While I respect the US Constitution greatly and admire the men who drafted it immensely, today, with 20/20 hindsight, it seems that the issue of deciding when an act of Congress is unconstitutional should have been specifically addressed and resolved. Leaving this determination to a branch of the feds is, as Tom Woods says, like asking my mother to resolve a dispute I'm having with my neighbor.

Under the US Constitution, as presently drafted, the only logical solution is nullification. Nullification has the potential for problems, of course, but it can occur quickly and can be adapted as events unfold. The current solution of relying on one branch of the federal government (whose members are appointed by another branch of the federal government) to tell the people and the states whether yet another branch of the federal government has overstepped its power is simply not acceptable. It's grossly unfair and is causing a great deal of discontent. Such a system lacks credibility and legitimacy.

I've previously proposed a Constitutional Review Board made up of state delegates but this would require an amendment to the US Constitution and that seems very unlikely. Tom Woods has proposed something similar.

While a constitutional convention is a tempting solution, given the people that would surely get involved today, I'm afraid it would devolve to a chaotic mess that might never produce an agreed upon document or, if it somehow did, we'd find we were actually worse off than we are now. The process for calling such a convention and the realities of it would almost certainly require years while I fear our country doesn't have that kind of time.

Sadly, we're left with few choices and no good ones. TPTB have proven they cannot be trusted. As a result, I have reluctantly come to support nullification.