"If the federal government is allowed to hold a monopoly on determining the extent of its
own powers, we have no right to be surprised when it keeps discovering new ones."-Thomas Jefferson
"The states have to function as a restraint on the federal government – because if they don't, no one will."
Did you know that the sovereign states don't have to obey unconstitutional federal legislation forced upon them? ...or so says Thomas Jefferson.
Virginia, Florida, Utah, Idaho, and other states are fighting the federal healthcare law. Arizona is protecting its borders. Washington
State, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are fighting cap-and-trade legislation. Eight states are standing up for gun rights. Twenty-five states have effectively blocked the 2005 Real ID Act…
How? Through nullification.
When a state 'nullifies' a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or 'non-effective,' within the
boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.
Says Who?
Says Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished
Americans. His draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word "nullification" into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson's formulation
that "nullification…is the rightful remedy" when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers. In the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, James Madison said the states were "duty
bound to resist" when the federal government violated the Constitution.
But Jefferson didn't invent the idea. Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention
of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be "exonerated" should the federal government attempt to impose "any supplementary condition" upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a
power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Patrick Henry and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying
convention.
Tom Woods: "Nullification and State Resistance to Federal Tyranny" Pt. 1
LAW OF THE LAND
The
general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any
statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law, which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:"
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5
US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) "When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491."An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442 "The general rule is that an
unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its
enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2
nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions Jefferson and James Madison drafted Resolutions that were passed by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures respectively, whose principles can be
summarized by this statement from Jefferson's pen appearing in the Kentucky version:
"The principle and construction contended for that the general government is the exclusive judge of the
extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism – since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their
powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction, and that a NULLIFICATION by those
sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/07/20/judicial-supremacy-or-state-nullification/
INALIENABLE, [UNALIENABLE] OR NATURAL RIGHTS!
NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as life (from conception), LIBERTY and the
PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS e.g. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL,
SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes, which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they
may have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect
these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. * Further, our forefathers also
wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government
legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government
to keep within the Constitutional limits.
*Lysander Spooner wrote as follows:
"Government is established for the protection of the weak against the strong. This is the principal,
if not the sole motive for the establishment of all legitimate government. It is only the weaker party
that loses their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger party, in all
governments are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves.
Legislation is the work of the stronger party; and if, in addition to the sole power of legislation,
they have the sole power of determining what legislation shall be enforced, they have all power in
their hands, and the weaker party are the subjects of an absolute government. Unless the weaker
party have veto, they have no power whatever in the government . . . no liberties . . . The trial by
jury is the only institution that gives the weaker party any veto upon the power of the stronger.
Consequently it is the only institution that gives them any effective voice in the government, or any
guaranty against oppression.
The Right To Nullify This Government by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Posted 07/13/2010 ET
Every couple of years the same drearily predictable charade repeats itself. This time we're really going to limit government! Or so they tell us. We
on the Right then dutifully compose our letters to the editor, attend rallies, and vote for candidates without whom, we are breathlessly assured, we
shall all revert instantly to barbarism. And no matter who wins, the federal government grows and grows. The Right gets a bunch of pretty speeches, and the Left gets the victories.
The passive approach of crossing our fingers and hoping Washington will follow the Constitution has not worked. The only surprising thing about it is
that anyone could have expected it to work in the first place. It is long past time for those of us who want to confine the federal government to its
constitutional limits to try something different.
The time has come to revisit nullification, the quintessentially American mode of resistance against federal lawlessness that Thomas Jefferson urged as
an essential ingredient of our political system. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Jefferson insisted that the states needed a way to defend
themselves against unconstitutional exercises of power by the federal government. Jefferson's fear was that if the federal government had a monopoly
on defining the scope of its own powers, it would be constantly discovering new ones. Likewise, James Madison urged in the Virginia Resolutions of
1798 that the states were "duty bound to resist" when the federal government violated the Constitution. (The reader will not be surprised to learn that
Bill Clinton held no White House soiree in honor of the two hundredth anniversary of these documents in 1998.)
These principles were used for honorable purposes throughout antebellum American history. Virginia and Kentucky used them on behalf of free
speech. The New England states employed them against unconstitutional searches and seizures. Numerous northern states used them against fugitive
slave laws, provisions of which they considered unconstitutional notwithstanding the Constitution's fugitive-slave clause. More than six decades after
Jefferson penned the immortal words of the Kentucky Resolutions, the legislature of Wisconsin quoted them word for word in defense of its defiance of such laws.
Do American schoolchildren read about any of this? The question answers itself. They are about as likely to read that I, Tom Woods, am the king of England.
But all of a sudden, out of the clear blue, nullification is back. Fiscal conservatives and civil libertarians joined hands in 2005 to oppose the REAL ID
Act, which involved the centralization and standardization of identification procedures. They had no idea how successful they would be. Two dozen
states pledged to defy the law. Stung by this degree of resistance, the federal government gave up trying to enforce the Act.
Now, states are banding together to devise resistance measures against Obamacare, cap and trade, and a whole raft of constitutionally offensive
legislation. Several states have already instituted Firearms Freedom Acts, which pledge the state to prevent the enforcement of federal gun regulations
when the guns in question have never entered interstate commerce. (Color me skeptical that the recent Supreme Court decision means Americans' Second Amendment rights are safe forever.)
So far, most conservative radio and television hosts have shied away from the issue. That's a shame, to be sure, but it doesn't change much. The Tea
Party folks are going to nullify with or without them. Within six months these same media personalities will be huffing and puffing to catch up with what
has been going on right under their noses.
But you, dear reader, ought to get in on the ground floor. The Tenth Amendment Center, for example, is sponsoring a tour of America called Nullify
Now! (NullifyNow.com), which will bring these important ideas to major American cities and force them back into the American political discussion
where they belong. My new book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, gives you all the ammunition you need to
understand and defend nullification as an essential defense mechanism for a free people.
And my "Interview with a Zombie" YouTube video shows you how the mainstream media will handle the issue, and how we should respond.
The rebirth of nullification is not welcome news to everyone. MSNBC and the New York Times do not want us to say or do these things. They like
the situation just the way it is: we make lots of noise, and they rack up the victories. They are happy if we persist in the same failed and flawed
strategy that has gotten us exactly nowhere. I for one would prefer not to give them the satisfaction.
It's fine to hold conferences, write letters to the editor, and sign petitions. But at some point it becomes morally (and practically) necessary to do
more than just wring our hands about the behavior of the federal government. At some point we in our states must say: we are not going to do it.
Never did I suspect that the American people would grow angry and politically aware enough to put these great principles back on the table. Ideas I
once covered as a historian I am now discussing as a commentator on current events. This is the healthiest development in American politics I have
seen in my life. Everyone reading these words owes it to the cause of freedom to be a part of it. We have been played for fools long enough.
Editor's Note:
Take the time to explore this book. Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Mike P.
: Reclaim State Sovereignty through Key Nullification Legislation
Our Constitutional Republic is founded on a system of
checks and balances known as the "separation of powers." Rarely, however, are the states considered part of this essential principle.
Enter the "doctrine of nullification."
Nullification is based on the simple principle that the federal government cannot be the final arbiter of the extent and boundaries of its
own power. This includes all branches of the federal government. In the law this is known as a "conflict of interest."
Additionally, since the states created the federal
government the federal government was an agent of the states; not the other way around. Thus, Thomas Jefferson believed that, by extension, the states had a natural right to nullify (render as of
no effect) any laws they believed were unconstitutional.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 he wrote,
"co-States, recurring to their natural right...will concur in declaring
these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized
by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories."
Alexander Hamilton echoed this sentiment in Federalist #85 "We may safely rely on the disposition of
the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."
It is clear then that State Legislatures can stop the unconstitutional overreach of the
Obama administration through nullification. Here is a list of proposed nullification legislation to introduce in all 50 States.
1. Nullification of Socialized Health Care
2. Nullification of National Cap and Trade 3. Federal Enumerated Powers Requirement (Blanket Nullification)
4. Establishment of a Federal Tax Escrow Account
If imposed, socialized health care and cap and trade will crush our economy. These programs are both unconstitutional,
creating government powers beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If those programs are nullified, it will give the individual states a fighting chance to detach from a federal budget in
freefall and save the economies of the individual states.
Next, blanket nullification.
The Federal Government, particularly the House of Representatives, needs to abide by its own
rules. In particular, House Rule XIII 3(d) specifically states that:
"Each report of a committee on a public bill or public joint resolution shall contain the following: (1) A
statement citing the specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or resolution."
Needless to say, this rule is generally ignored. The
idea behind blanket nullification is that if the Congress does not specify the enumerated power it is using according to its own rules, or the power specified is not one of the enumerated powers
granted to Congress in the United States Constitution, then the "law" is automatically null and void
