Image: Testimony in support of the Restoring State Sovereignty Act during the January 22nd meeting of the Washington County Commission Image Credit: Washington County, Tennessee Government / YouTube
By Danielle Goodrich [Tennessee Stands / Tri-Cities Coalition] –
February 26th, the Washington County Commission met at the George P. Jaynes Justice Center in Jonesborough, TN. The commission meeting was more crowded than usual.
Some were there to support the last chance for the commission to hear a resolution supporting Representative Bud Hulsey’s nullification process. Others were there for a zoning issue surrounding a solar farm installation.
There is a grassroots movement across the state to support Representative Bud Hulsey and Senator Janice Bowling’s “Restoring State Sovereignty through Nullification Act.”
Conservative, Constitution-minded groups like Tennessee Stands, Tennessee Citizens for State Sovereignty, Tennessee Constitutional Grassroots Coalition, Johnson City Freedom and more have all been showing their support for this legislation.
The legislation establishes a process of nullification for the state of Tennessee. The bill was written by Constitutional attorney Jeff Cobble, who teaches Constitution classes across Northeast Tennessee.
Jeff Cobble gave a thorough presentation on the legislation to my freedom group here.
The legislation points to the Constitution binding the Federal government, and giving the Federal government limited authority over only 18 things, the 18 enumerated powers, listed in Article 1 Section 8. If the authority is not delegated within the enumerated powers then it defers to the 9th and 10th amendment, the states and the people.
The legislation states, “[A] law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” An act of congress repugnant to the Constitution of the United States cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803);”
Every argument against the legislation is addressed in the preface of the legislation as it details the history necessitating this tool.
“(20) As Thomas Jefferson explained in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798: “When- so-ever the [Federal] government assumes undelegated power, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” He added, “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the remedy. That every state has a natural right and duty in cases not within [the authority of the Constitution]… to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of powers by others within their own states boundaries.” The Constitution of the United States binds federal lawmakers by oath to support the Constitution, and when they fail to do so, the rightful remedy is for states to nullify their usurpations and to declare their acts void;”
A lot of freedom groups were formed during COVID as we saw a number of unconstitutional acts from the government. The people were told to close their businesses, yet funneled to Wal-mart, told we couldn’t move about freely as our phone movement was tracked, told to close churches while casinos remained open.
Branches of government, which were given specific limited authority, were acting outside of the separation of powers as the Executive branch and the Judicial branches created policy only the legislature was delegated to do. The Federal government stole the authority that was delegated only to the states.
A lot of this happened prior to COVID. The Federal CMS mandate looked to the unconstitutional precedent that had been set regarding healthcare workers. The Federal government was not delegated authority in the enumerated powers over healthcare. That is why Roe v. Wade was finally sent to the states pointing to the tenth amendment. However, SCOTUS allowed the unconstitutional CMS federal mandate of a liability-free product on the American people.
The nullification process would give the state recourse when the Federal government gets it wrong again. The state could say, “No, we are going to reject your unconstitutional law or mandate and we are going to protect our people”.
Johnson City Freedom and other conservatives, in an effort to help this important legislation get passed, looked to do as Sullivan County had done. They approached the Washington County Commission asking for a resolution to show the state that Washington County supports this Constitution protecting legislation.
Sullivan County voted unanimously to support the legislation with a resolution. What happened in Washington County, despite also being a Republican majority, was very different.
On January 22nd, twenty Johnson City Freedom members went to the Washington County Commission meeting in support of Representative Bud Hulsey’s Nullification legislation. (HB 2795/ SB2775)
Commission Chairman Greg Matherly tried to help get the resolution heard in committee in January. However, the committees said they were full and would not accept the resolution added to their agenda. Chairman Matherly put it on the agenda for the 1/22 full commission meeting for discussion under new business.
Commissioner Wheeler motioned to remove it from the agenda since it had not yet gone to committee. Commissioner Malone seconded the motion and the resolution was removed from the agenda and sent to the HEW (Health Education Welfare) committee. Commissioner Wheeler, likely in an attempt to appease those of us who came to speak, suggested those who signed up still be allowed to speak on the topic despite being the one who motioned to have it removed from the agenda.
Chairman Matherly allowed those who signed up to speak. You can watch the meeting with public comment beginning at 9 minutes on the Commission Youtube channel.
February 1st, the Washington County Commission HEW committee met to discuss supporting the nullification legislation with a county resolution.
The room was packed with mostly grassroots conservatives, but there were several Democrats attending.
The newspaper listed the vote as a 2-2-1 although there were only four commissioners voting. The committee is made up of five members, but one was absent.
Commissioner Carder and Commissioner Wexler voted to send the resolution to the full commission without a recommendation for the full commission to weigh in on the issue.
That was the pragmatic approach. To let the representatives of ALL the citizens discuss the matter.
Huffine whose profile says, “I hope to engage more citizens of Washington County in their local government by improving the flow of information between all offices and residents” decided to stop the flow of information and that it should not be heard or discussed further. He voted “No” to sending it to the full commission to be discussed.
At the committee meeting, five spoke against the resolution, and four spoke in favor of it. Huffine told a freedom attendee the reason he voted with the Democrats was that they had more who came and spoke. At the full commission,five spoke in support of the resolution, and it was suggested they limit comments at HEW because it was a packed agenda and that they had already spoken.
The majority of folks at the committee meeting were Republicans in favor of upholding the Constitution. If the excuse was voting in favor of the Majority and seeing that the split was Republicans for nullification and Democrats against it, that should have been obvious to vote with Republicans, as Republicans far outnumber Democrats in the county and in Huffine’s precinct.
In the last primary 7,602 voted for Governor Lee with 1,838 voting for Democrats. 7,659 voted for Rusty Crowe when 1,722 voted for Craig. Huffine’s argument of aligning his vote with the majority does not hold up. Plus in a Constitutional Republic it is the Constitution you are supposed to align with. Not the will of the majority. Because the majority can be wrong. As Democrats are wrong about the Constitution and nullification.
Sylvain Bruni, from socialist Portugal, the chair of the Washington County Democratic Party, had an interesting argument against nullification. He said it takes an “originalist” stance on the Constitution. Originalist would mean the founding fathers. In any interpretation of any document one should look to the intent and words of the authors. How else would he suggest it be interpreted?
Then Bruni discussed the harms of rejecting federal funding while neglecting to see the harms of accepting federal funding.
The Federal government has used funding to extend their authority outside of Article 1 Section 8. As we saw with Medicare dollars being used to force hospitals to comply with unconstitutional mandates. That is a danger to state and individual sovereignty as the Federal government is overreaching and infringing on the rights of Tennesseans. Conservatives recently pushed back against the state accepting medicare money to place in schools as they acknowledged it could come with the same strings and control.
The founding fathers had escaped a King, and they saw the issue of too much centralized power. They looked to decentralize authority by granting the states the authority over most decisions while limiting the Federal government.
If one state goes off the rails as California, New York, etc., then the people have other states that may closer align with their views as opposed to one federal power which may align with the goals of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao. As we know “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Consolidated centralized power is absolute power.
Another Democrat argued that allowing the state the process of nullification would leave the Constitution open to the wrongful interpretation of anyone. Clearly not seeing that’s the issue of not using an “originalist” intent.
Another Democrat argued that we should trust the Federal government and couldn’t believe that Tennessee was considering rejecting federal funding for education. Clearly she misunderstands the Constitution, as education isn’t in Section 8 either.
Ultimately, two commissioners, Republican Huffine and Democrat Jones decided for the whole commission that they didn’t need to discuss or deliberate this resolution.
On Monday, February 26th, Johnson City Freedom members and other conservatives came to the commission meeting for one last attempt to have the nullification resolution heard by the commission.
Commissioner Ben Carder motioned to have the resolution added to the agenda and Commissioner Marty Johnson seconded the motion.
Again Democrat Jodi Jones and Republican Commissioners Wheeler and Malone worked against having the resolution heard. At this point one has to ask why Republican Commissioners would work so hard with the Democrats to not have this resolution deliberated. The group was coined “The Tree Streets Caucus,” implying the alignment of the four (Jones, Wheeler, Malone, and Huffine) on issues is not rare.
Commissioner Wheeler said he read the bill and he is concerned that they aren’t dealing with any issue, only a concept. He argued it isn’t germane to the business of the county. He then argued that this would overrule the Supreme Court and he found it troublesome that there would be fines if a body continued to follow what the state had deemed unconstitutional.
All of Wheeler’s concerns are addressed in the preface of the bill.
As we saw with Roe v Wade and with the CMS mandate, sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong. They are actually not the highest law in the land. The Constitution and Federal laws that are allowed within the Constitution are the highest law in the land. If the law is unconstitutional, it should be void.
There were concerns expressed that all federal laws would be undone. That is not what the bill is permitting. It is a process for dealing with unconstitutional laws which are pretty easy to recognize if you understand that the Executive, Legislative, Judicial branch all have separate delegated authorities. The Federal government has delegated authorities. If the Federal government or those branches operate outside of their delegated authority and they create a law around an issue not delegated in Article 1 Section 8, it is unconstitutional.
Wheeler expressed concern that there might be penalties for a body that continues something that is unconstitutional. Perhaps he should have run as a Democrat because the Republican Party Platform reads, “We believe in the Constitution as our founding document.
We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant. We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations.”
Wheeler said, “if you are an elected official and the Federal government is telling you to do something and you don’t do it, you might end up before a judge.”
The Founding Fathers created the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution knowing that it would come with penalty. It was a sacrifice they were willing to make to pass on freedom. They were willing to sacrifice everything. And we have Republican Commissioners who won’t stand for the Constitution because they are concerned an elected official might have to go before a judge? Does he not understand the greater implications of allowing the Constitution to be ignored? Infringed upon?
During COVID Justice Sotomayer compared American Citizens to heavy machinery that “spew fire and metal” saying that our right not to mask our faces or inject our bodies with something didn’t matter, that we could and should be regulated as if we are property “for the greater good.”
How else would Wheeler suggest doing the job outlined in the Republican Platform to uphold the Constitution, if not to put “teeth” or add consequences for when it is not upheld?
Freddie Malone argued similarly to Wheeler. Malone has argued in the past that he thinks resolutions that send an opinion to the state are purely symbolic, implying they are useless and that this is not how government should work. That we should go directly to our state Representatives to have this concern heard. But how are the Constitution and issues of the Constitution not also a county issue?
Making a reference to the Rules of Procedure for the Washington County Commission, Malone went on to state that the commission is not to deliberate on state and federal political issues. That is a curious statement considering “politics” refers to the way that places and people are governed, and to the ways that governments make rules and laws to manage the populace. That is the job of the county commissioner, the job Malone ran to have, as the commission is the rule making body.
There is a way Democrats believe man should be governed, and there is a way Republicans believe man should be governed. That is the basis for how a commissioner would vote on issues, based on which system of governance they align with. Should the Federal government be limited or not? Should the Constitution be binding and inflexible or not? All of these things are written clearly in the Republican Party platform. In this instance, five Republicans – Tucker, Malone, Wexler, Wheeler, and Huffine – aligned with Democrat Jones and the other Democrats. That is a problem for Washington County.
In the end, the vote failed with a 6-6 tie and 3 absent. All of the commissioners, even Jodi Jones the Democrat, took an oath to uphold the Constitution. How else do you uphold the Constitution than by correcting those who seek to act outside of it?
I guess Commissioners Wheeler and Malone, who stated this issue wasn’t germane to county business, must have slept through COVID and the unconstitutionality that happened as a result which filtered down to the county. We have the largest healthcare monopoly in the country here, and healthcare workers were not protected from an unconstitutional federal mandate. Here. In our county. This seems pretty “germane” to the county, as it was county residents losing jobs, and the principle purpose of government at any level is to protect the God-given rights of its citizens.
When commissioners talk about incentives given to bring industry here, they care about jobs and think jobs are “germane” to county business. Just not when they are being lost to an unconstitutional federal mandate that they have the ability to help stop from happening again?
People were told to stay home. Here. In our county. Told to shutter their businesses. To not provide for their families. Rights infringed upon with consequence here in our county. If nullification had been in place, and the state had a process to nullify unconstitutional law and mandates, maybe that wouldn’t have affected our county and the people in it.
Please write and thank Commissioner Ben Carder and Commissioner Marty Johnson. Commissioner Marty Johnson expressed his displeasure that two commissioners, Huffine and Jones, got to decide for the whole commission not to hear the resolution. He thought that was wrong.
We would suggest a rule change that would not allow for the committee via a tie vote to keep the commission from hearing a resolution. Per the commission’s procedure rules, a resolution can proceed to the full commission even if the majority of a committee votes to recommend its rejection. Also, if a committee is unable to make a recommendation after two months, it shall be forwarded to the full commission without recommendation.
It was also eye opening that it took more commissioners at the full commission meeting to add a resolution to the agenda than it would have to pass the resolution. A simple majority of eight would have adopted the resolution if it was on the agenda. However, in this case, ten were required to suspend the commission rules to add it to the agenda.
We were told what happened was somewhat of an anomaly. An anomaly we think should be addressed with a rule change so it doesn’t happen again. What is currently listed on the rules as options for resolutions in committee is; “The committee considering the request shall assume one of the following positions: (1) Adoption recommended; (2) Rejection
recommended; (3) Submitted to the Board without recommendation; or
(4) The committee may report that it needs an additional month to develop its recommendation. If the committee is unable to make a recommendation at its next regular monthly meeting, the request shall be forwarded to the Board without recommendation.
Should the tie vote have resulted in it going to the Board without recommendation as there is no listed option for what happened? This gray area needs to be clarified moving forward. There is an argument that it should have been sent with no recommendation.
We recommend two rule change considerations 8F which says “Meetings of the Board are not an appropriate forum to make political statements regarding federal, state and other jurisdiction’s actions that do not directly affect county government.”
How can they uphold their oath to the Constitution if they use this clause not to discuss matters surrounding the Constitution?
And the committee considerations must instruct what to do with a tie vote. It seems most likely it should continue to the board without a recommendation.
Please contact and thank Commissioners Carder, Johnson, Davenport, Tomita, England and Matherly for voting to add the resolution to the agenda.
Please contact and express your concern to Commissioners Wheeler, Malone, Huffine, Wexler, Tucker, and Jones for voting for the commission not to hear it.
And please ask them for these rule changes.
Most importantly please write your legislators and express support of HB2795.
God Bless.
