Thank You For Supporting The Tenth Amendment Center With Your Online Purchases

Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of ‘98

01. Mar, 2009 9 Comments

Bookmark and Share

The first in a series of ten lectures, presented at “The Truth About American History: An Austro-Jeffersonian Perspective” seminar, hosted by the Mises Institute. Recorded 06/20/2005

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.
Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Facebook
Related Articles:

History, Video
, , , , ,
Why Georgia Should Declare Sovereignty
Talking Sovereignty in Michigan

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

9 Responses to “Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of ‘98”

  1. Michael Boldin Reply 01. Mar, 2009 at 9:59 am

    This entire lecture serious is great viewing/listening material. We’ll post more from time to time as well.

    You can also read the text of the ‘98 resolutions here:

    Kentucky Resolutions

    Virginia Resolution

  2. Allan Hampton Reply 01. Mar, 2009 at 12:01 pm

    Excellent video and very well presented, thank you, Mr. Woods.

    Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see/hear a conclusion. I think there is no “constitutional” conclusion to the argument on State’s Rights. The State and federal governments have no constitutional Rights, they have powers.

    The People have Rights and according to the Constitution the People have the Right (of Conscience) to nullify any and or all government legislation (pertaining to one court case) but only when serving on a Citizen Jury; reference Amendment 5, 6, and 7 of the Bill of Rights.

    Allan

    • Michael Boldin Reply 01. Mar, 2009 at 7:53 pm

      Allan – you make a great point here, and a very important one. I’m a bit of a stickler for it as well.

      States do not have “rights” – only individuals have rights. States and state governments act on behalf of the people living in their territory.

  3. Allan Hampton Reply 02. Mar, 2009 at 4:07 am

    Michael – Thanks, I find it not so easy to win converts away from political rhetoric to the Constitution’s side of the affair. I see the Constitution and government as opposites or enemies. The People’s side of the affair is the Constitution. Political rhetoric, or issues, are like carrots dangling in front of a donkey, where the People are the donkey. Political issues lead the People away from the Constitution.

    I wonder if your statement that the States act on behalf of the People is “constitutionally” correct, or a carrot. Consider the Oath of Office in Article VI; State Officials are required to “support” the Constitution. So on behalf of the People must be to support the Constitution and anything repugnant to the Constitution, therefore, cannot be on behalf of the People.

    Allan

  4. Derek Reply 25. Jul, 2009 at 9:50 am

    As far as nullification, what if the Federal Supreme Court rules on something that the people feel is unconstituitonal?

  5. Allan Hampton Reply 25. Jul, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Derek,

    Forget about the Supreme Court (SC) because its decisions have no bearing at all on the People or the Constitution. For a fact though “Congress” uses SC decisions against the People.

    http://www.confederatestatesofamerica.org/index.html

    Check out that URL and let me know what you think?

    Allan – ahampton@suddenlink.net

  6. Allan Hampton Reply 25. Jul, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Derek,

    Forget about the Supreme Court (SC) because its decisions have no bearing at all on the People or the Constitution. For a fact though “Congress” uses SC decisions against the People.

    Allan