Florida seeks to withdraw from OSHA and some history I hadn't been aware of.

Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 weeks, 3 days ago to History
7 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

[The lizard people are really not going to like what Ron DeSantis is up to now.

Among other things, he favors withdrawing Florida from OSHA and having the state itself in control of occupational safety and health issues.

The crazies are of course apoplectic about this, and the timid are saying he's going too far.

But if we keep confining ourselves to the range of options that the New York Times allows us, how are we ever going to get anywhere?]

From Tom Woods:

In my 2010 book Nullification I went through the history of state resistance to unconstitutional federal laws. This history is not exactly given great emphasis -- or even mentioned at all -- in the history classes virtually all of us are subjected to, so I devoted fully half of that book to a relentless series of historical documents proving my points.

It's a story of governors, state legislatures, and state supreme courts declaring it the responsibility of the state to protect its people against a lawless federal government.

That kind of sounds like an idea that bears resurrecting in 2021, does it not?

Jefferson’s argument for state nullification, given its classic formulation in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, is stated simply enough: if the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones.

In his Report of 1800, James Madison reminded Virginians and Americans at large that the judicial branch was not infallible, and that some remedy must be found for those cases in which all three branches of the federal government exceed their constitutional limits.

The states created the federal government and as a principal to the federal compact each state reserves the right -- to quote Jefferson himself -- to “judge for itself, as well of infractions [of the Constitution] as of the mode and measure of redress.” Otherwise, the federal government will expand without limit.

Here's just one historical example:

New England was especially hard hit by the embargo of 1807 to 1809 because so many of its people were employed either directly in foreign commerce or in proximate fields, and it was there that opposition to the policy was concentrated. In 1808 a federal district court, in the case of United States v. The William, ruled the embargo constitutional.

The Massachusetts legislature begged to differ. Both houses declared the embargo acts to be "in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional." "While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the State government," they said. The embargo, furthermore, was "not legally binding on the citizens of this State."

In the midst of the crisis, a New York congressman said, "Why should not Massachusetts take the same stand, when she thinks herself about to be destroyed?" "If any State Legislature had believed the Act to be unconstitutional," asked a Connecticut congressman, "would it not have been their duty not to comply?" He added that the state legislatures, "whose members are sworn to support the Constitution, may refuse assistance, aid or cooperation" if they regarded an act as unconstitutional, and so could state officials.

Connecticut governor Jonathan Trumbull shared these views. "Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task -- it is their right -- it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." Connecticut’s General Assembly passed a resolution that, among other things, directed all executive officials in the State not to afford "any official aid or co-operation in the execution of the act aforesaid."

The General Assembly furthermore declared: "Resolved, that to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the embargo."

Rhode Island, when the embargo was at its end, declared that her legislature possessed the duty "to interpose for the purpose of protecting [the people of Rhode Island] from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."

This is but a taste of the history we need to recover and indeed to emulate, especially during the extraordinary times we are living through today.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 weeks, 3 days ago
    Good. This is the right move. Also, please understand that OSHA will be looked to for forcing the vaccines into people. "Get the jab or lose your livelihood."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 3 weeks, 3 days ago
      They ALL should be tried under the Nuremburg law!

      But the interesting part is how, in the past, the states chose to ignore federal "mandates" because these mandates were unconstitutional...them were the good ole days. Way before we were born.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo