The case for and against nullification

At a political event in Connecticut, participants were confronted by a demonstrator bearing a sign admonishing us all to “Read the Constitution!” One could hardly disagree. So I asked her whether she, herself, had actually read the document. She replied, “No, I haven’t, but people should.” Right on. Another demonstrator carried a sign calling for “Tort Reform Now!” No doubt we could use some reform, but what, I asked, is a “tort”? He didn’t know, but like he said, “Whatever it is, it needs reform.” Right again.When the man or woman in the street has not read the Constitution or thought much about abstruse subjects such as “torts,” the “general welfare,” rights and obligations of “persons,” the right “peaceably to assemble,” the nature of protected “free speech,” the requirement of “due process of law” or the meaning of “cruel and unusual punishment,” that’s one thing, and possibly forgivable. However, what are we to say when prominent, presumably educated politicians, financiers, special self-interest groups, self-styled patriots and even a couple of Supreme Court justices meet together to define our national “values,” while decrying promotion of the “general welfare,” the ills of “intrusive government,” “Obamacare” and labor unions all in the name of “freedom” under the Constitution?What are we to say when such prominent, privileged personalities, under the banner of American “exceptionalism,” deny the legal relevance and application of international treaties (against torture, for example) in these United (or Disunited) States?What are we to say when such “leaders” attempt to use the concept of “states’ rights” to nullify the application of federal laws, relying on Amendment Article X: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” How are we to interpret this?Not since the Civil War have we seen in this country such revivalism of the concept of “nullification,” the right of individual states to nullify federal law. And, according to some, if nullification doesn’t work, individual states have the “right of secession” from the Union. Didn’t we conclude a long war over this very issue nearly 150 years ago? Has there been some secessionist amendment to the Constitution since then?So, what’s the meaning of Article X, and what’s the legality of “nullification”? Where should we look for an answer? As that placard-carrying demonstrator put it, “Read the Constitution!” So let’s read Amendment Article VI, section 2, as follows:“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”That seems clear enough. Sharon resident Anthony Piel is a former director and general legal counsel of the World Health Organization.