Nullification and Missouri

An editorial from a Connecticut paper called the Journal Inquirer takes the Missouri legislature to task for attempting nullification, going so far as to urge Barack Obama to follow in the footsteps of slave-owner Andrew Jackson:

President Barack Obama might benefit from President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s attempt at nullification: “Tell them if one South Carolina finger is raised in defiance of this government, then I shall come down there and once I’m there, I’ll hang the first man I lay hands on to the first tree I can reach.”

I don't know how that would have worked between Jackson and South Carolina.  As far as Barack Obama is concerned, he's welcome to come on down and start at my house.  I have a lot of nice big oak trees.  I'll even supply the rope.  Of course, he might want to bring along some help if he plans on hanging me.  I guess he could bring Michelle and threaten to have me wake up next to her.  I'd hang myself.

You see, federal firearms laws, despite collusion on the part of the Judicial Branch, are mostly in violation of the the Second Amendment, which is still the supreme law of the land.  The federal government is the one acting defiantly.  Missouri, if the legislature is able to override our Democrat governor's veto, would be acting to restore balance in an overly-centralized system.  I have a feeling Jackson would be aghast at the reach of the central government and of its bureaucracies.  There's a good chance that, as a somewhat compulsive duelist, Ol' Hickory would be calling people out before he'd give up his guns. 

The Journal Inquirer has the audacity to make it a matter of patriotism: 

The National Rifle Association refuses to give its opinion about the nullification argument. The question should be put to the NRA again and again until an answer is given. Here is a real issue of patriotism.

OK, so the editor was equally indignant, I'm sure, at the Connecticut legislature's violation of citizens' Second Amendment rights?  Or with the District of Columbia's long-standing unconstitutional ban on handguns?  Or with draconian firearms restrictions in Chicago and New York City? 

No, probably not.  Only Missouri hillbillies are evil, stupid nullifiers.  Nullification only counts when it is in defiance of laws the editor likes.  Nullifying the plain language and intent of the Constitution is acceptable.  

Where is this editor when our rights to self-defense, to privacy, to security in our persons and property are casually subsumed by the federal leviathan?  Remember when dissent was the highest form of patriotism?  I am a patriot of my country.  I have no use for the rogue government that is running unchecked in Washington, DC.  But, you, Eddie the Editor, being a journalist, are clearly too stupid to understand the difference.

Finally, this maroon buffoon under the protection of the First Amendment express its contempt for all Missourians: 

Missouri’s attempt at nullification is an insult to the nation. It should be tested immediately and anyone who tries to use it against federal law should be arrested and tried. President Obama should notify Missouri’s governor and legislature that he plans to do exactly that.

No, we are not insulting the nation.  Again, the editor confuses the nation with the government.  They are not the same.  There are, in fact, a multitude of governments within the nation.  Does E Pluribus Unum ring any bells?  One nation, under God, not under Obama.  If one level of government fails, citizens are able to call upon other levels.  I'm sure the editor saw the value of this when state Jim Crow laws were nullified by the federal government.  It's mostly been one way for the past 150 years, but what comes down sometimes goes up. 

Maybe we just need to change our battle cry from, "Revolution!" to "Rebalance!"

Meanwhile, to paraphrase (and significantly sanitize) what my father once told someone who ordered him and a friend out of town, Missourians are in the habit of doing as they please.  If the Barack Obama or the Journal Inquirer or anybody else doesn't like it, it's really too bad.