Image Credit: Tennessee Senate / YouTube
The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –
The Senate State and Local Government Committee met On October 3rd for a “summer study” exploring nullification, which is the constitutional theory allowing individual states to invalidate unconstitutional laws or mandates.
The non-voting meeting’s intent was to function as an exploratory fact-finding forum, with experts testifying both for and against the concept. This meeting will help the committee determine if there is merit in pursuing another nullification bill and the approach they could take to ensure its success.
Senator Janice Bowling (R-Dist.16), though not a member of the committee, was present and stated that the General Assembly does “all believe in nullification,” especially given the previous joint resolutions passed by the legislature in 2016 and 2021 and attempted bills advocating for nullification. It was later indicated that she will potentially again propose nullification legislation during the upcoming session.
The floor was then opened to the witnesses in favor of nullification.
Jeff Cobble, an attorney and constitutional teacher, pursued his expertise because felt much of what he was taught in law school was wrong. He proposed that outside commentary on constitutional interpretation is irrelevant when the language is plain, as it is regarding state nullification.
His main point, that “the states are sovereign over the federal government,” was supported by a thorough presentation including historical timelines, context, and a close examination of several tenants and pillars found in the language of both the US and Tennessee constitutions.
Joe Wolverton, a constitutional law scholar and attorney, focused his time on refuting the Attorney General’s opinion issued earlier in the year, which argued nullification was unconstitutional and an “act of rebellion or lawlessness,” by using constitutional language and historical precedent of several states.
Wolverton advocated, “Tennessee is not seeking to nullify legitimate federal authority but to safeguard its citizens from unconstitutional federal encroachment,” and called the AG’s opinion a “distorted” view of the constitution.
One witness testified against the concept of nullification.
Mark Pulliam, another retired lawyer & writer, proposed that the current system of federal supremacy is “based on 220 years of constitutional decisions by our Supreme Court” while calling nullification, “a fanciful theory embraced by a small group of people engaged in wishful thinking.” He believes the AG’s opinion is “entirely sound” and is consistent with what he considers “actual law”.
Pulliam did not reference the language or tenants of the constitution through his presentation but did argue that conservatives who did not support nullification should not be labeled as RINOs. His main points included pointing to precedents of the the Supreme Court rejecting nullification and quoting other commentators and pundits who disagree with the concept. He also advocated that reform should happen through elections and appointments utilizing the current form of governance.
The committee utilized the remainder of the meeting to ask questions of the testifying parties, many centered on clarifying specific pieces of historical writings and definitions.
Senator Yarbro (D- Dist.21) expressed concern that nullification allows states to pick and choose which laws they obey but was rebutted by Cobble who reiterated that the Constitution remains the law of the land and that nullification restores power to the states “incrementally” versus allowing the “federal purse strings to control our decisions.”
Senator Lowe (R-Dist. 1) questioned if a bill would even be necessary to enact nullification based on examples he provided where Tennessee has already sued the federal government for overreach or created state laws in contrast to existing federal mandates, which he sees, in essence, as a form of nullification.
Wolverton answered that while he believes it is not a constitutional requisite, the legislature’s passing of a bill could be used as, “an act of education to help people see why we are doing it, because I believe that will allow them to see their lawmakers who are doing the things that make them freer and more prosperous.”
Ultimately, as this was not a voting meeting, no decision or resolution was established by the committee.
It remains to be seen if the committee or its members will utilize any information garnered from the meeting to propose or support any nullification bills.
Chairman Briggs (R-Dist. 7) encouraged citizens to contact or set meetings with the individual members of the State & Local Government Committee to express their thoughts and ideas.
Watch the video of the meeting below:
Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
8 Responses
Thank you Olivia and TCN. Great article!!! Very important.
This sounds right to me > “Wolverton advocated, “Tennessee is not seeking to nullify legitimate federal authority but to safeguard its citizens from unconstitutional federal encroachment,” and called the AG’s opinion a “distorted” view of the constitution.”
I’m suspicious of Senator Janice Bowling of Tullahoma.
>> Olivia >> Please ask her to explain her reasoning so we can know why she opposes this idea. Is she a Lib who supports Biden, Harris and the Dem agenda? Do Libs donate to her? If she’s a Lib, I’ll donate to her opponent.
We know we can’t trust the Dems and that they will break the law (there are lots of examples), use the DOJ, FBI and IRS to punish opponents, and use “lawfare”.
If the Feds try to force TN to do something wrong or bad for us, then YES we should refuse. Anyone who disagrees with that is either a Lib or a wimp or dumb.
Here is your answer to your question about Senator Janice Bowling (R-Dist.16).
“Senator Janice Bowling (R-Dist.16), though not a member of the committee, was present and stated that the General Assembly does “all believe in nullification,” especially given the previous joint resolutions passed by the legislature in 2016 and 2021 and attempted bills advocating for nullification. It was later indicated that she will potentially again propose nullification legislation during the upcoming session.” Comes straight from this article. Can’t be any clearer.
In God we trust not government or man. Have a blessed day.
Senator Janice Bowling is the Senate sponsor for the legislation. She is is THE Senator fighting to get this passed. Please pay attention before you make accusations.
Thanx! We can hope and call Senator and Rep. RINOS hate it though and we got a bunch.
Cobbles “thorough presentation” was only good if you are willing to accept face value what he presents, without historical or legal knowledge. Any professional that thinks everything they have learned about their profession with a 250 years of history is wrong is suspect. How is everyone else wrong and only he is right?
Nullification has a history, both political and legal. And as a legal concept it has been rejected. That does not mean the state cannot refuse compliance, go to court.
Sen. Lowe asked the witnesses if the legislature HAD THE WILL… and only Pulliam could answer, “If they do not have the will they can put aside a bill, and if they do have the will they do not need a bill.”
As Pulliam also said, grassroots would be much better served if they were putting as much energy into elections so we can get good legislators and local officials.
Mr. Cobble has forgotten more about the Constitution than Mr. Pulliam ever knew. Pulliam is a modern day lawyer that believes the court is the ruler over what is or is not constitutional which if the writer of this constitutionally illiterate comment and Mr. Pulliam understood the original intent of the Constitution (which they do not) they would know the states and the people of the states are the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional. All you have to do is actually read and comprehend the words of our Constitution (not court rulings) and the writings of our founders that clarified what each part of the Constitution meant and to understand our founders clearly left the states at the head of the constitutional pyramid not the federal government. It is also obvious that Oakley1776 and Mr. Pulliam have no knowledge of the TN Constitution either.
Art. 1 Sec. 2 of the TN Constitution States:
“That government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.” This clearly demonstrates the failure to resist arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive. And then we have the words of James Madison: “the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those that are to remain in the state government are numerous and indefinite.” James Madison. When it comes to interpreting the Constitution it is clear that Thomas Jefferson and other founders felt we must stick to the original intent: “On every question of construction, (Let us) carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” When the constitution was adopted they never intended for the Supreme Court to be the final word. Mr. Cobble also read testimony by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to take power it was never given. She stated that nowhere in the Constitution does it say we, the Supreme Court has the last word. And this is a very left leaning liberal justice but apparently she knows a bit more about the Constitution than Oakley1776 or Mr. Pulliam.
The commenter on this article says we have the right to refuse to comply but take it to court. It took 52 years for the Supreme Court to admit they had no jurisdiction over abortion and returned the rightful authority back to the states but in the meantime millions of babies were murdered. If the state stood up 52 years ago and refused to comply on the basis that according Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution the Supreme Court (which is part of the federal government folks) had no authority over abortion we could have saved many unborn lives. Abortion just like most issues the federal government does today are state powers not federal powers and we do not have to take the issues to court. We simply demonstrate that it is not constitutional and just tell the feds to get out of our sandbox. And also the commenter obviously thinks that Mr. Pulliam is right and everyone else is wrong so why is this any different than what she accuses Mr. Cobble. Mr. Cobble never said he was right and everyone else was wrong. He merely brought forward historical content to prove nullification is the right and duty of the state and the people of the state. Does anyone really think our founders were handing over the final word to a couple of men in black robes. The states would never have gone along with ratifying the Constitution if that were the case. It was because the people feared they would wind up with another King that they insisted on the Bill of Rights which guaranteed that every states was free, independent and sovereign. Nullification is not secession. Nullification will not cause chaos (as Mr. Pulliam stated) as a matter of fact it works to prevent chaos. Chaos is more inclined to happen when our government threatens our freedom and the people are not given a method to put the federal government back in its very small sandbox. Nullification is the legitimate, rightful and peaceful remedy.
None are so blind as they that will not see… There is s 250 years of jurisprudence against nullification. Cobbles rejects it all. It boggles the mind that NO STATE OR LEGISLATOR ever used, passed or attempted nullification successfully. It has been rejectedas a legal remedy for 250 years. How complicated is that?
You can have your own opinion but you CANNOT have your own truth. Case law DOES NOT override the original intent of the Constitution and I don’t care how many years or court cases try to do that. States nullify all the time. Obviously you are not in touch with what is taking place in other states and in TN. Just because they do not call it nullification when a state defies federal law that is nullification. When you have a government out of control and a constitutionally illiterate (yourself included) public that does not understand the Constitution or the power given to the states it is easy for the feds to shut down the people. It takes guts to fight back and when guts are lacking it will take state legislation to force the Assembly to do it job.