was debated and ratified he would certainly know. Before you parsimoniously, on all of our unenlightened behalf, declare what is and ought to be please check your history.

The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 recognizes 13 parties, individually named as "The United States". "viz New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

Were your view of sovereignty to be observed all that would be needed were the former. Furthermore, John Adams acceptance of the treaty bound no individual state to the treaty until it was ratified, unanimously by the Confederation Congress. That's a strange bird and thorn in your arguments side too. Before a "Constitution" could be written there had to be a convention called. Seeing as how the United states owned all the states and their sovereignty was subject to the will of Congress, why did it take the act of 12 legislatures to send delegates to attend such a convention? Why didn't Lincoln just order them to go do it?

There were only 12 states you say? Yes, Rhode Island, tiny little independent sovereign country [state in this vernacular] refused to send delegates! Why didn't Lincoln send Grant there to take over Providence and force her compliance? Because he didn't have the authority to do so and neither did Hamilton, Benson, Madison or any of the other "Federalists" who so desired TO consolidate the states into one "national" government.

If you browse to the University of Wisconsin library website you find a series of books edited by John P Kaminski. The works are titled "A Documentary History of the Ratification of the U.S. Constitution. In those works you will discover that few men outside of New York's Rufus King, believed the states were anything but sovereign countries.

There is also the inconvenient truth that before Jefferson waved his magic pen and declared us all "Americans" and forevermore joined to one another, at least 6 colonies had already written the own constitutions with Virginia's being the most famous. Why would such Acts be needed if the insignificance and subservience of the states were so firmly established?

This issue was so firmly settled that after 12 years of Federalist control and attempts at consolidation, by 1801 the election of Thomas Jefferson all but ended the Federalist Party. His and Madison's KY Resolutions of 1798 spell out and confirm everything posted above. how ironic that the same Jefferson who created the "empire of America" [as Patrick Henry called it at VA's ratification convention] would take such a "secessionists" view of his own creation!

I could go on but the telling of history as it actually occurred and not as Lincoln's heirs wrote it will be shouted down from the Claremont Institute and its denizens like Mister Dusty. However, woe be the day in human history when free men are not born with the inalienable right to choose their own membership in sovereign, geographical and cultural unions they willfully join and remain members of. I think they tried that in the Soviet Union which ended with massive secessions of the "republics" in 1989.

Something or other about Mr. Gorbachev tearing down some wall. I seem to recall Lithuanians standing in the streets, declaring their reclaimed independence, waving rebel flags.

By: frodo on 12/30/09 at 9:20

Jeff Woods is eager to tar Susan Lynn and her ideas by tying them to conservative talk radio and the word "far" which, along with the word "ultra" are descriptors many reserve only to describe conservatives or "the right."

Far-right loonies promote these ideas, therefore they are wrong. What about far-left loonies....oh, say like convicted terrorists (Bill Ayers), racist ranters (like Jeremiah Wright) who mentor a future president? Should we dismiss the president's leftward leanings because of ties to people "far" and "ultra" left? And, o,h how about this one...a man recently convicted of bank fraud (Robert Creamer) writes the framework for health care legislation. Do such journalists rush to remind us of the far/ultra connections of this mammoth reorganization of a significant portion of our economy and society?

It is good to watch where things come from and what persons and ideas are connected to major initiatives. But Jeff Woods tries harder to connect the dots on the right than is appropriate for a straight up news story. Or maybe this is not a straight up news story.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 9:46

I know this has probably been asked and answered many times, but everytime I read a thread on a topic like this and read comments like those from DavidShort, I wonder whether he really believes our current leaders are putting us on a path to be another former Soviet Union. If he really does believe that is the case, I wonder what percentage of the population shares that belief. Knowing those answers would allow me to make a reasoned judgment as to whether to be afraid of the notion of nullification bills around the country or just amused by them.

I find it hard to believe that anyone with any sense of history or understanding of politics or the nature of the views of the majority of Americans could possibly believe our current leaders, by any of their actions or even any of their statements are attempting to put us on a path to be another Soviet Union. Again, I am not sure whether to really fear the overheated rhetoric that appears to be getting more common today as a sign of truly radical views emerging and becoming more mainstream, or as just an amusing sideshow to an otherwise civil debate about how much to veer off the solid middle path that our country has followed for its entire history.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 9:50

Border Collie, I am having a hard time following your logic. What would you propose we do, or don't do?

By: frodo on 12/30/09 at 10:01

thetruthwillset speaks as if no society in the enlightened 21st century could possibly slide back into something akin to the Soviet if people of that era were just stupid, and we are not. Therefore, even if the wolf declares his intent and approaches the door...well it just couldn't happen, because our straw and sticks are much smarter now. Well, history is strewn with the downfall and enslavement of "enlightened" fools who thought themselves above the lessons of history.

By: localboy on 12/30/09 at 10:04

athome scores!

By: Kosh III on 12/30/09 at 10:21

Evil socialism!
Please let us avoid the horrid dictatorship and poverty of such oppressive socialist countries like ISRAEL, or Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark and Canada.

By: frodo on 12/30/09 at 10:44

Kosh, has freedom gone out of style with you? It was for freedom that we are set free. Not to return to a Borg-like state (or State) where it is impossible both to hunger or excel. Give us freedom, with all its uncertainties and adventure, that we may innovate, inspire each other, achieve, enjoy the fruits of success and, yes, offer a willing hand to the less fortunate rather than a compulsory and excessive tax re-spent according to the schemes of our political masters. America was built by people who wanted something better than the constraints of some of the countries you mention. Such freedom was enshrined in The Constitution, and it is not to be ignored or diminished at a time like this.

By: Kosh III on 12/30/09 at 11:36

Freedom? I doubt you really support it, I know Lynn does not.
How did you vote on Amendment One in '06? I know Nanny Lynn opposed it, she and most avowed conservatives and Republicans are quite zealous in ordering the lives of other people accoding to how they think it should be.

By: AmyLiorate on 12/30/09 at 11:43

Dusty might add this to his reading list:

And note that very early on, at various times and for various reasons, New England states threatened to leave the Union long before South Carolina challenged the tax in the 1830s. Did anyone tell them that they "could not secede"? No where in the founders words is the term "permanent" or "perpetual" used to describe this union.

Do you really believe that all these people fought a war to free themselves from a Tyrant in England and then established a form of government with top down authority?
That just doesn't make sense.

How can you have government OF the people and BY the people if the government is superior to the people? That doesn't sound like maximized freedom to me. The very purpose of the second amendment goes against your mindset. Comments from Jefferson and several others of the time also go against the idea you embrace. They were around when the Union was discused, not Lincoln.

By: frodo on 12/30/09 at 11:53

Kosh, I've lived in two socialist countries, and I spent plenty of time in the worst of the worst Communist states as well as the beer-sipping "socialism is fashionable" western European states. If you want to overthrow Constitutional government, then come out and say so. I'm standing with and for the Constitution, even if it means taking the more drastic measures that the Constitution does not prevent.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 12:24

Sounds like you have all sussed each other out pretty well and I am new to this dance, so forgive my not having everyone exactly pegged on whatever spectrum it is you are using. Frodo, I assume you would believe I am missing something that is staring me in the face, but I do not see the wolf at the door and I think American history bears that view out. I think it is you and others that are also crying wolf that will be seen as just that, crying wolf when none exists. I am trying to determine, realistically, whether the wolf cryers really do see a wolf this time, or whether it is either mania or political posturing to ensure the continuation of a social and economic structure that, while in no reasonable view as "pure" to any original intent as they claim it to be, fits better with their aims and pleasures.

By: border collie on 12/30/09 at 1:40

the truth: my logic is random i suppose...WE NEED TO SLOW DOWN and think this through and actually read and interpret the benefit vs the risk of each entry into this bill! there are to many loose many open ended statements. it has been rushed into place and i don't think it has been thought through well enough. Medical people who are currently performing hands on care need to have input....keep the insurance companies, drug companies, and anyone else lobbyists can touch....OUT OF THE PLAN! Talk to social workers, nurses, nurse techs, MD's, physical therapists, EMS, and others who provide HANDS ON CARE NOW...not those who haven't touched a patient in years....things change so rapidly in techniques and new findings every day.....this has been thrown together too quickly!

By: frodo on 12/30/09 at 1:50

And while you are at it, talk to people in the same profession in those lands where state controlled health already in place. And then, talk to economists not on the gov't research dole who can offer a realistic assessment of the financial direction this all takes us. When the candy store runs out of candy, it doesn't really matter how badly the customers still wants candy.

By: Kosh III on 12/30/09 at 2:09

Border---------slow down?----------where were you when Bush was rushing thru the Patriot Act, his two wars for oil, TARP welfare for Wall Street? --------------O yeah, singing his praises I'll bet. Did you vote for him once? twice?
----------------------And where were you when Dr Frist was Majority Leader and shoved a health care bill thru? O yeah, the GOP did NOTHING about health care or abortion during all their years in power.

By: border collie on 12/30/09 at 2:16

i voted for ross perot, bill clinton, and al gore ...would've voted for hillary but that didn't work last year...i voted for no-one...i couldn't bring myself to push the button for either side whole-heartedly...i am not demo or republ....i thought of writing in JFK as my choice....even sharon osbourne could probably have got my vote...LOL!!!!

By: border collie on 12/30/09 at 2:26

G. bush is one of the dumbest presidents we have ever had...he couldn't even read his prepared speeches with no Kosh....i am not a G. Bush fan....what is worse screwing an intern or screwing the country???? I think Laura Bush is a good lady and so is her mother-in-law but the men in the family leave something to be desired....

By: pswindle on 12/30/09 at 2:44

Lynn like Palin thinks that acting crazy will win votes in TN. Sje may be right. considering where we have gone the last couple of years. I heard Lynn speak. If this is the best that we have to offer, we are doomed. She needs to go back to her native state. We do not need her flavor in TN.

By: BornFree on 12/30/09 at 2:52

Kudos to Rep. Lynn for her actions and to iamkingdude for his reply to DustyU. To supplement DustyU's post-graduate study on American History I refer him to the Preamble to the Constitution for the state of Tennessee which opens with: "Whereas, The people of the territory of the United States south of the river Ohio ... mutually agreed with each other to form themselves into a FREE and INDEPENDENT state by the name of the state of Tennessee." (Word cap emphasis, mine). Free + Independent = Sovereign. DustyU, please note that the words 'people' and 'state' are not capitalized in the foregoing Preamble.

By: DavidShort on 12/30/09 at 2:56

To TheTruth... Yes I do believe this administration (and all those previous to it starting with Wilson) are working to move this country to that of the former Soviet Union. There is one glaring difference, however, and that is the communists in 1917/18 in Russia were honest and launched an armed uprising to establish their goals. The Dear Leader is not so honest, choosing instead to work an end run to establish the same end. Do you honestly think the legislation on Cap and Trade has anything to do with ecology? Or the Health Care bill has anything to do with health? Read the bills, they are available on-line, where I found them. The overriding theme is control of the people. CONTROL. And we allow it, because the Dear Leader has told us, with platitudes, he cares about us and wants to take care of us. We only have to give up a little freedom. This is the very definition of Slavery, which is a cornerstone of each and every Socialist society in history. Destroy freedom, and rule as you please. At least the average ordinary Soviet and North Korean citizen can say their system was forced on them, rather than admit the shame of choosing it. The Nazis can't, and we can't. But we can still fight it.

By: DavidShort on 12/30/09 at 2:59

BTW, I am also an ardent advocate for all medical professions refuse to accept the chains of slavery and leave the profession. Those who stay, deserve it. If they all leave, who will provide this new "right" we have created?

By: joe41 on 12/30/09 at 4:25

This lady needs to work on issues she can effect. Nullification will not happen and will be a waste of time and embarrassment to us.


By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 5:45

DavidShort - thanks for the response and I think it is safe to say we see the world through different enough lenses that a real conversation would be unlikely. My sense is we lack enough commonality in our perception to get past arguing about our perceptions. I also think you believe there is the truth you see and a bunch of other people (me included, and call us what you will) who are missing the truth you see so clearly. My participation in this forum might be limited. Seems like a lot of people shouting past each other.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 5:57

Born Free - seems like you selectively edited the preamble to leave out quite a bit that appears to go against your main point. In its entirety from the TN Blue Book "Whereas, The people of the territory of the United States south of the river
Ohio, having the right of admission into the general government as a member
state thereof, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, and the act
of cession of the state of North Carolina, recognizing the ordinance for the government
of the territory—of the United States north west of the Ohio River, by their
delegates and representatives in convention assembled, did on the sixth day of
February, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and ninety-six,
ordain and establish a Constitution, or form of government, and mutually agreed
with each other to form themselves into a free and independent state by the name
of the state of Tennessee," So, to be clear, Tennessee was created out of federally controlled property and recognized the United States as part of its very creation and so the words "free" and "independent" are still powerful words, but not in the anti-union context that you seem determined to present them. I am open to being wrong on this, but those are what I understand to be the facts.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 6:08

Border Collie - All the folks you mentioned as needing to have input on the bill have had input, in most cases through their own lobbying organizations - the American Medical Association (physicians), the American Nurses Association, nursing unions, etc. They all have their own "enlightened self-interests" as well. It seems there are two basic choices for government (forgetting federal vs. state and local, in part as I am not sure why people seem to have so much faith and comfort in state and local government versus federal government): government can stay out of it all together or government can get involved. Government is already clearly involved in health care at myriad levels from being the single largest purchaser to providing patents on medicine to supporting research to licensing professionals that it would be a near practical impossibility to get out. All the arguments then seem to be about the appropriate role for government, and that seems to be driven by each individual actors enlightened self-interest. As you can tell, I doubt strongly the sinister element in any actors interest, be it the drug companies or the government. All their intentions, when fully analyzed, seem within the range of reason to me. The intentions may not be what someone else would view as desirable - profits, re-election, income, job security, good health, etc. - but they don't seem sinister when closely examined.

By: thetruthwillset... on 12/30/09 at 6:17

iamkingdude - Can you talk a little bit about the history of secession and states rights post-reconstruction? That period may be a little more relevant given the apparent settling of many of the issues of federalism in more peaceful ways and under various leaders at all levels of government since that time. Also, I am not sure the comparison to former Soviet bloc countries is appropriate given the ethnic and cultural separation and identity most of the countries had prior to their being brought under Soviet control and the nature of that control being initiated and exercised. How many Nebraskans do you know that identify themselves as ethnic Nebraskans, with their own language, ethnic, religious and cultural history? How different are they on those measures than Iowans? Enough to spill blood against one another? Seems like a pretty dramatic and inaccurate comparison.

By: BornFree on 12/30/09 at 6:46

Thanks for your reply, thetruthwillset. To the contrary the omitted portion proves my point to a diligent truth-seeker. Note: “the act of cession of the state of North Carolina” was cited to establish the autonomy of the state of Tennessee and more exactly define the portion “south of the river Ohio” that was petitioning for statehood. If you dig deeper you will find there were several counties in Tennessee that were counties of North Carolina before Tennessee became a state. Namely Davidson, Sumner, and Montgomery (then called Tennessee County), along with others. Had there been no cession of Tennessee by the state of North Carolina, Nashville would be Nashville, North Carolina today and we’d be North Carolinians. See Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1, US Constitution, giving legitimacy to the birth of the state of Tennessee.
Immediately following the Tennessee Preamble, at Article I, Section 1, we find: “That ALL power is INHERENT in the people, and ALL free governments are founded on THEIR authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have an UNALIENABLE and INDEFEASIBLE right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.” (Word caps, mine).
The Declaration of 4 July 1776 stated that principle in these words: “…it is their right, IT IS THEIR DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” (Again, Word caps, mine).
Where am I wrong?

By: pswindle on 12/30/09 at 8:34

Everytime I read this article, I laugh and laugh. How silly can one person be. She wants the office of Mae Beavers. Mae was bad enough , but Lynn, this starts me laughing all over again. We need someone that can lead and with good judgment. Whom ever is elected needs to work for all of the people and not just for their own party. I have never heard her say one kind thing about the democratic party. We have had some ouststanding representatives from the fouth district that both parties could vote for, but she is not open to another view. I lived in the fourth distsrict and loved living there. DeKalb Conty recentlyly had a problem, and Mae was there trying to fix it. She finally said to call the Governor's Office. Need, I say more!!!!!!!!!

By: DavidShort on 12/30/09 at 10:48

TheTruth- It was great to have an exchange that started with "I think your opinion is radical" rather than "I think you are radical." Anyhoo, I do not believe I have any more perceptive capabilities than anyone else. I just don't believe some people recognize countries have gone through this before. We should learn from their mistakes without the exercise of making them ourselves. There are those that believe this IS the direction we should go, that Socialization is the answer. Those I have no choice but to point out their errors. Others may not recognize there can be other motives that drive our "leaders." I believe they are all corrupt and need to be policed closely. The indisputable truth is: Give someone the power to govern and they will. Finally, my allusion to the Soviet Union is one of policy, no geography. Look at the parrallels and you will be struck at the common ground they both share. Ethnic makeup and armed revolution aside, it is startling. As for one state attacking another, let me remind you of a little skirmish we had at the end of the 19th century. What did we call that? Let me think......Oh yeah, the Civil War. I don't want it to happen, but it may take that to save what was once a great country.

By: CONKLE73 on 12/31/09 at 8:44

So, the argument seems to be that this shouldn’t be done because Tennessee receives a bunch of federal money…
You do know that that money is confiscated from people, people from your state and people from other states.
Am I to believe that the citizens of the volunteer state have stooped so low as to want as much welfare money as they can get?

Say it aint so!

And for the record Mrs. Lynn is absolutely correct and I challenge any of you to cite anything in the Constitution that states that the great state of Tennessee can not nullify unconstitutional state law.

And the use of unconstitutional court rulings don’t count… quote from the document as to what makes her wrong and the Federal government right…

Article-1 Section-8 enumerates the powers of congress, confiscation and redistribution of private property isn’t one of these powers, neither is medaling in healthcare.
The so called “general welfare clause” does not grant the power as was discussed in the ratification debated… that language appears in the preamble and holds no force of law, congress only possesses limited, specific and enumerated powers that follow the preamble in Article-1 Section-8.

Article-1 Section-10 sets limits on the states, these limits are few, specific and enumerated and state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws isn’t one of them.

Article-6 Section-2 sets the constitution as the supreme law of the land and states that any law, state or federal, that is contrary to the constitution is not withstanding…
That means that the Constitution, as it was ratified, is the supreme law of the land, the federal government is not the supreme power, the federal government is subordinate to the constitution and any law enacted by congress that is contrary to the document is by its own existence nullified by the constitution. States need only recognize this fact and act accordingly.

I weep for the self imposed ignorance of those who don’t understand these principals, as they are the core principals upon which this republic was founded.

By: DavidShort on 12/31/09 at 8:54

Conkle73 - Great post!! Thank you for breaking it down simply and with reference. Emotions be damned, facts are facts.

By: localboy on 12/31/09 at 9:23

pswindle and joe41 nail it once again.

By: sidneyames on 12/31/09 at 10:28

"border collie on 12/30/09 at 8:26
You are correct border collie. We have great health care in our country. Most all un-insured get free or almost free health care. I know one family with about 20 family members. Of the 20, 1/4 are on "free" health care and they get a lot of it. One of them had major heart surgery plus broken bones. She owns her home. Got 95% of her extremely high bill erased. So don't tell me they system ain't working, especially for them thar' folks who know when and how to work it.

My insurance went from $3200 in 2007 to $3700 in 2009 and now to $5000 in 2010. But I gotta have it. OR do I? Yeah, cause I'm not smart enough to figure out the scam.

By: border collie on 12/31/09 at 12:59

exactly sid! honest people cannot figure out how to screw the system because we are not programmed to be shady. I have seen so many women bring sick children with high fevers in and they have 3 packs of cigarettes in their purse just purchased but tell me they could not afford tylenol for their child's 103 fever! i would love to slap them! but i smile and give them a free bottle....because they know we will not let that child do without just becuase of their ignorance. if questioned on why they chose marlboro over tylenol ...they obviously become hostile and threatening...time and time again...same scenario. i could not get tncare for my baby when i was unemployed because i owned my car! i offered to pay a premium and onlyed want insurance for my baby for 3 months not me...they said NO!

By: CONKLE73 on 1/1/10 at 8:10


- Frédéric Bastiat (The Law) 1848

By: fishfry on 1/4/10 at 9:38

Way to go Susan! YOU ARE SO RIGHT and BRIGHT!