Ben Swann's 'Full Disclosure': Nullification

should clarify his remarks. Simply saying he agrees with Andrew Jackson is not enough. He needs to say what he means by that. Please see my comment below.

Senator Don Gaetz

gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov

District Office:
4300 Legendary Drive
Suite 230
Destin, FL 32541
(850) 897-5747
Senate VOIP: 40100
FAX (888) 263-2259
Toll Free:
1-866-450-4366

Tallahassee Office:
212 Senate Office Building
404 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1100
(850) 487-5001
Senate VOIP: 5001

http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/s1

You said, "That angry mob wasn't looking to apply nullification correctly. They said states could decide which federal laws to follow, not that they could resist unconstitutional federal laws. Big difference."

Splitting hairs. "True" nullifiers would decide to not follow or resist unconstitutional federal laws.

I think the overlooked thing here is that the nullifiers were threatening to "burn us down if you will not agree with them." This is a threat of violence on another person. While I can certainly understand the sentiment when resisting tyranny, at that stage violence was going too far.

Rather, their state should ignore the law and then prepare for the federal gov't to use threat of violence against them, as most assuredly the threat would come.

Thus, that's the key reason why you don't have this strategy implemented much. Folks are fearful of the fed government's reprisal.

In his breathless report, could the military aide have skewed his interpretation of what the nullifiers actually said to sound alarmist? I hear you when you speculate, "that angry mob wasn't looking to apply nullification correctly", but perhaps, in his apparent panic, the crowd, as a whole; may have actually sought a better remedy, except for some among them who called for worse.

It's hard to report the temperament of a crowd, "with torches and guns", but ought we to believe the worst of them all simply because of this military aide's sole assessment? Jackson may have spoken his death sentence against them simply by trusting that lone report, and made a rash judgement against everything they stood for because of it, rather than assessing things better himself. The life or death sentence of fellow Americans should not hang on the breathless report of one man's panicked assessment.

To be fair with Jackson's legacy also; he may not have said what is reported. After all, it is only one man's word verses another. The aide may have put words in Andrew Jackson's mouth that served his desired end and cast Jackson as a tyrant.

Don Gaetz needs to CLARIFY his remarks on nullification. Does he believe states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws or not?

It appears Andrew Jackson was simply asserting the power the federal government has over the States - which is correct, as long as it remains WITHIN the limits placed by the U.S. Constitution.

Good sign today.

Ben Swann is actually the proof that journalism isn't already dead after all!

bump

his overly tan and made up co-anchor called Rachel Maddow an "angry young man"... since then these solo pieces are coming out. Maybe they both flew the coop?