The Huckabee Forum: Ron Paul Is an Embarrassment

Last night Mike Huckabee hosted a Republican presidential candidates forum on his Fox News show. The format was different than earlier debates; candidates were on the stage by themselves for about ten minutes or so answering questions posed by the Attorneys General of three states. It was interesting, but there were no earthshaking moments in my opinion. What did come through, however, is how much of an embarrassment Ron Paul actually is. Each candidate had the chance to make closing remarks and Paul used his to advocate for the return of the doctrine of "nullification". It was one of those Ron Paul moments when he talks about events from history and rambles on about how important they are. But let's be clear as to exactly what Paul was advocating.

Nullification is a doctrine that we the subject of great dispute prior to the Civil War. In short, the nullification provides that a state which believes that the federal government has done something beyond its powers can nullify or refuse to accept that federal act. Indeed, nullification has also been claimed as a justification for a state to strike down a federal law if the state does not like that law. The most well known use of nullification came in the early 1830's when South Carolina passed a low nullifying the federal tarriff laws in that state. Think about that: the South Carolina Legislature passed a law saying that the federal tax low regarding imports was not to be enforced in that state. President Jackson actually sought authorization to use military force in South Carolina before the crisis was resolved. Nullification was then used as a threat in the debate over free and slave territories that continued through the 1840's and 1850's which ended with the Civil War.

Secession of states from the Union was also based upon the same train of thought as nullification. That idea, however, died with the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War.

So there is Ron Paul on national television advocating for nullification. Will he next talk about bringing back slavery--it is mentioned in the Constitution. It is one thing to call for a strict interpretation of the Constitution. It is something else entirely to try to return the country to where it was 200 years ago. To me, Paul is an embarrassment.