by Chuck Baldwin
I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in NewsWithViews.com that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.
See the story here
The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to PolyMontana.com to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:
http://polymontana.com/legislators/freedom-bills/
Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First†bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:
Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear†in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)
For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.
I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!
This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.
And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.
I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!
*******
*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19
(c) Chuck Baldwin
I've been silently reading the articles on this site for a while now; this one is one of the most encouraging ones yet. It is good to see the trend towards liberty gain more momentum, and articles like this cause me to look to my own state, with an eye for what can be done here. Thank you.
It my opinion, Montana only needs one freedom bill because it would accomplish all the objects expressed in the article. That bill would simply re-establish the separation of power between the States and their federal government.
In the New York State Convention debating ratification of the proposed constitution in 1788, John Jay, who was one of the authors of the Federalist Essays and would later become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, expressed this principle as follows:
“What are the objects of our state legislatures? Innumerable things of small moment occupy their attention; matters of a private nature, which require much minute and local information. The objects of the general (federal) government are not of this nature. They comprehend the interests of the states in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign nations.”
As stated by Jay, the federal government was created to act for the individual States in foreign and federal affairs.
Bob Greenslade,
My man!
Do you folks realize that state nullification of federal laws is explicitly against the U.S. Constitution (Supremacy Clause)?
Don’t you think that’s an important detail for your cause?
Alexander Hamilton addressed the extent of this Clause in Federalist Essay No. 33:
"[I]t is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme law of the land… It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution…"
What part of restricted to laws passed pursuant to the Constitution do you not understand?
In the New York Ratifying Convention of 1788, Hamilton stated:
"I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this- that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government. The states, as well as individuals, are bound by these laws: but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding."
What part of no longer supreme or binding when Congress departs from its sphere of power do you not understand?
As stated by Hamilton, this Clause is limited in scope. In his words we see the principles of limited government and enumerated powers. If federal laws, in order to be supreme, must be passed pursuant to the Constitution, it follows that Congress has no power to pass any law unless that power is granted by the Constitution. Otherwise, this Clause would be meaningless.
The federal government only exists within the scope of its limited enumerated powers. When Congress enacts laws pursuant to the Constitution, those laws are supreme. If Congress enacts laws outside the scope of its delegated powers, those laws are null and void on their face because the federal government does not exist and has no power outside of its constitutionally granted powers.
The States, as the exclusive parties to the compact or contract known as the Constitution for the United States of America (see Article VII), have the absolute right and power to nullify any act outside of the Constitution.
ummmm…
No. You are totally misrepresenting the supremacy clause. Let me just quote Tom Woods who explains why you are incorrect very succinctly:
This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.
Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)
What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
As for your other assertions, such as, “If you support “nullification” then you oppose one of the most important elements in preserving and protecting American freedoms against the political whims of the few.”
Tom addresses those too. He wrote:
t is far more likely that states will be too timid to employ nullification. But the more significant point is this: if the various states should have different policies, so what? That is precisely what the United States was supposed to look like. As usual, alleged supporters of “diversity” are the ones who most insist on national uniformity. It says quite a bit about what people are learning in school that they are terrified at the prospect that their country might actually be organized the way Americans were originally assured it would be. Local self-government was what the American Revolution was fought over, yet we’re told this very principle, and the defense mechanisms necessary to preserve it, are unthinkable.
“Part of the reason the idea of nullification elicits such a visceral response from establishment opinion is that most people have unthinkingly absorbed the logic of the modern state, whereby a single, irresistible authority issuing infallible commands is the only way society can be organized. Most people do not subject their unstated assumptions to close scrutiny, particularly since the more deeply embedded the assumption, the less people are aware it exists. And it is this modern assumption, dating back to Thomas Hobbes, that – whether people realize it or not – lies at the root of nearly everyone’s political thought. Not only is this assumption false, but (as I discuss in the book) the modern state to which it gave rise has been the most irresponsible and even lethal institution in history, racking up debts and carrying out atrocities that the decentralized polities that preceded them could scarcely have imagined. Why it should be given the moral benefit of the doubt, to the point that all skeptics are to be viciously denounced, is unclear.”
Have you any other objections? They are probably addressed adequately here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/01/nu…
Bob and Derek,
Behind all this nonsense about "nullification" what you are actually suggesting is that the states should have the authority to declare a certain Federal law unconstitutional. Of course, the idea that we should allow anyone at the state government level decide what is and is not constitutional is preposterous.
We have a federal judiciary whose job it is to interpret law. We have a government based on laws and not on men, and the SCOTUS is the embodiment of the judicial review of cases that have bearing on the meaning of the verbiage in the Constitution.
Are you truly suggesting that you would want states to be able to subvert judicial review at the Federal level? Are you truly suggesting that we should just eliminate the SCOTUS and instead have judicial review take place at the state level? And who is to decide which state is right in a dispute between states or in the case when a state is suing the Federal government? What is your mechanism for those causes? The truth is, the U.S. Constitution lays out the judiciary and the power of the judiciary in the 3rd Article. Article 1 is Legislative, Article 2 is Executive, Article 3 is Judiciary.
Again, you can have the idea that states are entitled to judicial review of Federal law, but the final arbiter of Constitutionality is and has been the SCOTUS. And if you want to do away with the SCOTUS or render it moot in cases of Federal over-reach then you are fighting against the very concept of freedom and liberty as outlined in the Constitution. As such, in the Preamble:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice…"
ESTABLISH JUSTICE.
That is what the judiciary does. Sorry to say, but your opinions are not based in fact, with the exception of the fact that you are seeking to undermine the legal system of the United States of America that has provided Americans with liberty and justice for 200 years.
Why don't you stay on point?
You initiated this discussion with an assertion. You stated:
"Do you folks realize that state nullification of federal laws is explicitly against the U.S. Constitution (Supremacy Clause)?"
I cited some direct quotes that refute your reading of this Clause. Unless you can show that the quotes were false or this Clause means something totally different than what it actually says, your assertion crumbles into dust.
I ;have to highly queston your philosophy too, such as what do you mean by justice? It's supposed to mean judge according to the constititution not declare what is just, your understanding is at odds with the founders intentions(philosophy). I'm so sick of this retarded understanding.
Oh and one more thing, have you ever read John Locke, I don't think the founding fathers were influenced by the Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan'; unless of course you're an anti-american( haha "freedom" nonsense)
Good job Bob…I left a reply to the same effect on his blog w/the same Hamilton quote and an additional one from Federalist 33. I love using Hamilton's words against statists. Its so ironic.
Why is it people always forget "in pursuance" when they argue supremacy?
About an independent judiciary:
"""""It seems to me that a major reason the Constitution has kept the ship of state afloat is the existence of an independent judiciary as a co-equal branch of our federal government. It is easy today to see the need for an independent judiciary, with the authority to enforce the terms of a written constitution, but back in 1787, when the Founding Fathers were drafting our Constitution, it was an entirely novel concept. I believe that the creation of an independent constitutional court, with the authority to declare unconstitutional laws passed by the state or federal legislatures, is probably the most significant single contribution the United States has made to the art of government.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, one of the reasons he gave for the need to declare independence from Great Britain was that King George III "ha[d] made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries." The drafters of the Constitution addressed this in Article III of our Constitution, which confers upon the judiciary life-long tenure during good behavior, and contains a prohibition against diminution of compensation while in office. Article III judges can only be removed from office through the mechanism of impeachment.
…Without an independent Judiciary, the Constitution may not have survived to, as Chief Justice Taft said, "secur[e] the blessings of individual liberty to all the people of the United States under a government of law and order." And much of the credit is due to the foresight of the drafters of these Charters."""""
— Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s Rededication Remarks at the rededication of the National Archives (September 17, 2003)
So you would have us believe that supreme power vested in a judicial council is the path to freedom… your argument is sickening to any lover of freedom. Its the people and their duly elected state represenatives that will decide our freedom. We are sovereign not the courts.
just like the mullahs in Iran! very little difference there and how things run here in the u.s…..a handful of people – life-appointed in dresses – tell hundreds of millions how to live.
Like when the Supreme court had admonished all who had refused to participate in slavery, while congratulating those had, as if they were the true defenders of some positive right.
Haha good one.
If the Federal Judiciary, not to mention the Congress and Executive, adhered to its fiduciary responsibilities, there would be less debate. However, with decades of usurpation by the judiciary, there is not much public trust in their ability to protect against destruction of liberty left.