Posted by Brad @ 9:36 am on March 17th 2010

John Hood Won’t Shut Up, Let’s See if he Puts Up

I’ve got nothing wrong with tax protesters, or civil disobedience. I was talking the other day about Michelle Bachmann in this context, who urged supporters to not comply with any Obamacare package, and Rojas made the excellent point:

If what Bachman is calling for is a refusal to purchase health care insurance, then I’d be inclined to see that as legitimate civil disobedience…provided, of course, that the protester in question took advantage of no medical services for which he/she was willing to pay individually.

Bachman probably ought to take the lead on these issues by refusing to pay taxes herself. The advocacy of civil disobedience is meaningless unless the advocate is also a practicioner.

I think, as did Thoreau, that it’s entirely reasonable for people to defy unjust laws and accept legal punishment in order to force change. However, if Bachman intends to get people thrown in jail in an effort to change the law, she needs to be the first one in and the last one out. Anything short of that is moral cowardice.

Well, now we have the Corner’s John Hood, making the same argument Bachman did, although with a catch.

Like so many other NRO readers, I’m feeling thankful right now that there are so many brilliant lawyers hanging around here to give us the straight story on the Democrats’ impending assault on the Constitution. As a non-lawyer, I took a different tack in my Carolina Journal column today: I offered to be a plaintiff. I have decided that I will not obey the dictates of any federal bureaucrat who tries to impose a tax or regulation on me by citing the authority of an Obamacare bill that fails to pass both houses of Congress as required by our Constitution.

To put it bluntly, then: I will not comply. If the government tries to make me comply, I’ll sue. And I’ll win.

Putting aside the whole “Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings” clause of the constitution (Article I Section 5), which would seem to make the constitutionality of this rather remarkably clear, and also putting aside Hood’s relative silence on the question of, say, wars being waged without meeting the explicit requirement of a declaration of war, or any other constitutional issue I’m sure he has no problem ignoring entirely, what strikes me about Hood’s declaration here is its nuance.

Again, I am all for civil disobedience. Except I have a distinct hunch that Hood does not actually mean he will civilly disobey. I think he just means he’s going to sue about it. My guess is he still pays taxes, and if legally ordered to do so under threat of fines or imprisonment, still complies.

Nevertheless, he has now gotten enough followers to set up a Facebook page with some 650 fans. And I’m not entirely sure he’s making that distinction clear.

It would seem to me that if you’re urging 650 people to “not comply”, you’d have some responsibility to specify precisely what you mean by that. Because it’ll be the height of moral cowardice if he starts leading people to being jailed or fined for not paying taxes or not complying with laws, while he himself just sits back and files go-nowhere briefs, Orly Taitz style, while whipping other people into actually putting their necks on the line. So I’m really interested to hear what exactly Hood’s plan is and what he is advocating for his followers.

How about it John?

posted in: Main

10 Comments »

  1. Well, he’s being pretty explicit. He will sue in order to invalidate the law. That’s not the same thing as civil disobedience.

    The Facebook page is, of course, a crazy quilt of tactical approaches and complaints, most of which have nothing to do with Hood’s specific legal objection or the tactic he explicitly endorses. Such is the nature of Facebook.

    Wasn’t John Hood a Confederate General of some kind? I find myself a bit curious as to whether the author of this piece actually, you know, exists.

    Comment by Rojas — 3/17/2010 @ 1:45 pm

  2. The Facebook Page is titled by Hood, “I Will Not Comply”. And Hood mentions a few times he’s pretty explicit about “I have decided that I will not obey the dictates of any federal bureaucrat who tries to impose a tax or regulation on me by citing the authority of an Obamacare bill that fails to pass both houses of Congress as required by our Constitution.” If he means “I will comply, but I will file suit”, he should say so. If he means “I will not comply and will instead face the legal consequences to set a test case in motion”, he should also make that clear. I wouldn’t care if it were just his own intentions (as I don’t really care what he does), but if he’s trying to Pied Piper others into following his example, and possibly starting an (admittedly small) movement, he should at least be clear about what actions, if any, he’s hoping these people will take.

    Comment by Brad — 3/17/2010 @ 1:55 pm

  3. If he means “I will comply, but I will file suit”, he should say so.

    He says, quite explicitly, that he will refuse to comply, and will sue rather than accept punishment. I’m not quite sure what more you want.

    Also, he exists. Two of him, in fact:

    Arguably one of the best brigade and division commanders in the Confederate States Army, Hood became increasingly ineffective as he was promoted to lead larger, independent commands late in the war, and his career was marred by his decisive defeats leading an army in the Atlanta Campaign and the Franklin-Nashville Campaign.

    Always best for a John Hood not to let his reach exceed his grasp. :)

    Comment by Rojas — 3/17/2010 @ 2:05 pm

  4. Pragmatically speaking, what we have here is a sort of nuclear-option response to the Slaughter Rule. If that particular tactic isn’t employed by the House Democrats, this whole argument goes away.

    Comment by Rojas — 3/17/2010 @ 2:11 pm

  5. And if the Republicans would allow a straight up-or-down vote on legislation, this particular tactic goes away.

    Comment by Brad — 3/17/2010 @ 2:39 pm

  6. On the House side, GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio announced today that Republicans plan to force a vote on a resolution requiring an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill. Even if the resolution fails, it will put Democrats on record in a way that can be used in 2010 election campaigns. “It shows you just how controversial this government takeover of healthcare has become that it takes a controversial maneuver just to vote on it,” he said in a statement.

    Source.

    Comment by Rojas — 3/17/2010 @ 2:43 pm

  7. That’s funny, because HAD their principle been an up-or-down vote on the Senate health care bill, Obamacare would have passed on Christmas (probably well before), reconciled, and be law now.

    It is RIDICULOUS to claim ANY moral high ground here for the GOP based on that resolution. It is akin to having the value of altruism, but only in cases where it directly benefits you. There has not been a SINGLE major piece of legislation where the Republicans WOULD ALLOW an up-or-down vote. Again, let us please call it for the plain fact of it.

    Comment by Brad — 3/17/2010 @ 4:00 pm

  8. ALSO ironically: my strong hunch is, had majority rules been the name of the game the whole way through, the GOP would never have had the time, the ridiculously drawn-out opportunity window, or the dozens of months of political sausage grinder that have moved public opinion towards it being as controversial as it is now. Roll back the clock and play that counter-factual from 2008, with straight up-or-down votes all the way through.

    Comment by Brad — 3/17/2010 @ 4:02 pm

  9. So, basically: An up-or-down vote on legislation is desirable, but an opportunity to lambast the Republican party is ESSENTIAL.

    Once again, I’m arguing about principles, and you’re arguing about political parties.

    Comment by Rojas — 3/17/2010 @ 4:18 pm

  10. Ha. Okay man.

    Comment by Brad — 3/17/2010 @ 4:21 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.