by Thomas E. Woods
The commissars are out in force against me these days.
It started like this. Martha Dean, a candidate for attorney general in Connecticut, repeated her support for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws in a recent televised debate. She opened up my book Nullification and quoted from Jonathan Trumbull, the nineteenth-century Connecticut governor who declared: “Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task – it is their right – it becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government.”
Yes, that was a Connecticut governor. Connecticut, as you may recall from your studies of geography, is in the North.
I won’t leave you in suspense regarding the reaction of her opponent, George Jepsen. Nullification, he said, is an outdated concept that led to the Civil War and “has no place in our discussion today…. The U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbitrator with what is constitutional and not constitutional. It’s not for the states to decide.”
One benefit of being a commissar is that you need never debate truly important matters. These can simply be portrayed as “extreme,” “outdated,” and having “no place in our discussion.” That’s a lot easier than openly pleading ignorance.
Now Alan Pyke, a commissar-enforcer at the left-wing hypochondria site Media Matters, is giving Dean a hard time because she likes my work. Why, doesn’t she know what an “extremist” Woods is? (You are an extremist, by the way, if the enforcer can’t find a place for you on the spectrum that runs from Mitch McConnell to Hillary Clinton.) He then runs through the usual routine, digging up 15-year-old articles and shouting, “Eek! A mouse!” If he looked a little harder, he’d find that in the 1990s I’d even supported the Persian Gulf War and written an academic journal article (inAmerican Studies) somewhat skeptical of capitalism. Might have been easier to look at my writing from, oh, five days ago, but that wouldn’t be any fun!
Pyke’s arguments are the standard ones; it’s almost as if there’s some Mad Libs template for the arguments against nullification. Why, this violates the Supremacy Clause! Um, no, it doesn’t. Jefferson knew there was a Supremacy Clause, presumably. The Supremacy Clause nowhere says that unconstitutional laws are the supreme law of the land. Can you imagine anyone voting to ratify the Constitution if that clause had meant, “This Constitution, along with any old laws the federal government may pass, whether in line with this Constitution or not, shall be the supreme law of the land?”
Then we’re told Article III settles this, though again, Jefferson was likely aware of the existence of Article III. But the Court’s powers are judicial, not political. Article III deals with cases in law and equity, not matters of political contest. It was not until the mid-twentieth century, which is rather a long span of time after the ratification of the Constitution, that the Court began seriously claiming such a power to settle political disputes between the states and the federal government. The first time it had tried to do so wasn’t until 1890. Even Edward Livingston, the principal drafter of Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation, conceded half the argument: “In cases in which a law of the United States may infringe the constitutional right of a State, but which in its operation cannot be brought before the Supreme Court, under the terms of the jurisdiction expressly given to it over particular persons or matters, that court is not created the umpire between a State that may deem itself aggrieved and the General Government.”
Moreover, James Madison, who was also aware of Article III, explained in his Report of 1800 that there of course needed to be an additional remedy for the people when even the judicial branch had failed them. All three branches of the federal government were liable to encroach upon the rights of the people. Said Madison:
The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
Hmm, that sounds a little bit like “crazy” Tom Woods or Martha Dean. But that’s James Madison talking. That’s a real shame, Alan. Let me console you with some trombone.
(But didn’t Madison later claim he didn’t support nullification? That argument is dealt with on pp. 288–290 ofNullification.)
Since I wrote a whole book laying out the evidence against the claims Pyke is making, I’ll leave those matters to rest, though you can find more of my writing on this in my article archive.
Pyke would have us forget about – because he himself doesn’t know about – all the northern states that appealed to the Principles of ’98 (as the principles culminating in nullification came to be known); this is a crazy southern doctrine and nothing else. Pyke doesn’t even know (1) that northern states nullified the fugitive-slave laws, and (2) they even cited the wicked John C. Calhoun in doing so. Were they wrong to do so, Alan?
Like any commissar, Pyke greets an idea not vetted by the Washington Post or the New York Times with smears and denunciations. No attempt to understand why Thomas Jefferson would have promoted nullification, or to reply to (or even mention) any of the arguments he employed in its favor. Hilariously enough, no mention of Jefferson at all. An innocent oversight, no doubt.
But it is this that takes the cake. Pyke writes, “Dean may not be arguing for an economy based on slave labor” – see, Pyke can be magnanimous when he wants to be – “but she is arguing – vigorously – that the legal doctrine used by slave states to defend the practice (thus starting the Civil War) is a valid and useful ‘tool’ in our legal system.”
My friends, meet the winner of today’s Dumbest Guy in the World.
Alan, can you name for me an incident in which the South used nullification to defend slavery? Can you show me specifically how this use of nullification led to people suddenly killing each other?
Can’t find one?
That’s because your third-grade argument makes no sense. What would the South have had to nullify? All those antislavery laws on the books? Care to name one?
Now I suppose there is one way in which nullification led to the southern secession (which is not the same thing as saying it led to the war), but it will surprise Alan Pyke, who knows none of this. South Carolina’s ordinance of secession complains that the North is doing too much nullifying, and that the South is sick of it. In particular, the North was interfering with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Wisconsin Supreme Court got so uppity that it stood up to Alan Pyke’s heroes, the U.S. Supreme Court, and declared the Act unconstitutional (the Constitution’s fugitive-slave clause notwithstanding; I explain this in my book as well). So I suppose in that sense nullification may have helped provoke the southern secession, but I doubt that’s what Pyke meant by his remark.
Nullification was used throughout American history on behalf of free speech and free trade, and against unconstitutional searches and seizures, military conscription, and the fugitive slave acts. Pyke doesn’t mention this. No one ever does. We must stick to the narrative: the states are stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list.
Pyke does mention the use of nullification rhetoric during the civil rights movement, the implication being that Jeffersonian decentralism is forever discredited because states have behaved in ways most Americans find grotesque. They are states, after all, so we should not be shocked when their behavior offends us. But this is apples and oranges. This outcome was possible only at a time when blacks had difficulty exercising voting rights, a situation that no longer obtains. Things have changed since Birmingham 1963 in other ways as well. The demographic trends of the past three decades make that clear enough, as blacks have moved in substantial numbers to the South, the only section of the country where a majority of blacks polled say they are treated fairly. It is an injustice to the people of the South, as well as an exercise in emotional hypochondria, to believe the states are on the verge of restoring segregation if only given the chance. I mean, really.
By exactly the same reasoning, incidentally, any crime by any national government anywhere would immediately justify a world government. Anyone living under that world government who then favored decentralization would be solemnly lectured about all the awful things that had happened under such a system in the past.
Moreover, the argument is not that the federal government is bad but the state governments are infallible. The state governments are rotten, too (which is why we may as well put them to somegood use by employing them on behalf of resistance to the federal government). We are asking under what conditions liberty is more likely to flourish: with a multiplicity of competing jurisdictions, or one giant jurisdiction. There is a strong argument to be made that it was precisely the decentralization of power in Europe that made possible the development of liberty there.
This argument – why, an institutional structure was once put to objectionable purposes, so it may never be appealed to again – is never used against the institution of the state itself, particularly the megastates of the nationalistic twentieth century. I rather doubt Pyke would say, “Centralized governments gave us hundreds of millions of deaths, thanks to total war, genocide, and totalitarian revolutions. In the U.S. we can point to the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and a horrendously murderous military-industrial-congressional complex, among other enormities. Our federal government is so remote from the people that it has managed to rack up debts (included unfunded liabilities) well in excess of $100 trillion. In light of this record, what intellectual and moral pygmy would urge nationalism as the solution to our problems?”
What do I learn from this incident? What I’ve known already: the “progressive” Left always prefers a neoconservative to an antiwar libertarian. That’s Woods’ Law #2. They can overlook the support for war, the centralization of power (what “progressive” would disagree with that these days?), the encroachments on civil liberties. That’s all fine and dandy. But someone who opposes the initiation of violence against peaceful people? Get him!
So many so-called progressives, it turns out, are really just neocons with sandals. Political centralization, comic-book-style demonization of dissent – these people deserve each other.
I am under attack from these people because I wonder if 300 million people ruled from one city is the most humane way to live. Don’t I know I am not supposed to ask such a heretical question?
I predicted exactly what these people would say about me when my book Nullification came out. I nailed it to a T.
No one is allowed to adopt, much less advocate, an unapproved opinion, especially one directed at the heart of the regime, and anyone doing so can expect the heretic treatment. I will be portrayed as a sinister person who wants to bring back the Southern Confederacy, though why a libertarian would want to restore a regime that protected slavery and engaged in military conscription and monetary inflation is never explained. (But when Woods was in college [sixteen years ago], he…. Yes, that’s what they are actually going to pull.)
Here’s my actual background, since you won’t learn about it from them (an oversight, I’m sure). I’m pretty sure myPolitically Incorrect Guide to American History, which they haven’t read but are sure must be terrible, survives the two neoconservative attacks they cite against it. See my “Replies to Critics” on this page, and decide for yourself who has the better of the argument.
One of the two reviews they cite against the Politically Incorrect Guide comes from theClaremont Review of Books, as if this is the standard bearer of right-of-center thought. They think if Claremont doesn’t like me, I’m finished. Well, why would Claremont like me? Claremont awarded Donald Rumsfeld its 2007 Statesmanship Award. My version of history is probably going to be a teensy bit different from theirs. (Natch, they leave out that Claremont did like this book of mine on the economy. “Very convincing,” they said.)
The other person whose criticism is supposed to sting so badly is Cathy Young, who’s about as libertarian as George W. Bush. I dealt with her almost as an afterthought.
The progressives who are after me are the worst kind of all. If California decriminalizes marijuana, they will be the first to call for locking people up in government cages anyway. For how dare they resist their wise overlords in Washington! What’s that, comrade? “Question Authority,” you say? Wherever did you learn that? What are you, some kind of “neo-Confederate”?
These “progressives” favor centralized government, they insist, because it’s so good for minority groups. Oh, it’s super. How great the federal drug war has been for blacks!
Oh, and Pyke can’t believe I had the nerve to point out that Adolf Hitler was the biggest opponent of states’ rights in the twentieth century. He says it’s unfair to infer that progressives who believe in nationalism against local self-government are really pining for life under Nazi Germany. Now he reveals his true colors. No normal person would think that’s what I was saying. But as a professional smear artist, Pyke knows full well that that’s what he would be implying if he ever used a Hitler analogy against someone else. He assumes I’m playing the same game. Since I am a decent person, that is not what I am doing.
What I am trying to do is to get people to think. If decentralized power were a mere smokescreen for oppression, why have all the great tyrants, without fail, opposed it? Can nationalists of left and right – neocons with and without sandals – please answer this question?
Given Pyke’s arguments, there is no more fitting way to close than with my Interview with a Zombie. “Slaaaavery! Neeeeeo-Confederate! Braaaaains!”
Originally published at LewRockwell.com
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send him mail] holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Harvard and his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. He is the author of ten books, including the just-released Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, and the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Visit his website and blog, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his YouTube Channel.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Great article and very fun to read, as usual from Woods. The Big Government crowd has successfully conflated nullification with slavery. They've been very successful at that.
It seems likely to me that most of the people who use this argument KNOW that it's specious but they also know that slavery is an extremely emotional issue which can be used as a sledge hammer to crush any argument that is even remotely connected to it. Since it works, they use it. Who cares about truth and intellectual honesty any more?
The great news is that a lot of people are starting to finally see the truth: Letting pseudo-intellectuals who love Big Government have their way is killing America. In part, we can thank Obama for making that crystal clear and, in that sense (and only that sense), it's a great thing he was elected.
We'll get some idea how many people are waking up this November. I hope it's the beginning of the end for ALL the Statists (Republican and Democrat) and the beginning of the rise to power of those who understand that a Constitutional Republic only exists when you follow the Constitution upon which it is founded.
In my opinion, this statement by Woods says it all.
"Then we’re told Article III settles this… But the Court’s powers are judicial, not political. Article III deals with cases in law and equity, not matters of political contest."
Abel Upshur covered this in his book—"The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character."
In Chapter IX, he begins with this statement.
"We now come to a more particular and detailed examination of the question, 'Who is the final interpreter in constitutional controversies?'
Upshur came to the same conclusion as Woods—The federal courts have NO jurisdiction over political compacts or political questions. In these cases, the States are the final judge and nullification is the proper remedy.
Upshur's book can be read online at—
http://www.constitution.org/ups/upshur.htm
Agreed. Upshur makes SEVERAL arguments that support nullification as the proper remedy. The most obvious problem is the one he refers to repeatedly: The unfairness of a system that lets one of the parties to a dispute be the final arbiter of the dispute. This is simply patently unfair and unacceptable and it's why so many people resist the idea that US Supreme Court has the final word on the extent of its own power (or that of the other 2 branches).
The underlying key to Upshur's views is that the federal government was created as a compact among the several states and the federal government is NOT a party to the Constitution. If you don't get that point (or if you refuse to accept it as so many Big Government advocates are wont to do) then you will not see that the States are the powerful parties. Since the States merely represent the People, in the end, the People were intended to hold all the power.
Sadly, it hasn't worked out that way…
TDude-you wrote:
"The unfairness of a system that lets one of the parties to a dispute be the final arbiter of the dispute. This is simply patently unfair and unacceptable…"
The flip side of the coin is why should a State and its people be subject to a usurpation of power if the other parties to the compact fail or refuse to act?
In my view, since the States are only united within the sphere of power delegated to their federal government, each State, as a party to the compact, must have the absolute right to speak and act for itself when the federal government operates outside of its grant of power.
I believe the the ability of the States to act independently is a key component of our federal system of government. Without this power, the States are no longer free and independent political entities.
BG
I agree that States can act as they see fit but I can't help but point out that the actions of one State to the compact can adversely impact the other States.
One State may decide for itself that the federal government has operated outside its grant of power while another State may disagree. If the first State decides to nullify the federal action, this might adversely affect the second State that feels the federal action was proper. (In a typical contract, this might result in a claim for damages by one party against the other.)
For example, I can imagine Montana and California disagreeing about a lot of things. It's possible Montana would nullify some Congressional action that California believes was proper. This might result in Montana getting some kind of an advantage that California feels is improper. How does one resolve this dispute? If you go to the US Supreme Court, you get the federal government deciding whether the federal government abused its power. Montana will say that's not fair (I agree!) while California will gladly take those odds. It's an unworkable system because the dispute resolution process has no legitimacy.
That's why I've argued repeatedly that it would be far better if there were a dispute resolution system that ALL parties to the contract had agreed to at the beginning and that is as fair as possible. This was not done and I believe it was a mistake. (My idea was a Constitutional Review Board made up of members appointed by each State.)
So, while I agree that the States were intended to be free to act as they wish (with the few exceptions noted in the Constitution), there are some real practical problems if we don't have a fair dispute resolution process in these Questionable Constitutional Cases.
Tdude-how would your Constitutional Review Board work and what is your proposal to remove subjective and/or political interpretations of the actual sphere of power granted /delegated to the federal government?
In my opinion, this entire mess could be resolved with a Separation of Power Amendment (between the States and their Federal Government). It would make every federal law, court decision, administrative decision, executive order, etc., conform to the amendment. The existing ones would be frozen, repealed and nullified within a time frame so a transition could be made.
The amendment would simply return the powers to the States that they never surrendered or delegated to their federal government in the first place.
This would remove all doubt so nullification would not be necessary.
The big government clowns you mentioned believe our system of government is based on federal not State. We both know it is the opposite. The problem is explaining this principle to masses who have been brain washed by the political class and their minions.
This amendment would also make balanced budget amendments etc. unnecessary. The taxing and spending is out of control for the simple reason that the separation of power between the States and their federal government has been violated big time.
Just my silly opinion.
Here's some ideas for a CRB. I'm sure it could be improved upon:
CRB requires Constitutional Amendment – CRB consist of X member(s) from each State selected as each State deems appropriate for a staggered term of Y years. Population is NOT a factor so each state gets the same vote. States agree the CRB has power to review and reverse any decision of the US Supreme Court upon application from at least Z State Attorneys General. Sole question is whether the result of the USSC decision in question is consonant with original intent of US Constitution. If not, the USSC opinion is not binding on any entity except the parties to the underlying case. Case law and case precedent are NOT considered by the CRB since sole issue is whether the result of the decision in question is in keeping with the original intent of the US Constitution. CRB decisions are final and binding on all States but, of course, can be changed by amendment to the Constitution. Also, the amendment could clarify that the Union is voluntary and a State can secede at any time.
Just MY silly opinion…
TDude-
What would be your standard for original intent?
BG
It wouldn't be MY standard. The amendment would recite that original intent controls in order to stop, once and for all, the insane argument that the Constitution is a "Living Document' that changes over time.
Thus, a decision of the majority of the CRB would have to explain their reasoning and why their action comports with the original intent. The public can read it and decide if they agree. If not, they have recourse through whatever their State's selection process is and, of course, through the amendment process.
There is no perfect solution to these kinds of problems. I'm looking for a way to:
1) Allow the States more control over the federal system; and
2) Allow the States/people to be able to blow off steam when people feel they're being ignored; and
3) Move us back to the original ideas which means a MUCH MORE LIMITED federal government.
Hello, again, TD.
I enjoyed this article also. I have also thanked Obama for motivating so many to study the Constitution for themselves–myself included.
Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I want to believe our nation can still be saved and that maybe our current governmental crisis has grown so threatening that it motivates others to understand the way back to sanity. Those of us who are trying to do our part have our work cut out for us and must continue to educate others so that we can refute the false accusations made against us with accurate historical information. Glad I enjoy studying–still have a long way to go.
Hi, JM
Agreed! I also want to believe this can be resolved with calm, rational logic and the simplicity of 'common sense' (which seems to be very UNcommon today) and peaceful elections.
I read a recent news story that some candidate referred to the possibility of violence if the feds don't start to back off. I see this as a possibility, too. I'm sure he'll be ridiculed endlessly for that comment, but he's simply stating a fact.
I believe many people are VERY upset and have been holding it in check for years and years. Some of the unstable ones have even taken violent action. Lately, even relatively laid-back people are becoming outspoken about the direction of the country. The Tea Party has picked up some of this.
It feels to me as if we're nearer to a tipping point than any time in my life. Maybe I'm just getting old…
Woods wastes too much time with insulting his opponents and his history of abuses against him to make a rewasonable case for nullification in this article–indeed, he resorts to the naked assertions such as the Courts province is "judicial not political"- What does that mean? What then were the Marbury and McCullough rulings in the Marshall court–political, judicial or what? I realize that Woods is writing to and for the converts to the several ideas he supports about nullification, secession and the rest, and that this isn't the place to say, repeat Madison's viiews on what is needed to make clear what the law says(see 37th Federalist where he notes that it requires discussions, rulings and legislation to make the definitions of the words in the law), but he is getting further away from reasonable argument and more in tone with say, Tom Dilorenzo.
RB
You make some very good points!
FWIW, I agree that Woods spends too much time insulting and taking umbrage. I think it dulls his otherwise sharp points.
I also agree that the 'judicial vs. political' test is too ephemeral for much practical use and that's why I hammer on the 'unfairness' issue of the current system. As you say, Marbury couldn't have been more political.
Despite all that, because I agree with Woods' premise that nullification is one proper solution and because he has a flair for humor, I enjoy reading his articles or listening to him speak. I also appreciate that he's managed to move these issues toward the limelight of politics.
Also, I can imagine what it's like to be in his shoes and how he must eat, breathe, sleep and live this stuff every day. It would be easy to get lost in all that.
T.D.–Maybe you could help clarify the difference between judicial and political. I'm sure Woods' point is valid but it is a little fuzzy to me, too.
Hi, JM!
Courts use the euphemism "political question" when they want to dodge an issue that is too hot to handle. The rationalization (another word for 'lie') is that some issues do not present justiciable, legal controversies but, rather, present so-called "political" issues that are so far out of the realm of the judiciary that sound policy dictates the matter NOT be resolved by the court.
It's a subjective policy matter; it's NOT a rule. As a result, it's become a dodge the court uses to avoid deciding a case whenever it wants. It's B.S. Here's a good summary of it:
http://www.answers.com/topic/political-question
JM
In sum, with respect to federal judicial power under Art. 3 of the US Constitution, Woods makes the argument in this article that courts can only rule on 'judicial' matters and NOT on 'political' matters. He seems to feel that nullification (the determination by a State that an act of Congress is unconstitutional) is a 'political' question that cannot be settled by the federal courts.
While I like his work a lot and he has an excellent handle on the history and meaning of the Constitution, he is not a lawyer. I am a lawyer. FWIW, the argument that something is 'political' and therefore beyond the realm of courts is rubbish. That is not the problem with the federal courts deciding the extent of the federal government's power in the cases they hear.
Courts determine disputes between entities. If a matter has reached the courts in proper form and with appropriate jurisdiction, the court can and should decide that matter; that is their job! At that point, the parties to the dispute are legally bound and, if no appeals follow, it's over between them as a legal matter. (The doctrines of 'binding precedent' and "stare decisis" have extended the power of the judiciary FAR BEYOND what it should be.)
The problem with the federal courts deciding whether the federal government has violated the US Constitution is the more obvious problem that they have a conflict of interest. Woods has explained this by asking if it would be appropriate for his mother to resolve a dispute he is having with his neighbor. Of course, it's not fair, and a decision by Mrs. Woods in favor of Tommy will not be perceived as legitimate by either the losing neighbor or the other members of the community who witness this miscarriage of justice.
To me, it's now obvious the Founders should have designed a legitimate Constitutional Review process into the system so these questions could be resolved by a body that is at least intended to be impartial. What we have today is Mrs. Woods telling us that Tommy can do whatever he wants and many of us are getting sick of it!
As soon as Marbury was decided in 1803, it should have resulted in a Constitutional amendment. Marbury resulted in the US Supreme Court becoming the unelected rulers of America for life!
Thank you, again for sharing your expertise on the matter.
In that case, I would agree with your earlier assertion that "the judicial vs. political test is too ephemeral for much practical use."
In terms of justification for nullification, to me, the most powerful argument is the one that Bob Greenslade laid out a few days ago, and that is that the principals to the contract have sole jurisdiction to determine when the agent has violated the terms of the contract.
I know as an attorney, you see many legal conflicts with that scenario, nevertheless, it just seems ludicrous to allow the agent to call the shots. As you say, that's FWIW.
Hi, JM
You are most welcome!
For me, the problem with the principal/agent contract analogy is that it breaks down. In law, the principal doesn't get to unilaterally interpret the terms of the contract.
Under American contract law, in the event of a dispute between principal and agent, some neutral 3rd party will decide the matter. Often, it will be a court of competent jurisdiction although it could be binding arbitration or mediation, etc.
With the States as 'principal' and the feds as 'agent' and the Constitution as the 'contract', who or what is the NEUTRAL 3rd party? It simply doesn't exist and the 'contract' doesn't give us the answer.
As you say, it seems ludicrous to allow the mere agent to decide. I totally agree. But, to the agent, it would seem unfair to let the principal decide.
That's why I say the analogy breaks down.
Actually, the federal government was CREATED by the States pursuant to the Constitution. As a result, the States can DISSOLVE the federal government, as well.
I suspect that's why it seems so obvious to you that the States should be able to strike down federal laws as unconstitutional. That's how I see it.
Nullification flows logically from the fact that the States created the federal government and NOT the other way around. Since the States had the power to create the federal government, they logically have the power to dissolve the federal government.
If the States have the power to dissolve the federal government, then they have the power to do something less than that, such as nullification of specific acts of the federal government.
It's not perfect but it is logical. It also clearly shows that secession is logically valid, notwithstanding Lincoln's use of force against it. That's how nullification and secession often get lumped together.
I disagree with your conclusion that "Woods wastes too much time insulting his opponents and his history of abuses against him to make a reasonable case for nullification." His style of writing drips with rage channeled into satirical mocking of his critics as he tries to expose their ignorance on topics that he, through extensive knowledge of the subject matter, can dance circles around. You must be willing to do your own research before you criticize his assertions with regard to constitutional history–something, from the sound of your comments, you have not done. In fact, most of your commentary is poorly structured and nearly incomprehensible, especially the last sentence. Care to clarify?
Woods does insult his opponents somewhat but with merit.
Quote; "We must stick to the narrative: the states are stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list."
I would like to change the "Quote" a little to read " the Obama administration narrative:"
the states are stupid and backward, the federal government is a progressive force, and anyone skeptical of this version of events belongs on a watch list.
Does Arizona ring a bell?
Good article Mr Woods. I would say you have earned all of your degrees.
The McCullough ruling was political, not judicial. The Court had no standing to make a ruling that granted itself unconstitutional powers (in essence to be the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional law). Marshall was a Hamiltonian federalist who worked to enlarge the powers of the central government.
An essential point that I believe should be foremost in our minds (and conversations) is the unconstitutional and destructive powers of the Federal Reserve "System". All discussions of Constitutional Amendments are superfulous and seek only to repair the damage created by the Fed. Get rid of the Fed and the "legislation" associated with its "legal" theft powers and budgets will balance themselves, and States will operate the governments (their own and that which they created in Constitutional Compact) as the Founders (and we) intended. And there will still be plenty of hope and neverending problems for us all (one cannot legislate human nature: it is always and forever the sole province of God).
The most important thing Woods talks about is our need for decentralization. Its time for people to take a stand when it comes to the Feds. We are being railroaded for crying out loud! That so called "watch list" needs to be burned right in front of their eyes. Mr. Woods is just trying to open up the eyes of those who have been sleeping, myself included. I see the need for nullification here and now, and I believe States need to give the power back to the people. Our government is definitely a progressive force that needs to be stopped . Perhaps if the soul would lead the flesh instead of the flesh leading the soul we could accomplish great things and set our country free again! Good stuff Mr. Woods, thank you.
Hear, hear!!
Interesting discussion of constitutional review boards or some other Amendment "establishing" how the Power of interpreting the meaning of the constitution is to be employed. This matter, however, is addressed in Article V. The Power is explicitly granted to 3/4 of the states. There is no "breakdown" in the contract analogy. The parties to the contract are the states themselves; each agreeing to surrender certain sovereignty in the form of delegated Powers to establish a federal Agent. Three quarters of the Principles to the contract, the states, retain the ultimate Power to decide any and all questions which may arise. Is the federal Agent a party to the contract? No. Does the federal Agent have Power to decide disputes between states? Yes. Is it binding? No. Might there be collisions of delegated Powers and Reserved Powers, between the federal Agent and a state? Yes. Does the federal Agent have Power to decide the dispute? No.