By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but… It is cold back east! Colder than it has been in years. As I watch the news coverage of the weather in the mid-west and east as far south as Florida I remember why I live here.
I was raised in Des Moines, Iowa, and I well remember those early morning paper deliveries in below-zero weather. There are seven major reasons I would never move back to Iowa: October, November, December, January, February, March and April.
I remember as a kid the miserable months of winter. While others thought it was great fun to bundle up and play games like goose-goose-fox, sled down snow covered hills, and go to the pond and play hockey I only wanted to stay indoors and look out the window.
My mother would bundle me up and explain how much fun I would have in the sub-zero weather. I did note that she did not come outside with me. I have a sneaking suspicion that she got all seven of us kids out of the house so she could sit at the kitchen table and drink hot chocolate in peace and quiet.
There are those who have looked at me like I am crazy as I walk in the 110-degree temperature of the Moapa Valley summers. Little do they know I am still thawing out from the first twenty years of my life spent in temperatures of less than freezing. I truly hope that one day I will feel my toes.
You may have also noticed that since the temperature has dropped below 70, I walk with stocking cap and gloves. My boys bought me both of those items and I wear them with pride. What you don’t know is that I am also wearing a t-shirt, a thermo undershirt, a regular long sleeve shirt and a Pirate sweat shirt. You can never be too warm.
I must admit that I am not comfortable until the temperature reaches at least 80 degrees and not uncomfortable until it is over 110.
I look forward to those two or three weeks when the temperature reaches 120 or better. It is those two weeks that keeps our state from becoming over crowded. I tell every visitor how miserable it is when the temperature ranges 110 to 125 in hopes that this will discourage the Californians to stay out of the state of Nevada.
No one asked me but… I find it interesting that liberal Democrats have taken up the cry of state’s rights over the drug and immigration issues. It is a fact that the Democrats were the original state’s rights advocate. They were so strong on the state’s rights issue they were willing to fight the Civil War over it.
I find it interesting how major political parties change their stand on issues as they find it to their advantage to do so. The same liberals who are opposed to state’s rights over the issue of land management and usage are championing the cause of state’s rights on the issue of legalization of marijuana and the development of sanctuary cities. In fact, California, Nevada, Colorado and four other states in the defense of legalization of recreational marijuana have resorted to the old pre-Civil War claim of the right of nullification of federal law within a state.
Nullification is the theory whereby states claim the power to declare a law of the federal government unconstitutional and therefore void.
President Thomas Jefferson felt every state had a natural right to nullify all assumption of power by the federal government within their state boundaries. He stated: “Without this right they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whatsoever might exercise this right of judgement for them.”
President Madison agreed with President Jefferson when he stated: “Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.”
Thomas Dilorenzo took the radical positon that nullification and secession were the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty.
Nullification of federal law by states has an early history. In 1832, South Carolina moved to nullify a federal tariff which they felt violated the true meaning of the Constitution and therefore should be null and void.
President Andrew Jackson, who makes President Trump look like a shrinking violent, disagreed with these early American political leaders and the state leaders of South Carolina. He stated: “I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one state, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
The next real state challenge to federal laws was during the 1950’s over the ending of segregated schools. What is interesting is that by this time the Republicans had taken control of the Southern state politics. While they championed the role of the federal government prior to the Civil War, they now opposed federal interference with the “Jim Crow laws” in the south. The Democrats, the original nullifiers, now opposed the nullification efforts of the southern states.
Today we find Democrats championing nullification of federal drug and immigration laws but supporting federal laws controlling the use of land in western states. I do find it interesting that the BLM, a federal government agency, has attempted to nullify federal grazing laws when dealing with ranchers in the individual western states. Conversely, Republicans who have championed state’s rights laws since the early 1960’s have now become the super heroes of federalism on drug and immigration laws.
It is time for us all to understand that when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution of the United States, a second major revolution took place. The second revolutionary war was merely postponed until 1860.
To paraphrase a recent president, wars have consequences. One of the consequence of the Civil War was the death of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. As hard as it may to be to swallow, state’s rights died at Gettysburg. We became a nation bound by federal law and state governments became an anachronism.
Thought of the week… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.