I use Google Voice. This means that if you call me and leave a voice message, Google sends me an email with the .mp3 and transcript of your voice message. It’s a great tool.
Tonight Tim Bridgewater, who is challenging Senator Bennett for the Republican nomination, held a town hall meeting via telephone. Somehow, I was on the list and was called. Now, I didn’t recognize the number so I didn’t answer. However, the call picked up and Google Voice recorded almost 2 minutes of the town hall meeting.
Mr. Bridgewater took questions from the audience as a part of the town hall meeting. During the portion recorded on Google Voice, Mr. Bridgewater took a question from Chip.
The following is that exchange:
Chip: I’ve been a delegate before and I believe, agree as I think that Senator Bennett is well overdue for being removed from Washington I believe that the federal government is close to being beyond reform and my question to you is, that I would like to see is, would you support state nullification of federal laws that are unconstitutional, would you encourage that as a Senator and as you talk to the public?
Tim Bridgewater: Absolutely. [Emphasis added]. I’ve been around, as I mentioned to 29 counties, I’ve had meetings with over 400 delegates, um, and there is a big force both at our state legislature and among Republicans in the states across the country to return to states’ rights and and the nullification unconstitutional laws. Right now you can see that the eminent domain law that Chris Herod has been working on is a good example challenging the federal government’s management of our public lands here in the state. I’m a big believer in multiple use of the public lands now to access them for the recreation and some of resource extraction. I myself in the energy extraction business working on Geothermal projects in the private sector and help another area where States or stepping up and saying, we will not allow a Federal Government mandate that is unconstitutional to force our companies and our citizens to buy health insurance. I believe there is a growing movement. And not only philosophically do I agree with you Chip…
Unfortunately, the call dropped at that point so I don’t have Mr. Bridgewaters full answer. Perhaps his campaign would provide it to us.
I find this exchange very troubling. The anti-Bennett campaign is driven largely by extremists. The information they use is distorted and often lacks a basic understanding of the facts, or in this case, history and the Constitution.
Nullification is the theory that states have the right to overturn or supercede federal laws. It was a very big issue in the early 19th Century that resulted in what is now known as the “Nullification Crisis.” Long ago the issue of nullification was legally resolved. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not nullify federal law. And whether you agree with that or not, that is the current state of the law. The only way that Mr. Bridgewater could effectuate true nullification is by amending the United States Constitution.
Now, I don’t really think Mr. Bridgewater supports nullification. I assume that a man who is running for the U.S. Senate is versed in the basics of American history and Constitutional law. A more plausible explanation for his answer is that he wants the support of the extremists such as Chip. After all, those are the people who can knock off Senator Bennett in Convention. It is to Mr. Bridgewaters advantage to lead Chip and his fellow extermists along to believe that he actually supports nullification. Mr. Bridgewater has no personal incentive to correct Chip’s misunderstanding of nullification. Instead, he benefits from Chip’s ignorance and therefore chooses not to correct him.
At the same time, Mr. Bridgewater has maintained plausible deniability. If we were to accuse him of actually supporting nullification, a truly radical position, he would point to the statements he made after “Absolutely.” He would argue that those statements make it clear he is speaking of states rights generally and not nullification.
This is the problem with the anti-Bennett campaign. Almost all of those challenging him are extremely literate people. They know that a substantial amount of the anti-Bennett rhetoric is patently false. Yet, because they benefit from the distortions and lies, they choose not to correct them. Public discourse and the electorate suffer. The are riding a fine line- on the one hand they can’t denounce the lies, but on the other they can’t afford to correct them either.
Anything to get power, I suppose.
How did my name get attached to something I didn’t say? I have however, observed Mr. Bennett as a deceitful liar who uses his office for personal gain more than public good. He does need to go! When he was beginning his political career, I was hoodwinked along with everybody else that helped him into office. And, whoever used my name with a statement that I never made, probably the deceitful bastard Bennett himself, needs to correct this.
Fascinating that the “story” does not match the headline. Tim is obviously (and rightly) concerned about the centralization of power in Washington and the accompanying erosion of the proper role of the states in our federal system. He is not alone. About half the state legislatures are taking action along the lines of the Herrod Bill. Are they all “extremists”? I think not.
Tim is smart enough to know that at the end of the nullification road is secession and what that entails, and that is certainly not where he is going. But he knows that something has to be done, and he has some creative ideas about what to do about it.
The fact is that Washington has comprehensively demonstrated its inability to manage the economy or any other aspect of our social structure (except perhaps the military, which is its primary constitutional function). Perhaps (as Tim suggests) it’s time to return to that outmoded, agrarian document, the Constitution, and let the states manage most of those functions.
g
The author of this article misunderstands (or at least misstates) the holding of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), which leads him to unfairly criticize Mr. Bridgewater and to make the very mistakes he accuse Bridgewater (and other “anti-Bennett[’s]” of).
Prigg v. Pennsylvania, was about a Pennsylvania statute which barred self-help in the gaining the return of slaves. Prigg was a slave owner who was convicted in a criminal case for trying to get his fugitive slave back. (The facts are slightly more complex, but this is the general gist of the case).
While it is true that the case held that federal law trumps state law, or that “states could not nullify federal law” as Mr. Grover put it, this misses the larger point. The case held that the Fugitive Slave Clause of the Constitution was a self-executing provision and that it allowed slave-owners to self-help in recapturing their slaves who escaped into Free states. Because of the supremacy clause, states could not prevent slave owners from doing so (the opinion also prevented states from prohibiting fugitive slaves from being transported by their owners back into slave stated). Now comes the important part.
Despite holding federal law superior to state law, Justice Story noted that federal laws designed to help recapture slaves in free states only had to be enforced by federal officials NOT state officials. The result was state laws which prohibited state officials from helping in the recover, incarceration, judicial hearing, or transfer of runaway slaves. The Fugitive Slave Act, passed by Congress, still stood – but it was only enforceable by federal officials.
So can states nullify federal laws? Well, if you mean overturn them directly – perhaps not. BUT, if you mean “supercede” or effectively get around them then YES! Federal laws can be nullified in the sense that states may refuse to enforce federal laws. The federal government cannot impress state officials into its own service. (See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). Passing laws which challenge the federal government are legitimate ways of maintaining (or restoring) the proper balance of power between state and federal governments.
So was Mr. Bridgewater wrong to say, for example, that “we will not allow a Federal Government mandate that is unconstitutional to force our companies and our citizens to buy health insurance?” No, because that is proper “nullification.”
Perhaps, if Mr. Grover better understood what the Constitution truly requires, he would have understood Mr. Bridgewater’s remarks. Perhaps if Mr. Grover spent less time accusing Mr. Bridgewater of being a power monger (“Anything to get power, I suppose.”) he’d realize that maybe it isn’t Chip or Mr. Bridgewater who misunderstand the Constitution. Perhaps if Mr. Grover spent less time accusing Mr. Bridgewater of banking on “ignorance,” “distortion and lies”, he have the time to actually correct his own misunderstandings. Until then, Mr. Grover is banking on others not calling him out on his own misunderstandings and misrepresentations, both of which harm “public disclosure and the electorate.”
Anything to get attention, I suppose.
I think the “more plausible explanation” is that A) KVNU is receiving advertising dollars from Mr. Bennett, as demonstrated by the Bennett advertisement at the top of this page. It seems the facts you use aren’t, as you say, “highly distorted” and perhaps KVNU’s relationship to Bennett should be fully disclosed in this article.
States can’t directly nullify Federal law, but they can challenge in court those Federal mandates deemed as an over reach Constitutionally, like the ongoing eminent domain case Mr. Bridgewater mentions. The Grand Escalante National Monument was set aside by Bill Clinton with merely a Presidential Order, so that Utah would never extract the cleanest coal deposits in the U.S. Are the people of Utah going to just accept those Federal decisions as laws? Didn’t hear much from Senator Bennett on that one. I think we need someone who will actually stand up for Utah.
Nullification is an oft misunderstood term, I agree. I think what is being expressed here is the position that states are free to enforce or not enforce federal law in their states. If they choose not to, the dispute will likely go to the Supreme Court.
The extreme position would be that if their case is heard by the Supreme Court and they are found to be in the wrong they still refuse to enact the law. (Precedent isn’t enough here, each state has the right to have their specific case heard, or rejected, by the Supreme Court if they’re willing to front the money.) I don’t think Tim or Chip would support that position.
The problem with this is that the message is distorted in semantics. Whether Tim or Chip realized that one the spot in this conversation is disputable. However, your conclusion is still accurate, these candidates are walking a fine line, but it may not be because they believe the attacks against Bennett to be false, it is also perfectly possible (and just as likely) they just don’t want to look like the bad guy or attack dog.
I know Tim personally. He supports the US Constitution. The initial blog quote appears to be wrong, in that it falsely attributes views to Tim Bridgewater which he does not support.
And to add a point, I am definitely anti-Bennett, but I do not consider myself extremist by any means. I support Tim Bridgewater, as a guy who will not let the status quo continue (of using earmarks, for instance, as the “way things get done” in Washington). Please take a closer look at Bridgewater’s views.
Tom,
I can see why you feel this way. However, I think there is a legitimate constitutional view from which the nullification of federal laws is a responsible threat, if not an actual solution. The idea of checks and balances is just that – that one power center will fight with other power centers and will guard its power jealously. Of course the idea behind separation of horizontal powers (i.e., the three branches) is based on the theory that if the executive finds Congressional action unconstitutional he can refuse to enforce it, or at least he has it in his discretion to choose to poorly enforce it. Similarly, if the President does something unconstitutional the Supreme Court through judicial review can check him. Well vertical separation of powers (i.e., federalism or dual-sovereignty) works the same way and our entire structure is built on the idea that states can check the federal government. States are meant to be every bit as sovereign as the federal government except that they have different spheres of sovereignty. If one starts infringing on the other, the true sovereign’s opinion rules supreme. Per the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal is sovereign in the specific, enumerated powers of Articles I, II and III, but per the 9th and 10th Amendments the states are sovereign in all other areas. So when the federal begins encroaching on the states, the states – as sovereigns – get to push back. The nullification crises throughout American history have generally been resolved in favor of the federal government but that doesn’t mean the issue has been decided. Freedom is a scary thing in a federal republic like ours, but it’s a lot less scary than centralization. I’m a lot more in favor of Bridgewater after hearing this conversation. Thanks for posting it.
I think it is VERY premature of you to put make such a statement based on your limited knowledge of his positions and one dropped phone call.
You create and inflamatory title claiming one thing then contradict yourself later saying you really don’t believe that either. As a result, I find little of anything credible in your entire analysis.
OK, I’ll try to make the rounds here. Thanks everyone for all the responses.
Gordon,
Concern about federal power generally and nullification specifically are two different things. That is the point of my post. Mr. Bridgewater clearly has the more moderate position that he is concerned with federal power generally.
Adam,
It seems we have a contextual issue here. Chip is clearly talking about the Legislative branch of State government acting as an arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. This is the first form of nullification that you mention. “So can states nullify federal laws? Well, if you mean overturn them directly – perhaps not.” That is clearly what Chip was talking about and what my comments were addressed to. States can obviously avoid federal influence by not enforcing federal laws, by not taking federal funding, etc, but that is clearly not “nullification” in the context of this discussion.
Furthermore, I did not accuse Mr. Bridgewater of espousing nullification. Everything he said after “Absolutely” makes this crystal clear.
Tim,
Take off your tin foil hat. I don’t work for KVNU. I am a volunteer blogger. The ads you see are from Google. KVNU does not choose them. There is no conspiracy here.
Bruce,
Pretty much agreed. Nice analysis.
Greg,
Ditto. Good analysis.
Lee,
Everyone supports the U.S. Constitution. Just like everyone loves babies and puppies.
James,
I don’t disagree with much of what you say. The concerns about balancing power are real. I would just reiterate that Chip’s question was clearly in the context of the narrow definition of nullification.
Cynthia,
Sounds like you’ve got your mind made up.
Tim,
I quickly posted that portion of your townhall on my Facebook after I heard your statement concerning nullification.
I have to second Tom that there is no conspiracy here. KVNU remains strictly neutral while the bloggers here write according to their own dictates. While I have known Senator Bennett personally and respect him greatly as an individual, I have disagreed with him on a number of issues. In fact, I was looking into other candidates, including you, to decide whether or not a new senator would be the right choice for Utah. Initially I was interested in the Bridewater ticket (especially after learning about your connection to Jack Kemp), but after the townhall and the comment on nullification, I made up my mind. I heard it with my own ears, no prior agenda. While I can understand how difficult it can be to campaign and there is always the chance of being taken out of context, you still should recognize that such a statement is silly… and while it may appeal to the fringe, it doesn’t strike well with the majority of Utahns.