Subverting the federal government was on the minds of state lawmakers Thursday in an hours-long civics lesson from far-right speakers.
As promised in the 2023 session of the Tennessee General Assembly, the idea of nullification was heard during a summer study session in Nashville. The idea is, basically, for Tennessee to be able to nullify rules from the federal government that it does not like.
(Read our cover story — “Who’s Got the Power?” — from March to get more details on Tennessee, state sovereignty, and nullification.)
Bills to outline a nullification process in Tennessee go back to at least to 1995. A similar resolution passed in 2021 but it was specific to Covid. It condemned the federal government for mandating vaccinations, restrictions, or requirements.
Another came last year when state Rep. Bud Hulsey (R-Kingsport) and state Sen. Janice Bowling (R-Tullahoma) filed the ”Restoring State Sovereignty Through Nullification Act.”
In it, the legislature could decide what federal rules they wanted to follow or not. Also, if a voter scraped together 2,000 signatures, they could submit a petition for a nullification to the Speaker of the Tennessee House.
The bill gained very little traction, if any at all. Neither bill even got enough support to place it on the calendar for a full committee hearing. The idea was slated for a summer study review in 2023. However, that study was interrupted with a special session on school safety, in the wake of the Covenant School shooting that left six dead.
But Bulsey and Bowling’s idea did finally get that summer study review, even if it was actually in the fall of 2024. True to form on these sessions, Thursday’s hearing yielded no votes or promise of any course of action. It was purely for review.
The session was not a town hall. State Sen. Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville), the committee chairman, said he knew the idea was “controversial” but did not allow members of the public to speak, or clap, or boo. That right to speak came only for the experts called upon by the legislature. Those selected for this duty Thursday were roundly (and soundly) conservative.
Jeff Cobble is an attorney and member of the conservative Federalist Society. Joe Worthington is the inaugural constitutional law scholar for the ultra-conservative John Birch Society. Mark Pulliam is an attorney and writer who, in an August blog post, prayed “… a single juror would vote for President Trump’s acquittal in the circus-like show trial …” in Manhattan.
The hours of their testimony ranged back to the Declaration of Independence, through the 1781 Articles of Confederation, and to 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was proposed. Lots of it dove deep into definitions of the words of the constitution, like “all,” for example.
“I’m going to take you like elementary school students through this so this is plain,” said Worthington in a detailed section of the Constitution to elected lawmakers. “We’re going to go through it phrase by phrase.”
As for the meat of the separation of powers (and therefore what power Tennessee really does have in nullification), Worthington presented his ideas wrapped like a click-bait-y YouTube video. “In an hour,” he began, “I can show you how the 14th Amendment is taught wrong.”
“State — capitalized — has a specific meaning,” he said. “It’s got to do with the sovereign. Nations today are nation states. They are sovereign.
“I’m suggesting to you something radical, something I did not learn in [constitutional] law. The states are sovereign over the federal government. Now, take that and chew on it. That’s what this bill’s about.”
Some spice in the meeting came late as state Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D-Nashville) began asking questions of the panel. He asked if the work of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) helping out now in East Tennessee was an example of what they were taking about.
Yes, Cobble said, “It’s usurpation, whether it’s used for good or bad,” adding that communities come together in times of tragedy, noting specifically that “the Amish, they build their own barns. They raise their owns houses.”
“You know, good things can happen without a government,” he said. “So, my answer is yes, FEMA is clearly unconstitutional.”
