On some more modern issues of concern, maybe we could take up some of these points in the comments to the recently-posted Napolitano article. I already left two comments there.

My use of the term 'Natural Law' is not intended to refer you to some fixed objective standard but is a term of art that indicates a concept much higher than its name would imply, ie, the law of nature. As you say, the law of nature is the law of the jungle. That's not what I was talking about since the term is 'Natural Law' and not the "law of the jungle."

Most societies have agreed on some fundamental rules. The fact that there are variations on some issues such as sharing the wealth or private property rights does not obliterate ALL areas of agreement such as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

"Natural law" is really the opposite of the law of the jungle in this context and I'll quit using that term since it is apparently too likely to be misinterpreted.

I suspect the term evolved from people such as I who didn't want to get into arguments about "God" and religion and were hoping to not have to write a treatise on the nature and origins of good vs. evil every time they wanted to refer to an aspiration of some "higher" philosophy than 'might makes right.'

The concept is that humans can aspire to a higher standard than 'might makes right' and that aspiration is evidenced in much of the Constitution. To the extent the Constitution is flawed, people of good will can try to rectify it by amendment.

As I said, they dropped the ball on the slavery issue and it was a BIG mistake.

"Nullification" is not "disobedience" if there is no duty to obey in the first place. The term 'nullification' refers to the concept that the 'law' in question was not valid ab initio and will thus not be followed. Again, I already tried to say that in my previous comment about soldiers and Lt. Calley, etc.

In the end, the pessimists of the world will always be able to forcefully argue that there is no hope for humanity to rise above the law of the jungle and we might as well all give up and kill ourselves and each other in anarchy.

I cling to the possibility (though not probability) that humanity has the ability to make progress toward peace and mutual prosperity, albeit slowly. The Constitution is, on balance, progress and I therefore support it on the whole as the best hope I can see for me and my kids at the moment.

Since I have kids, I also cling to the hope that they can benefit from my efforts to spread that ideal.

I am just saying that, properly, nullification is not just a Constitutional concept. In this case, it is clear that nullification was used to DEFEAT the Constitution.

So, in considering the concept of nullification, it is VERY clear that we don't just go back to the Constitution to question the process of nullification in order to support nullification or argue against it. Nullification is a FAR simpler concept. It is basically "disobedience." The answer, when you go down that road, has nothing to do with the Constitution, except to the extent people want to point TO the Constitution to justify their actions. But for each of those, there are many examples of nullification where people refuse to follow the rules, which have nothing to do with retreating to Constitutional principles.

We are having a new discussion about "Natural Law," for example. Now, in reality, there is no such recognition of any so-called "Natural Law" in our Constitution or in any statute or regulation anywhere. "Natural Law" is a fall back position for people who don't want to recognize written law. "Natural Law" is infinitely malleable; people can say it is whatever they want it to be. It is anarchy whitewashed. It means whatever people of common understanding want it to mean.

There is nothing wrong with that. The reality of a person's or group's concept of Natural Law is that if it varies from written law too greatly, then it boils down to "might makes right." That was what the Declaration of Independence was all about. If we had lost the rebellion, our founders would have been jailed and perhaps executed.

For example, it is not too absurd to realize that people might argue that "Natural Law" means there should be a greater sharing of our abundance among the People, rather than having vast proportions concentrated among a small cross-section of elites. Others may argue, as was the culture of Native Americans, that individual ownership of lands was against "Natural Law" and that lands were to be freely traveled and worked by whoever wanted to do so whenever they wanted to do so. This is not an outlandish concept, and it was actually in practice for millenia before the New World was discovered and settled by Europeans. As history has shown, the Native Americans' concept of Natural Law was not exactly the same as that of the new settlers.

Natural Law is beyond grasp, infinitely malleable and almost of no real use to law-abiding societies. It leads to the ultimate "Natural Law," which is "might makes right."

To me, it's like the Declaration of Independence where the authors laid out a careful case for their actions before acting.

This gives you at least some cover from the inevitable charges that you're just a bunch of gun-loving, green-toothed, illiterate, radicals who want to shoot the place up with your "assault" rifles.

Your analysis is initially persuasive from a purely legal perspective in an era when people were treated as property in the eyes of the law of many states.

To me, the main mistake the Founders made was in not dealing with slavery, then and there. They KNEW it was a huge issue and they kicked the can down the road by compromising.

I'm sure they felt they had to do that in order to get a document that had any chance of ratification but, the hypocrisy of writing that 'all men are created equal' while counting slaves as 3/5 of a person is hard to ignore. (It gives people like Obama the opening to treat the entire Constitution as if it were merely toilet paper and the Founders were racist scumbags.)

That compromise left a ticking time bomb that caused untold damage to the nation down the road. Even today, long after the war between the states, we all suffer from the effects of that compromise.

The lesson to me is that compromise of your basic principles for short-term results is not a wise solution. If you have to do that to get something done, then you're part of the problem.

This leaves the principled, uncompromising person with very little room to maneuver in a world filled with people who are only too eager to do whatever it takes to 'get ahead.' It's a very tough row to hoe and I can only speculate on what might have happened if the anti-slavery Founders had adhered to their ideals that all men are created equal.

That's why I admire someone like Gandhi who, as far as I can tell from my admittedly-biased public education, had the courage to refuse to compromise. Although his mortal life was terminated early, his ideals are immortal.

Some things you can compromise on, like where to eat dinner tonight. Some things you cannot compromise on, like who owns Chicken George. (Answer: Chicken George.)

People have a moral duty to refuse to obey grossly or obviously immoral laws or orders from TPTB. Even soldiers are expected to do it as Lt. Calley learned. The Nazis who were "just following orders" were guilty. If your CO orders you to murder a subdued prisoner, you're expected to refuse. I'm not saying it's easy or that I've demonstrated the 'sack' it takes, but it's no excuse to say "I was just following orders."

So, the principle of comity must give way in this case because the Fugitive Slave Acts were based on a gross violation of the natural rights of all men.

Whether it is the individual or a state, may the argument for just treatment be such that God Himself might approve.

Well done, Sir.

The Firearms Freedom Acts of Montana does essentially this. It makes a legislative declaration of fact that local incidents of firearms are beyond federal regulatory power under the Commerce clause.

This sort of thing needs to be expanded to EPA, OSHA, and ten thousand other criminal usurpations of the federal government.