by John Stacy
“I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.â€
– Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. August 28, 1963, in his “I Have a Dream†speech.
Nullification and interposition are a state government using the tenth amendment to reject federal laws within their state. Is nullification American? Martin Luther King, Jr. speaks of it as racism, but is it? The concepts of nullification and interposition have not been presented without a clear political bias since Dr. King’s speech. I wrote this article to discuss two elements of nullification.
I have been told by people there are two facts about nullification no one talks about. Number one is Andrew Jackson killed nullification. In 1828 did South Carolina get a better deal than what was proposed? Look at history with an objective eye, the Tariff of 1828 that caused Andrew Jackson to prepare to forcefully stop South Carolina was actually a success for South Carolina.Â
They received a reduced tariff as a result of their actions. Makes you wonder why more states do not stand up when tax rates go up to protect their citizens! The silence of the other states shows their willingness to pay the higher tariffs. Andrew Jackson did not stop nullification at all. He simply gave the federal government the idea that military force can be used to make a state cooperate.
The second thing that is told to me often is that nullification is not American. This is based on Dr. King’s speech which correctly speaks of Alabama using nullification as a tool of racism.  The truth is nothing in politics is more American than nullification. Was Alabama able to use nullification to keep the separate but equal schools? No! The reason is that no state stood up with them.Â
Just because something was used for a terrible cause does not mean that the tool is bad. Nullification was used by Massachusetts to reject the Fugitive Slave Law, and because many people agree with that move no one addresses it as a clear use of states’ rights. The opposition to states’ rights paints the picture this way – “because of some of the uses of nullification, using it and talking about it makes you racist.” That cannot be further from the truth.
Nullification is used by the states to assert their voice in national politics. The states, as representatives of the people living their, formed the federal government, so they deserve to be heard. If no other state stands up along side them, then the will of the federal government is to be done.Â
There is no place in America for the minority to rule the land, and no one state can detract from federal law if they stand alone. There is nothing about nullification that is racist, most of the time it has been used was to protect slaves, or to refuse to pay taxes.
I would argue that resistance to unjust laws and putting up a fight is the most American virtue we have. We take nothing laying down, and we never have. Collectively we are the most innovative, driven, and resilient people in the history of the world. The essence of nullification to resist intrusion into our lives is the most American virtue of all.Â
Resistance to the opposition screaming that nullification is evil is just as American as states’ rights advocates who are trying to check the ever-growing power and scope of the federal government.
The Declaration of Independence was a nullification document, stating that when a government no longer serves the needs of the people they must alter or abolish their government. This is clearly a rejection of British Rule, and the first American case of nullification. When the will of the people is ignored, nullification is a great tool to use, whether those people are right or wrong.Â
Let’s fast forward to modern day America and ask the question, what is American? Here is my answer: America is people that yearn for liberty. America is a country where we have a statue that says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.â€Â We have a pledge that states “and liberty and justice for all.â€Â
As long as we grow our government and use socialistic government systems to take care of our needy, we will not live up to the quotes on the Statue of Liberty, we will not live up to the Pledge of Allegiance. Restoring the land of the free and the home of the brave will require the rejection of federal mandates that take away our freedom.Â
In short, nullification by the states banding together to stand up to Washington D.C. is the only way to restore our great republic. So I ask you this question, is there anything more American than nullification?
originally posted at the Texas Tenth Amendment Center
John Stacy is the founder of the Alliance of Texans Against Government Controlled Healthcare.
No, it's the LAW! On a video the other day Judge Andrew Napolitano said that the Declaration of Independence was not just the document that separated us from Britain, but Congress actually passed it as a law.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
So the phrase, "it is their duty to throw off such Government" means we face legal consequences if we don't do our duty. Sounds a little like treason (by neglect) to me. Am I missing something here?
Well, as government is the one to enforce the laws of government – I think it is pretty unlikely that the government will put you in jail for not abolishing them!
But, the basics here are correct – Jefferson, though (and others) wanted us to try a middle ground before throwing the government off (as in the declaration – which was at least a century or more in the making)……this article here is that middle ground.
Your conclusion that we face legal consequences for not doing our duty is based upon the opinion that it is our duty to nullify laws we do not believe in. All of this is based upon opinions that vary depending on the person who opines. Beliefs vary. Obviously, the people who institute the laws believe they are in the right. The people affected by the laws may believe differently. Who is right? Laws and their nullifications are simply opinions, they are not truths.
Although I understand that the federal Senate has been unstable since it was established (corrections welcome), if state lawmakers had never ratified the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, then the federal Senate would probably be blocking HoR bills attempting to illegally interfere with citizens' lives, including protecting citizens from illegal federal taxes.
It other words, nullification probably wouldn't be a concern these days if state legislatures hadn't foolishly given up their voices in Congress by ratifying the anti-state sovereignty 17th Amendment.
While I agree that the 17th has been bad for liberty and federalism – the principles of nullification were brought up because of federal overreach well before the 17th was even thought of – over a century in advance. Which is enough for me to realize that nullification is essential with or without that amendment. Federal power will always try to grow without state-level resistance.
I basically agree. My one reservation is that most citizens evidently do not know the Constitution and its history any more than Nancy Pelosi knew what was in her healthcare bill. But if citizens were to take a little time to reconnect to the Constitution, they'd understand that the Oval Office is not a throne room and would probably have voted differently than they have been.
no doubt about it. Time for a great constitutional awakening, right?
Another way to look at nullification it is this. While I agree that nullification is indispensable, I regard it more as one of the last, pre-2nd A. resorts when other safeguards have failed. And we’re in a predicament now where other firewalls have failed and must put nullification on the table.
I am to tally believe in law. I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself.
micro sd card