State Nullification - Peacefully Restoring Our Constitutional Republic

I believe that the path to the restoration of our constitutional republic lies in the peaceful local grassroots gradual deprecation and eventual elimination of most official power and officials. I have been attempting to limit my arguments thus far to how we might individually act in our home towns to curb abuses of power. The ultimate goal of which is to reinvigorate our sense of civic duty and demonstrate the effectiveness of such a strategy to bring real change to our own public services, our streets and our front doors.

However, it is useful to understand how larger groups such as states can approach resisting federal tyranny by constitutionally sound means.

State Nullification: What Is It?

Here is a humorous video in which Tom Woods attempts to convey some of the basics to a zombie:

What is it?

State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

What’s the Argument for It?

Here’s an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union.  The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.  The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign.  The peoples of the states are the sovereigns.  It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government.  In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.  No other arrangement makes sense.  No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power.  In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.  James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.

Here is a more in-depth video:

reply to post by greencmp


Well said Greencmp. Many states are passing laws for just this problem. In WA state a law was passed almost immediately prohibiting support of the NDAA.

We may still get black-bagged by the feds but they're not going to have support from the state. It's the law here.

S&F

This is an encouraging idea. Assuming that the forces corrupting our politicians at the federal level aren't just as common at the state level, it ought to work. The nice thing about local politics is that the constituents have better uh "access" to their elected officials. More accountability.

reply to post by greencmp


Thanks, greencmp. This is one of my favorite topics—but, unfortunately, it's past my bedtime so I can't watch the videos right now. Will save it for tomorrow. S&F.

I did a thread recently on the Supremacy Clause, and it occurred to me at that time that a lot of people are absolutely blind and deaf to these two important and interrelated subjects. The brainwashing since the 14th Amendment has been so thorough and complete that people think that the federal government was born first and biggest, that it is the be-all and end-all, and that it owns and controls everything.

Well, let's keep drilling it into these hard heads. Maybe we'll eventually let some light in....

Bassago
reply to post by greencmp

 

Well said Greencmp. Many states are passing laws for just this problem. In WA state a law was passed almost immediately prohibiting support of the NDAA.

We may still get black-bagged by the feds but they're not going to have support from the state. It's the law here.

S&F

Any state legislatures that actively resist federal tyranny get my support though, I have to suspect that they are being highly selective in their outrage.

Bassago
Many states are passing laws for just this problem. In WA state a law was passed almost immediately prohibiting support of the NDAA.

This is the heart of the problem. A state says "we won't participate". So the federals go about their business as if nothing happened.

If the states offered any resistance, NorthCom and other federal forces would sweep in and subjugate the state by force or withhold highway funds or other funds. Force or blackmail is all the federals know. It's the main reason this gangster government has to be dissolved.

Passive resistance doesnt work when the tyrant you are resisting doesnt care if you live or die.

Does anyone really think it'll matter if say Kentucky resists and then gets invaded by the feds?

It'll be compartmentalized and spun in such a way that the rest of the nation will thank their lucky stars that the glorious fed came in and saved the poor people of Kentucky from an extremist legislature.

No, we're way past passive resistance. At this point it's either go along to get along or burn it all down.

Urantia1111
This is an encouraging idea. Assuming that the forces corrupting our politicians at the federal level aren't just as common at the state level, it ought to work. The nice thing about local politics is that the constituents have better uh "access" to their elected officials. More accountability.

Jesse Ventura says the federals (was it the CIA?) were placing their own people in vacant positions in state governments. That alone should tell you we aren't in Kansas anymore.

As far as accountability, the last time I wrote a my state representative, I got a thank-you letter for my interest in an entirely different subject. Do you think you or I could get away with that level of incompetence running a business like that?

This is no longer a republic. In truth, I don't know what this system has morphed into. Part mafia, part communist, part fascist, 100% authoritarian. Bad scene. It's gotta go.

Urantia1111
This is an encouraging idea. Assuming that the forces corrupting our politicians at the federal level aren't just as common at the state level, it ought to work. The nice thing about local politics is that the constituents have better uh "access" to their elected officials. More accountability.

Yes, I don't mean to suggest that any of this will be easy. We all have a stake in and a responsibility to defend our constitution and bill of rights.

The 'real' price of freedom is vigilance. Not spying on your neighbors recycling habits but, surveilling your local officials and their actions as they pertain to your freedom and liberty. Ultimately, we will be able to affect our state legislatures as we proceed from our local communities upward to the culpable representatives throughout our predominantly corrupt state governments.

Awwww what a cute idea!

Um, yeah...not going to work. If your state does not enforce or passes legislation against a Federal law, Washington will starve your state of funding for important things like roads and infrastructure.

This is how we have "speed limits", the Feds extort the states.

The problem is, nearly every state is dependent on federal funding to operate. I don't think many states could "go it alone". There have been threads on here about that, and I think Texas was one of the only ones.

Face it, we all allowed this stuff to happen by being lazy and letting corporations and dirty politics run rampant. We've passed the tipping point sadly.

Someone had to say it.

Ex_CT2
reply to post by greencmp

 

Thanks, greencmp. This is one of my favorite topics—but, unfortunately, it's past my bedtime so I can't watch the videos right now. Will save it for tomorrow. S&F.

I did a thread recently on the Supremacy Clause, and it occurred to me at that time that a lot of people are absolutely blind and deaf to these two important and interrelated subjects. The brainwashing since the 14th Amendment has been so thorough and complete that people think that the federal government was born first and biggest, that it is the be-all and end-all, and that it owns and controls everything.

Well, let's keep drilling it into these hard heads. Maybe we'll eventually let some light in....

It is astounding how uneducated those who claim to possess supposed 'educations' really are. If the circumstances weren't so dire, it would be comical.

All we can do is put forth the truth, there are many open minded and educable people here. Not every low information democrat/republican is a fool, most just inherit their politics from their family and friends without scrutiny. Think of how much effort it takes to have the knowledge and experience to discern dissemblance from legitimacy.

This is not a futile exercise, not every American is a zombie!

reply to post by greencmp

Here’s an extremely basic summary:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.

1. Wow, OK. In no particular order: The states were authors and ratifiers of the Constitution. They joined the Union, and gave up some of their sovereignty in exchange for things like a strong national defense against common enemies and regularized interstate trade and so on and so forth. The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document that takes precedence over the Constitution on the strength of the fact that it was written first. Our Constitution is the foundation of our government, and federal laws have been passed over time which do impinge upon your full freedom to do whatever you wish. You may not sell coc aine to children. Not even if you live in a state that thinks that's cool. You might not like this arrangement, and far be it from me to deprecate your feelings. But wishing will not make it so that states can pick and choose which federal laws they find Constitutional or not. There is an apparatus for states to fight federal law, and that apparatus is to fight the law in federal court. Or the people can lobby their congressmen to strike down laws they don't like or pass ones they do.

In short, this land is your land, this land is my land, the Constitution is not a salad bar.

2. Yes, the government doesn't have "sovereignty" over us. But, I mean, we're not sovereigns in the truest sense either, where we can take each other's property or do whatever anarchic thing we please. But broadly, sure. We're the ones with the rights, not the state or federal government.

3. I was really hoping to argue with someone about the famous Virginia Report of 1800. From wikipedia: "The arguments made in the Resolutions and the Report were later used frequently during the nullification crisis of 1832, when South Carolina declared federal tariffs to be unconstitutional and void within the state. Madison rejected the concept of nullification and the notion that his arguments supported such a practice."

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by michael22

I realize that your time is precious Madam Former Secretary so, I am going to take a wild guess and assume you didn't actually watch either of the videos.



(note for non-members, avatar is of Hillary Clinton) Well, not that exact picture but, you get the idea

reply to post by greencmp

I realize that your time is precious Madam Former Secretary but, I am going to take a wild guess and assume you didn't actually watch either of the videos.

If you wish to make an argument, then make it. And then I'll argue with or support your argument. I would no sooner ask you to go read eleven books before you engage me on my point. Sources are useful to document your due diligence. And if you've caught my interest I'll dive in, but they shouldn't be prerequisites to taking the course.

Since I read this, I watched half of the first video, and that gentleman is jumping from one preposterous distraction to another. You're doing better than him in your distillations. I'll advise you to hang on to the football and do your own running. I'll respond in kind.

juspassinthru

Bassago
Many states are passing laws for just this problem. In WA state a law was passed almost immediately prohibiting support of the NDAA.

This is the heart of the problem. A state says "we won't participate". So the federals go about their business as if nothing happened.

If the states offered any resistance, NorthCom and other federal forces would sweep in and subjugate the state by force or withhold highway funds or other funds. Force or blackmail is all the federals know. It's the main reason this gangster government has to be dissolved.

So far, there simply hasn't been much in the way of state nullification. I think it is unrealistic to expect that of the ilk that currently resides in state power.

We all know that the majority of our representatives, having found their way to power through the parties, are not so much representatives of us as they are of of the special interests within their donor group.

The real trick here will be to stay the course as we pare back the power within offices and trim the ranks of officeholders. The temptation to accept at their word the anticipated promises of responsible leadership from the remaining politicians must be dismissed.

The only assurance of bona fide leadership can be the minimization of potency.

michael22
reply to post by greencmp

 

1. Wow, OK. In no particular order: The states were authors and ratifiers of the Constitution. They joined the Union, and gave up some of their sovereignty in exchange for things like a strong national defense against common enemies and regularized interstate trade and so on and so forth. The Declaration of Independence is not a governing document that takes precedence over the Constitution on the strength of the fact that it was written first. Our Constitution is the foundation of our government, and federal laws have been passed over time which do impinge upon your full freedom to do whatever you wish. You may not sell coc aine to children. Not even if you live in a state that thinks that's cool. You might not like this arrangement, and far be it from me to deprecate your feelings. But wishing will not make it so that states can pick and choose which federal laws they find Constitutional or not. There is an apparatus for states to fight federal law, and that apparatus is to fight the law in federal court. Or the people can lobby their congressmen to strike down laws they don't like or pass ones they do.

In short, this land is your land, this land is my land, the Constitution is not a salad bar.

2. Yes, the government doesn't have "sovereignty" over us. But, I mean, we're not sovereigns in the truest sense either, where we can take each other's property or do whatever anarchic thing we please. But broadly, sure. We're the ones with the rights, not the state or federal government.

3. I was really hoping to argue with someone about the famous Virginia Report of 1800. From wikipedia: "The arguments made in the Resolutions and the Report were later used frequently during the nullification crisis of 1832, when South Carolina declared federal tariffs to be unconstitutional and void within the state. Madison rejected the concept of nullification and the notion that his arguments supported such a practice."

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 25-9-2013 by michael22 because: (no reason given)

Well, I suppose half of the junior video is as much as I could expect you to tolerate. It looks like you don't really want to discuss this topic but, would rather prefer to engage in disingenuous obfuscatory contrarian bloviating in the hopes that busy people will get tired and walk away.

A tactic that is distasteful and tiresome, your absurd rantings expose just how little you understand of any of this. I shall not dignify them by attempting to take you at your word at the risk of associating myself with the same level of ignorant gameplay.

If you had a point to make, I would say that you should make it. To pour intellectual bile on the table and demand that it be sorted while refusing even to consume the materials in question is insulting and disruptive.

I don't think it is unreasonable to call you out on this as it is likely a character flaw that deserves some attention.

I am happy to help.

All of this talk about the feds sending troops into a state is ridiculous. That would ensure they are met with a force they aren't capable of matching. Nothing wakes up a sleeping giant more than seeing his house set on fire.

Nullification IS the only peaceful means left for restoration of liberty.

Unfortunately there are few left in this country who realize the power the states truly wield. Once the funny money is shown for the mere paper that it is, that carrot is removed from the equation.

There are two types of people, those who wish to be left alone and those who won't leave them alone. Which one are you?

juspassinthru

Bassago
Many states are passing laws for just this problem. In WA state a law was passed almost immediately prohibiting support of the NDAA.

This is the heart of the problem. A state says "we won't participate". So the federals go about their business as if nothing happened.

If the states offered any resistance, NorthCom and other federal forces would sweep in and subjugate the state by force or withhold highway funds or other funds. Force or blackmail is all the federals know. It's the main reason this gangster government has to be dissolved.

We must always assume the worst when it comes to government power. This is why the uncoordinated and widespread evisceration of official powers and officials is so necessary. There simply will not be any opportunity to restrain such an austerity movement.

My only fear is that there will be very convincing assurances from the remaining officeholders of good behavior. However, it is critical that we understand that the only guarantee of solicitude is incapacity.

Here is a recent update to the topic of Nullification:

Neocons Wrong on Secession, Nullification and the Union

Published on Oct 6, 2013
Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman explain the two theories of the American Union -- the nationalist theory, in which secession and nullification are metaphysically impossible, and the compact theory, in which secession and nullification follow logically.

Nullification is fantasy. The States' Rights fight was lost in 1865.