I knew that Gavin Newsom was a racist. He has been inactive against the racism on college campuses, their support of the Jew hating Hamas. He has promoted programs based on given some races more government aid, taking away taxes from those he will not allow to qualify.
Now we find he is using the economic theories of a South Carolina Senator from 1832, a slave owner, racist!
“Oh, the irony! California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the gel-haired darling of the left, has decided to play President Andrew Jackson’s foil in a modern-day Nullification Crisis. His lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs — filed with all the fanfare of a Hollywood premiere — smacks of South Carolina’s 1832 tantrum over federal tariffs. Back then, the Palmetto State tried to nullify federal law, claiming it could pick and choose which national policies applied.
Newsom, it seems, fancies himself a latter-day John C. Calhoun, strutting onto the national stage with a States’ Powers swagger. The only problem? He’s reading from a script debunked by history, law, and common sense.
Newsom is an ideological racist. This should be expected, the Democrat Party SUPPORTED slavery, created Jim Crow laws, it was Democrat President Woodrow Wilson that segregated the military. This is just a continuation of the racism theory of the Democrats.
South Carolina’s Play To Nullify Tariffs In 1832 Failed Spectacularly. Newsom’s Will Too
By: Chuck DeVore, The Federalist, 4/23/25 https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/23/south-carolinas-play-to-nullify-tariffs-in-1832-failed-spectacularly-newsoms-will-too/
Gavin Newsom is dusting off John C. Calhoun’s playbook from 1832, arguing his state can nullify federal law.
Chuck DeVore, The Federalist, 4/21/25 https://thefederalist.com/2025/04/23/south-carolinas-play-to-nullify-tariffs-in-1832-failed-spectacularly-newsoms-will-too/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=south-carolinas-play-to-nullify-tariffs-in-1832-failed-spectacularly-newsoms-will-too&utm_term=2025-04-23
Oh, the irony! California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the gel-haired darling of the left, has decided to play President Andrew Jackson’s foil in a modern-day Nullification Crisis. His lawsuit to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs — filed with all the fanfare of a Hollywood premiere — smacks of South Carolina’s 1832 tantrum over federal tariffs. Back then, the Palmetto State tried to nullify federal law, claiming it could pick and choose which national policies applied.
Newsom, it seems, fancies himself a latter-day John C. Calhoun, strutting onto the national stage with a States’ Powers swagger. The only problem? He’s reading from a script debunked by history, law, and common sense.
Let’s rewind to 1832. South Carolina, peeved over the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 — derisively called the “Tariff of Abominations” — declared them null and void within its borders. The state’s economy, tied to slave-driven cotton exports, chafed under duties that protected northern industry but raised costs for southern planters. Calhoun, then vice president, penned the intellectual case for nullification, arguing states could override federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. Andrew Jackson called this treasonous nonsense. He issued a Proclamation of Force, threatening troops, and Congress passed a compromise tariff to cool the feud. South Carolina backed down, but the episode laid bare a dangerous question: Can states defy federal authority rooted in the Constitution? Gavin Newsom, on a different day, would say that the Civil War answered that one with a resounding “no.”
Fast forward to 2025, and enter Newsom, California’s self-anointed guardian of the “resistance.” On April 16, Newsom announced a lawsuit to halt Trump’s tariffs, which slap a 10 percent baseline on imports and far steeper levies on goods from China. Trump justifies these under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law granting presidents broad authority in national emergencies.
Newsom, flanked by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, claims the tariffs are “unlawful” and will wreak “chaos” on California’s economy — think higher prices for almonds, wine, and Hollywood flicks as other nations hike their tariffs in response. Sound familiar? Like South Carolina, California is griping about federal policy hitting its economic interests. Like Calhoun, Newsom is betting on state power to thwart Washington. And like 1832, this is a clash over who gets to call the shots.
The parallels are uncanny, and the irony is thicker than a blanket of Sacramento Tule fog. Newsom, a Democrat who’s spent years preaching federal supremacy on everything from climate to immigration, now cloaks himself in the mantle of state sovereignty to dodge Trump’s trade agenda.
Let’s be clear: States don’t have rights; they have powers, delegated by the Constitution. Only people have rights, a truth the Founders etched into our framework. Newsom’s rhetoric, implying California can opt out of federal policy like some sovereign republic, misreads the Constitution as badly as Calhoun did. This is the same governor who has cheered federal overreach when it suits his progressive piety — think EPA mandates or Obamacare. Yet when Trump wields federal power to address trade deficits, Newsom cries foul, claiming California, the “world’s fifth-largest economy,” deserves special treatment. Newsom is dusting off Calhoun’s playbook, arguing his state can nullify federal law.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Newsom’s not just channeling South Carolina’s ghost. He’s auditioning for 2028. This lawsuit isn’t about protecting California’s farmers or tech bros; it’s about burnishing his anti-Trump credentials for a future presidential run. He’s been laying the groundwork for months, from begging foreign leaders to spare California from retaliatory tariffs to launching a tourism campaign to lure Canadians back to Napa Valley. Never mind that his own state is riddled with “rampant crime, homelessness, and unaffordability,” as a White House spokesperson pointed out. Newsom’s too busy playing global diplomat to fix the mess in his own backyard.
Here’s where the irony deepens. South Carolina’s nullification gambit failed because the Constitution vests Congress with the power to regulate commerce (Article I, Section 8). The Supreme Court has upheld this for centuries, from Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) to modern cases. Newsom’s lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues Trump’s use of IEEPA exceeds his authority. Good luck with that. Courts have historically given presidents wide latitude under emergency powers, and Trump’s trade war is hardly the first time IEEPA’s been invoked. Newsom’s legal Hail Mary is less about winning in court and more about rallying the coastal elites who cheer his every anti-Trump jab.
And let’s talk about the Logan Act, shall we? Newsom’s earlier stunt of cozying up to foreign governments to secure tariff exemptions for California skirts dangerously close to violating this 1799 law, which bars unauthorized citizens from meddling in U.S. foreign policy. If a conservative governor tried this, the media would scream “treason.” But Newsom gets a pass because, well, he’s the left’s poster boy. Imagine the headlines if Texas Gov. Greg Abbott negotiated trade deals with Mexico. The hypocrisy is staggering.
The Nullification Crisis of 1832 exposed the fragility of a Union in which states could cherry-pick federal laws. It took Jackson’s resolve and a compromise tariff to avert disaster. Today, Newsom’s tariff lawsuit risks reopening that wound, not because California will secede (don’t threaten us with a good time), but because it fuels a narrative of state defiance that undermines national unity. Trump’s tariffs may be bold, but they’re a federal prerogative, like it or not.
Newsom’s grandstanding, like South Carolina’s, is a losing bet. The Constitution hasn’t changed, and neither has the lesson: States don’t get to nullify federal law, no matter how much their governors crave the spotlight.
So, here’s to Gavin Newsom, California’s would-be Calhoun, tilting at windmills while his state’s problems fester. The Nullification Crisis ended with South Carolina eating crow. Newsom might want to study that history before his lawsuit crashes and burns.
Chuck DeVore is chief national initiatives officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a former California legislator, and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel. He’s the author of “The Crisis of the House Never United—A Novel of Early America.”
