08/02/12 – Michael Boldin – The Scott Horton Show

Alright y'all, welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton, scotthorton.org is the website.
Now I know you saw on MSNBC that if somebody says that somebody else is a tenther, that you're supposed to be scared that he's going to Timothy McVeigh your building or something.
But I read in Mother Jones that this guy's alright.
It's Michael Bolden from the Tenth Amendment Center.
Welcome to the show, how's it going?
Don't believe anything you read, so both sides are wrong.
They're both slightly wrong, is that what you said?
No, they're both totally wrong.
Oh, they're both completely wrong.
Alright, yeah well you're not alright, but anyway I'm glad you're here.
Krugman, think progress as dangerous as it gets.
I like that everybody calling each other's horrible ideas dangerous, because of course they are, because what we're talking about is political power.
So unless you're opposing everything, then you're wrong and dangerous and horrible.
And I'm against you.
I appreciate you being against at least a lot of things.
We'll see how against everything you are.
Let's start with Paul Krugman, Mr. Know-it-all at the New York Times.
You say he didn't even say anything, what did he not say?
Well, he didn't say anything about state nullification.
He wrote this short blog post about some political candidate in Texas, who I doubt I like, because I don't vote anyway.
But he basically brushed off this guy as an idiot, because the guy supposedly supports the idea of states refusing to comply with federal mandates or requirements or laws or whatever you want to call them.
And in that little blog post, all he did was he linked over to a report from ThinkProgress, which explained all the things that this guy wanted to do, one of them being refusing compliance with the Obamacare mandate.
Well, I mean, I guess if the idea of refusing to comply with things is wrong, then Krugman himself would have to fight with the editorial board of his own New York Times, because they were really in favor last year of the state of New York refusing compliance with federal drug laws on weed.
So maybe there's a little intellectual inconsistency there, I'm not really sure.
Intellectual inconsistency at Paul Krugman's blog?
No, never.
Are you sure?
No, I don't want to call that out too aggressively.
I mean, I could see that being within the realm of possibility, I guess.
All right, well, yeah, you quote Tom Woods saying, oh, yeah, it's so self-evidently stupid he doesn't even really need an argument against it.
I suspect that you're right about this Ted Cruz guy.
I don't know too much about him, other than I read a thing where he says Sharia law in America is a serious problem that must be dealt with, so I thought he's not a serious person at all.
He probably isn't.
I mean, I haven't really looked into him at all.
I don't think I'll have any time.
When I look at politicians, I never look at the federal ones, because I feel like the only politicians that can do any good are the ones closer to home.
I'm not a fan of those either, but let's use them as what they are, tools.
So that's my view.
Well, by the way, well, there's a few things.
First of all, let's talk about the principle of nullification, because a lot of people think that nullification just means, you know, Governor Wallace blocking the schoolhouse from the U.S. Army's attempt to integrate the place.
Well, I think nullification can be broken down to two letters, and it's something that a 3-year-old can say all day long.
It's N-O.
Oftentimes through state government or governors or maybe local city council or on an individual level just refusing to comply with a particular law or taking an act which renders it null and void.
The way we define it at the Senate Amendment Center is any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null and void or unenforceable.
So a law can still be on the books, but if they can't enforce it, then in effect that law is null and void.
So every time a heroic pot smoker lights up a joint and gets away with it without some federal agent coming to throw him in a cage, they are in effect in their own world as an individual nullifying that particular law.
Yeah, but, you know, come on, you have to address the supremacy clause and all of these things.
That's what Congress is for, is deciding everything.
Sure, and that's what the guys over at ThinkProgress say.
Whenever you say that individuals in their own area or states on their own can decide what law is just or unjust or constitutional or unconstitutional, they'll come back and say, oh, the supremacy clause means that all acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land and cannot be defined or nullified.
And this is how Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress says, by rogue state lawmakers.
But he's, you know, and this is such an idiotic argument, and maybe it's because people don't really understand or read on their own, is that the supremacy clause doesn't say that.
It only says that acts of Congress made in pursuance of the Constitution, that's those limited delegated powers that are listed out in the Constitution, only those are supreme.
So almost everything that they do, they're not authorized to do and it's kind of open season for nullification in my view.
All right, well, I mean, that's a very Declaration of Independence type argument.
I think it's actually sad that, it's fair, I could be wrong, but I think it's fair to anticipate that a lot of people, to a lot of people, that does sound very radical that, you know, any group of Americans could just refuse to go along with the law of the land.
And, you know, I guess, you know, like the Declaration itself says, you know, if you're going to have a revolution or, you know, these measures short of it, still you wouldn't do this for lighter transient causes, you'd do this if you really have to, right?
Instead of just, well, we'll just wait till the next election.
Like you said, you don't believe that you could ever get a congressman in the national government to do what you want, to do what the people want hardly at all, so why even bother with them?
You've already given up on the national level.
You're looking at this as a crisis, right?
Yeah, absolutely, and when I talk with people around the country, I often say to them, look, let's say, for example, there's a perfect constitutionalist guy running for president, and let's say that guy happens to win.
Well, at best, all we have is a short-term band-aid, because he's going to be the only dude over two centuries that's going to have that kind of view, and what's going to happen when the next guy comes in?
So even if you get the perfect constitutionalist in office, you've got to figure out what to do about it after that guy's gone.
And I think that unless we address how to deal with immoral, unjust, unconstitutional acts from government on a state, local, and individual level until we start approaching it that way, people are going to be in the same place all the time.
And I don't even refer, in my article that I wrote, I don't really even refer all the way back to the Declaration.
I talk about more modern things.
People like Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks told us that, hey, when there's an unjust law, you disobey it, and that can spark a movement.
Right, yeah, no, I'm all for non-cooperation.
I mean, you've got to pick your battles.
Some people want to fight over license plates or some other mandate, which isn't necessarily the wrong thing.
But you have to pick your battles on your different level.
But yeah, I mean, disobedience and a refusal to cooperate with this system by as many of us as possible in as many ways as possible is the only way to change it.
Absolutely, and whether it's marijuana or mandates or EPA regulations or gun laws or whatever it may be, what's most important to you as an individual?
Because each one of us is motivated by different moral codes, different standards.
Whatever is most important for you, I think it's time for each person to take a stand and say, you know, like I said, three-year-olds will say it all day long, no, I don't want to do that.
I'm not going to comply.
Why can't we as adults?
Because we're afraid that these guys have too many guns.
But my view is, hey, when enough of us say no to the federal government and then maybe enough states and local communities do the same thing, backing those individuals up, it becomes extremely difficult for government to force their laws and regulations and mandates down our throats.
All right, now tell us a little bit about the progress you've had while you don't really have time.
I guess when we get back, I want to ask you about some of the progress that's being made on this front.
And, in fact, just to talk about the different examples, is to illustrate that this is an issue for everyone, town, country, all races, all political persuasions, all regions in the country.
There's no reason that this is just some kind of right-wing argument or libertarian argument or liberal argument.
This is for everyone who wants a little bit of, well, or all of their liberty back.
It's a very good avenue, and in practice, it's proven to be very effective in a great many ways.
So anyway, when we get back from this break, we'll talk more about that.
The 10th Amendment Center, Michael Bolden is the guest, and the recent piece is Krugman, Think Progress, as dangerous as it gets, which is a great read, a fun read.
Check it out.
All right, y'all, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton, ScottHorton.org.
I'm talking with Michael Bolden from the 10th Amendment Center, 10thAmendmentCenter.com.
And, geez, I guess it just occurred to me that some people don't even know what the 10th Amendment says.
Tell us real quick, what's the 10th Amendment?
It says that the federal government is authorized to do a limited amount of stuff.
That stuff is spelled out in the Constitution, and everything else is supposed to be decided by people assembled in their states or individuals and people themselves.
That's the modern version.
The Constitution says something more than we, the people, say the government can exist and do whatever it wants from now on?
Well, I mean, I know it sounds crazy, but government isn't supposed to do much at all.
I mean, I'd prefer that they weren't around at all, but limiting down to that bare level would mean they'd be doing, I don't know, what, post roads and post offices and not much more.
Yeah.
All right.
So now let's see here.
The article is Krugman Think Progress.
As dangerous as it gets, taking the occasion of their combined ignorance to write a great article here about the principles of nullification, state and otherwise, individual nullification just as well.
But so give us some examples.
Demonstrate to people because, well, I'll tell you this.
I think from what I know from going to government school that the lessons of the Civil War and the New Deal and the Civil Rights era are, thank goodness for presidents and congresses and the national government because if left free to their own devices, the American people will destroy everything and they have to be reined in by the national government every once in a while.
And so you have a real road to hoe in trying to tell people that that ain't so, I think.
I didn't mean to rhyme there because it trivializes the importance and gravity of the point.
Well, I think your listeners here, especially LRN.
FM, would probably not take that standardized view of we need some individual decider to tell us what we can determine is right or wrong.
We shouldn't even think on our own.
Okay, that's true, but I'm trying to play the devil's advocate here, the state's advocate.
Certainly, and I would say, I don't know how to quantify it, but my instinct tells me that a vast majority of people don't agree with the view that individuals can make their own decisions and make them properly or make mistakes on their own and learn from them.
They need some politician to force all the right and wrong decisions and we'll just kind of play along and pay our taxes and do our thing.
And yes, that is a tough road to hoe, no doubt about it, but I think the more that government does, the more that it fails and the more that it screws up people's lives, it screws up the economy, and the more people that die because of government, the more people that are opening up their eyes and learning that, hey, like Harry Brown wrote in his great book a few years back, why government doesn't work.
It is a failure of virtually everything.
A friend of mine did a Facebook update recently and he said, I'm starting to think that our nasty dystopian future is less of a George Orwell future but more of a Brazil future, and if anyone knows that film, it's really just kind of a mockery, it's a dark satire of what things get like when you have lines and paperwork for every little thing in the world, and I encourage people to watch it because I see it in every phase of my life when I interact with government.
Yeah, well, and what's great about it too is there's three or four different versions and I think three of the four are really good, and there's some great alternate endings and everything.
It's a masterpiece of a Terry Gilliam flick for anybody who's never seen it.
Man, now I need to look for more versions because I think I've only seen one.
Yeah, there's a great one where Robert De Niro gets literally buried in paperwork to death.
It's great.
It all sticks to him like a magnet, you know.
So if you haven't seen it, this is a film to watch because it really makes sense for what we're facing today.
And to me, laughing at these bureaucrats and politicians kind of helps.
It gives you a little courage in being reminded that most of them are idiots and they can't accomplish things.
It makes them less scary, although a crazed idiot with a lot of guns can be frightening, but they're not as efficient and powerful as they want us to think they are.
And I look at California and the medical marijuana raid or the weed raid over the last year where the federal government has been very aggressive as a good example.
I mean, sure, yes, they are shutting down businesses and they've sent letters to 600 businesses to close them down, but I heard from a friend in the industry that really when it comes to businesses supporting the medical marijuana industry in California, there's approximately 10,000 that are operating on a day-to-day basis in various forms.
So yes, they're shutting people down, but the true story is about 97% of these businesses are staying open and getting away with it.
And in Colorado, the feds last year were very aggressive in shutting down marijuana businesses there, and the number of registered marijuana users dropped down to like 80,000.
But after time, they had to stop because they don't have the manpower and the people that are using marijuana or at least registering for it, that's a way to quantify, have gone back up to nearly 100,000 again.
And I think the feds use very high-profile attacks on people to scare them off.
You have to recognize they're just not good at sustaining these types of things and we have to continue saying no, and I'm sorry if I'm rambling, but it's something I'm very passionate about.
Yeah, no, I like it when you go on, man.
It's important to go ahead and really get to the point.
And using examples like that, I mean, people, you've got to figure, when he says kind of offhand, oh, they raid this and they raid that to scare people, that means the SWAT team shows up, right?
Machine guns and ninja armor and screaming in people's faces and being very aggressive.
Yeah, well, they're not whistling around about this stuff.
When they raid people, it's no joke.
I mean, sometimes they'll send out letters to landlords of a marijuana dispensary and say, you know what, if you don't kick them out, we'll take your property, and that seems to be pretty effective too.
So they're not always showing up with guns, but as we saw here in Southern California, they'll even raid a cheese and milk distributor, a small retail store that sells raw milk.
They'll come in, you know, packing heat, and they do that, I believe, to freak people out and, you know, scare people into compliance.
It works for a while.
For a while, obviously, in Colorado it certainly worked, but then they have to back off because, again, they just don't have the manpower to lock us all up.
Well, and of course there's the famous case of Sheriff Mack from, I forget if he was from Colorado or where.
Arizona.
Arizona, who sued the federal government over the Brady Bill, right?
The mandate that the local sheriff's department has to do all the background checks and got that overturned.
Got that overturned.
That was like the first victory for the Tenth Amendment in forever when it happened in back, what, in the mid-'90s or so?
I like that case, and I hate that case.
I like the case because they were right, and Sheriff Mack said, hey, we're not going to enforce here.
You know, we can't be commandeered, that's the language they use, by the federal government to enforce these gun regulations.
And I like that because the principle is correct, and people shouldn't be enforcing gun regulations anyway.
But what I don't like about it is I think it gives people false hope that the courts are going to somehow do something right just because they did something right once in maybe 20 years.
Don't expect it to happen again.
Oh, yeah.
Well, yeah, anytime they do something right to me is just the exception that proves the rule because there's so many other examples of the way that they behave and the way that they see things.
But, yeah, you're right, though.
That's important that people don't fall into that trap.
All right.
Well, thanks very much.
I'm sorry we're all out of time, but I hope people spent some time looking at your website, Michael, 10thAmendmentCenter.com.
Thanks very much for your time.
Awesome.
Thanks, Pat.