The LNC has two major proposals for action, namely
That the LNC endorse the initiatives to pass Defend the Guard legislation across the United States and recognize doing so as an official strategy and issue coalition of the Libertarian Party. (Watkins) 10 minutes
Move to make Project Decentralized Revolution the officially endorsed strategy of the Libertarian Party.
Watkins (10 minutes)
I will take these in reverse order.
Before a competent group adopted something as “the officially endorsed strategy”, it would reasonably be expected to have the proposed strategy distributed to board members well in advance, to have had repeated discussions of the plan and how it fits against Party Bylaws, to have invited member input, and to be prepared for serious discussion before a vote.
These events have not occurred. I have confirmed that the Project has not been distributed to LNC members. The time allotted for discussion — 10 minutes — is exceedingly short. The proposal that the LNC should endorse the strategy is ludicuous.
A Project of this name is in circulation to the Mises caucus. Included in that document is a part “Marijuana prohibition and gun control will be fought back by nullification of unconstitutional federal law.” For those who have forgotten, nullification is the claim that localities can cancel Federal Law so that the Federal Law in question no longer applies in their jurisdiction. That claim is false, seditious, and should not be part of any Libertarian Party position.
Defend the Guard: This is a Federal Law issue. If a state wants a formed military under the control of its Governor, a force that cannot be Federalized by the White House, it has but to constitute a State Defense Force and pay for it. (32 U.S.C. § 109) There is no need for such state legislation. The objective has been won.
Claims that a state can refuse to have its National Guard Federalized are contrary to Federal Law, which in the United States over-rides State Law. If you do not believe me, ask Governor Faubus. Claims to the contrary are alt-right nonsense.
I think there’s more to Defend the Guard than you’re giving credit for. Faubus had his National Guard federalized out from under him because it was an enumerated power – executing the laws of the Union. (Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 15.) Sending the National Guard to Iraq and Afghanistan had no constitutional basis. Exceeding constitutionally-granted powers is a significant reason we’re almost perpetually at war, sorry, invoking Authorizations for Use of Military Force. So DTG seems like a legitimate antiwar issue. Seems like it’s a clear minarchist position that militia can be used (and funded) to repel invasion. There’s a good write up at https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2022/10/04/defend-the-guard-a-powerful-check-on-unconstitutional-war-powers/
More ridiculous nonsense from LNC. The Defend The Guard nonsense is Confederate nonsense before it being Alt Right nonsense. And it underlines the fact that neither the Defend The Guard gang or any Alt Right gang dont know history(-right to the point George-about Governor Faubus)
Project Decentralized Revolution is a proper noun, a specific term, owned by the Mises Caucus. It’s already SEO optimized for the failed 2022-23 push by the Caucus to get Ls elected.
Is the LNC just going to claim possession of the branding of a separate organization? Is the name so very clever that it’s worth intermixing their future efforts with all the preexisting banter the MC threw up on the net to linger in perpetuity about their now failed 2023 election cycle strategy? Why would you want to confuse your prospective candidates trying to do basic research AND constantly prompt people to remember your history of failure?
And HAVE THEY BOTHERED TO READ THE STRATEGY? It acknowledges in the text the importance of other approaches like ballot access prioritization that state affiliates have historically focused on. Dictating a national strategic vision precludes that diversity of approaches (if people still respected the LNC and followed their lead). It’s meant to supplement existing tactics, not replace them!
I think all that needs to be considered to kill this idea is the MC’s public PDR statement (https://lpmisescaucus.com/libertarianism/project-decentralized-revolution-for-a-new-libertarian-party/). It uses the Pennsylvania 2022 election cycle, the early attempt at PDR made in the MC PAC’s backyard, to claim the idea’s validity. That’s a fair metric to use. Compare the ’22 and ’21 LPPA rate of success in getting Ls elected. In 2021, before MC control and the PDR, 173 Ls won office that year. In 2022, ZERO Mises endorsed candidates, benefiting from the PDR strategy, did. Is that the efficacy the LNC wants to see applied at a national level?
Also important: the MC write up on the PDR emphasizes that it’s viable because the LP has a large, dedicated, reasonably competent volunteer base, and the strategy plays to that strength.
Is that still a strength of the LP circa 2024?
One would have thought that the national convention which just happened would have been a nice place to discuss and vote on official positions of the party. But no-ooo…
Having live-blogged the entire National Convention, I would say that there was no available time. Changing the adjournment hours the first few days, and jettisoning some of the speakers, could have provided that time.
Pedantic much? Saying that there was “no time” to discuss such an important issue doesn’t excuse it.
Is “officially endorsed strategy” defined anywhere in the governing documents? If so, to what does it commit the affiliated parties and members?
Is it not rather presumptuous of the LNC to decide these sorts of things for the entire party? Should not there have been input from the national convention for such “strategies”?
The way nullification works in practice is that state or local authorities simply do not enforce federal law when there is a local or state law prohibiting that enforcement. So, for example, the local police in sanctuary cities do not enforce federal immigration law. Or in states which permit marijuana use, the local or state police do not enforce federal drug laws. The federal law still applies, and the federal government still has the ability to send its own law enforcement to do the job. But, as a practical matter, it isn’t enforced just because the federal government relies on state and local governments for manpower.
The only practical way the federal government can push the states to enforce most federal laws is to cut off funding. We saw that during the Trump administration, when he tried to cut off federal covid aid funds and police aid funds to sanctuary cities even though the law passed by Congress did not grant the President the authority to cut off funding for that reason. Every court except one blocked Trump, and it may have gone to the Supreme Court except Biden won the election, reversed Trump’s executive order, and the case was dropped.
The Supreme Court ruled in South Dakota v. Dole that the federal government could limit funds to influence state policy, but not to the point where it was coercive. That was the case involving the federal drinking age of 21 and federal highway funds going to states.
Well put. Let me guess… Another LNC meeting coming up shortly? Why do they even bother to have the farce of making members pay to go to a meeting when the decisions have already been made by the few who control everything?