Missouri Lawmaker Proposes Amendment to Reject U.S. Laws
The is big on the U.S. Constitution. Except when it鈥檚 not.
For some reason, the far-right politicians who identify with and promote the Patriot movement can鈥檛 seem to get over the fact that the Constitution gives the federal government primacy over the states 鈥� even as they wrap themselves in the American flag. It鈥檚 a contradiction that, apparently, only antigovernment extremists can understand. Others, who study such things, call it cognitive dissonance.
Thumbing your nose at the federal government has a long history in American politics, of course. George Wallace ran an entire presidential campaign on it in 1968 鈥� five years after he made a big show of 鈥渟tanding in the schoolhouse door鈥� to block the entry of black students at the University of Alabama. Perhaps he was still peeved about being pushed out of that doorway by President John F. Kennedy and the National Guard.
Even today, a lot of Southern politicians remain upset at the federal government over that little thing called the civil rights movement, though most of them try to cloak their extremism in the rhetoric of 鈥渟tates鈥� rights.鈥�
But, come on, haven鈥檛 we settled this question 鈥� after two centuries of jurisprudence, not to mention a bloody civil war that wrecked the South and cost more than 1 million American lives?
Nope. At least Missouri state Sen. doesn鈥檛 think so.
Nieves has proposed an to his state鈥檚 constitution that would prohibit all branches of state government in Missouri from recognizing, enforcing or acting on 鈥渃ertain actions鈥� of the federal government. It鈥檚 called 鈥溾�� 鈥� the idea that states can simply ignore federal laws they don鈥檛 like 鈥� and it鈥檚 all the rage on the radical right, pushed by the likes of the John Birch Society and the .
What鈥檚 astounding is the traction the idea is getting among people who ought to know better. Nieves鈥� amendment, which would have to be approved by Missouri voters, is in the legislature four months after it was proposed. It鈥檚 even been approved by the Senate鈥檚 General Laws Committee.
Nieves, a Tea Party favorite who has described himself as a 鈥淧atriot candidate鈥� and who has appeared in a film produced by Patriot conspiracy-monger Gary Franchi, is nothing if not extreme. He鈥檚 previously shown his disdain for the Constitution as a leading member of , a group of state lawmakers that is working to end the 14th Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of citizenship to all people born within the United States. Apparently, the 14th amendment, enacted in the wake of the Civil War, really bugs him.
Nieves is also, apparently, something of a bully. In August 2010, after winning the Senate primary, he pulled a gun on a man who worked for his opponent鈥檚 campaign. According to news accounts, he threw the man against the wall, threatened to kill him, head-butted him, slapped him and asked if he was wearing a 鈥渨ire.鈥� Then he made the man call his [Nieves鈥橾 wife and apologize for things that happened during the campaign.
His proposed amendment goes much further that some other nullification efforts. It specifies a laundry list of specific actions that Missouri would be required to reject: any federal actions to 鈥渞estrict the right to bear arms; legalize or fund abortions, or the destruction of any embryo from the zygote stage; require the sale or trade of carbon credits or impose a tax on the release of carbon emissions; involve certain health care issues; mandate the recognition of same sex marriage or civil unions; increase the punishment for a crime based on perpetrator鈥檚 thoughts or designate a crime a hate crime; interpret the establishment clause as creating a wall of separation between church and state; or restrict the right of parents or guardians to home school or enroll their children in a private or parochial school or restrict school curriculum.
The forbidden federal actions presumably include any federal court orders, even when they come from the Supreme Court.
So, in other words, it鈥檚 not really about preserving the legitimate rights of states under the Constitution. It鈥檚 simply a subterfuge to reject federal laws that aren鈥檛 conservative enough 鈥� even when they have been enacted by duly elected representatives of the people or interpreted by the very judicial body created by the Constitution to determine their constitutionality.
What Nieves really is rejecting is democracy itself 鈥� and the U.S. Constitution. Funny thing for a Patriot.
