Paul Stam’s view on nullification was documented in a previous article:
But I can’t work WITH you so long as you are advocating the nullification doctrine. I think that is an unconstitutional remedy for unconstitutional actions and, if taken seriously, would conflict with the oath of office that nc public officials take.
Rocco Piserchia from Founders’ Truth tried to interview Mr. Stam concerning this statement and his response is shown below:
While Mr. Stam would not clarify the reasons behind his remarks to Mr. Piserchia, his command to Mr. Barefoot to also not speak to him in a public venue could be construed to be slanderous. I tried to talk to Mr. Stam separately but he told me clearly that he would not talk to me since I was with “him” (Mr. Piserchia).
Nullification is our only course of action to remove national healthcare taxes on North Carolina citizens. I respect anyone who has opposing views, but I have no respect for anyone or any group which denies nullification without debate. Mr. Stam has no regard for our founding principles, legal precedent or as shown here, the people that he “represents”. While Mr. Stam will probably be the next Speaker of the House in the North Carolina General Assembly, the people and state of North Carolina will not be part of Mr. Stam’s personal agenda.
The 10th Amendment Center has put out an excellent piece on nullification:
Interestingly, opponents of nullification rarely, if ever, challenge James Madison and Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning head on.
Those who manage to get past the straw-man arguments centering around racism and the Civil War generally go straight to constitutional jurisprudence and Supreme Court rulings to make their case. But the principles of nullification articulated by Madison and Jefferson reject the authority of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, based on the fundamental nature of delegated powers, and opponents never directly challenge their reasoning. Anti-nullifiers simply march right along declaring the doctrine fatally flawed with statements like this one by the author of an article published by the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional Law.
The author of the article referenced from the North Carolina Institute for Constitutional law above was invited to debate her position at the Nullification Seminar in Raleigh on October 7th. The author Jeanette Doran <doran@ncicl.org> declined:
There is no lack of confidence [in my position]. I simply do not believe a debate is necessary. As NCICL’s paper makes clear, nullification efforts lack legitimacy.
Mr. Stam represents everything bad in the political system. How much more power does one person need? How much is your “fair share”? If Mr. Stam cannot clarify his positions, at what point do we understand that politicians like him are the reason our nation and state are in the position that we are facing.
David DeGerolamo
I said it before, tell your candidates who are running for the House that they must pledge NOT to vote for Skip SCAM for majority leader. It’s real simple, take away his power!! Why does not anyone start working on it and quit complaining, Use your energy to spread the word