by Steve Palmer, Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center
One thing I have noticed during my fifteen months working with the Tenth Amendment Center is that when people use the words, “nullification” and “interposition”, they don’t always seem to mean the same things. Even articles by people who agree about these concepts give subtle, contextual clues that we aren’t necessarily thinking of the same ideas when we use these words. On the surface, it’s simple. “Nullification” is when a state declares a law null, void and invalid.  ”Interposition” is when a state inserts itself between the federal government and the state’s citizens on behalf of the citizens. Surprisingly, though, when you think a little more carefully about it, things start getting muddled pretty quickly. For example, are “nullification” and “interposition” two words for the same thing? If not, do they overlap? Which branch of government does them?
Matt Spalding, with The Heritage Foundation gives us a great example of this confusion. In his article, rejecting the concept of nullification, he writes,
The important distinction between Madison’s idea of interposition and Calhoun’s theory of nullification should be kept clear and bright, and has practical application in today’s debates.
And
A different approach can be seen in the Firearm Freedom Acts passed in 8 states (proposed in 22 more) cleverly designed to challenge expansive federal claims of regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause. South Carolina is doing the same with the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act. These acts are aggressive state actions that challenge federal laws—but they are not nullification. Nor is it nullification when states refuse to participate in federal programs and mandates, such as the REAL ID Act. (emphasis added)
From these excerpts, it becomes clear that not only do Mr. Spalding and I disagree about the proper role for nullification in the states, but worse, we don’t even agree about what “nullification” means.  To me, when a state refuses to participate in a federal mandate, such as the REAL ID Act, that is just about as close as possible to the textbook meaning of “nullification” as you can get.
We’re never going to be able to agree about the proper role for nullification if we can’t even agree on what it means. Apparently, Mr. Spalding is on board with all these legislative examples he lists, but rejects some nebulous concept known as “Calhoun’s theory of nullification”. While it would also be useful to address some of the other points in Mr. Spalding’s article, that will have to wait for another day. The point of this article is simply to propose a way of organizing the concepts of nullification and interposition so that when we discuss them, we are at least thinking of the same ideas.
Proposing a Framework
To this end, I decided to try to draw a diagram to organize my own thoughs on these concepts. It turned out to be more difficult than I thought, but here is what I came up with (so far).
Describing the Diagram
In this diagram, nullification is a subset of interposition. That is, “nullification” is “interposition”, but “interposition” is not necessarily “nullification”. “Nullification” and “interposition” themselves are not seen as specific actions, but rather as categories into which actions fit. The various ovals in the diagram are color-coded to represent the “strength” of the measure and positioned within the lines to reflect the branch of state government which can execute them. The royal blue ovals represent forms of interposition which are not nullification. The turquoise ovals are passive forms of nullification where the state declares a federal action invalid, but doesn’t actively resist federal efforts at enforcement or implementation. The red ovals are the confrontational forms of nullification where the state says that a federal action is invalid and the state will prevent the federal government from enforcing or implementing its program.
It should be noted that all of these actions can, theoretically, be applied before or after a Supreme Court ruling. The position of the Tenth Amendment Center is that the state has the final authority to interpret the Constitution for itself.  Unfortunately, that opinion is not yet held by everyone.   Before a Supreme Court ruling, however, none of the actions in this diagram should be controversial.
Interposition
In this model, I included three forms of interposition: 1.) Resolutions by the state legislature, 2.) litigation by the state’s executive branch and 3.) nullification by one or more branches of the state government.
Examples of legislative resolutions include the Tenth Amendment Resolutions which have passed or are presently under consideration in many states. Another example is Pennsylvania’s 1811 Resolution Against the Bank. An example of interposition in the form of litigation by the executive branch comes to us in the form of the lawsuits by 28 states, including Pennsylvania, against the patient protection and affordable care act. I do not consider these state actions to be nullification because neither one effects the functioning of the federal law which it targets. Instead, both depend upon further action by another branch or level of government in order to restore the Constitution.  The “stay” and “injunction” by the judicial branch also come to mind as possible forms of interposition, but I couldn’t think of any specific examples off the top of my head, so I did not include them.
Nullification
And that brings us to nullification.  In this framework, “nullification” can be performed individually by any of the branches of state government or by multiple branches in conjunction.
Executive Branch
One form of nullification comes when the executive branch refuses, without prompting by the state legislature, to implement or enforce a federal program. Examples can be seen in the states of Florida and Alaska, both of whom have announced their refusal to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. Even the Supreme Court agrees that the executive branch of the state may refuse to enforce or implement a federal program, writing in the case of Mack/Printz v. USA,
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State’s officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivision, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
In other words, the federal government cannot require any state official to enforce or implement a federal program. End of discussion. Sheriff DeMeo took nullification into the “red zone” by actively preventing the federal bureau of land management from enforcing their program. It is interesting to note that Nye County, NV joined Sheriff DeMeo, interposing by passing a resolution. While this article focuses on nullification and interposition by the state, it happens at other levels too.
Judicial Branch
A state’s judicial branch can nullify a federal law by simply declaring it unconstitutional. This was done, for example, in the instance of Joshua Glover, when the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Federal Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional.
Legislative Branch and Collaboration
When the legislative branch passes a law which is in conflict with a federal law, that branch of government is acting to nullify the federal law. There are numerous examples of this form of nullification, including state medical marijuana laws, Real ID non-compliance measures and firearm freedom acts. Legislative measures of this sort are more effective when they are also supported by the actions of the executive branch and the decisions of the courts. As we see in California, where LAPD and LA County Sheriff department members joined federal officials on a recent raid of a medical marijuana dispensary, the other branches of state government do not always collaborate.
Pennsylvania’s Personal Freedom Law, which made it kidnapping when a bounty hunter attempted to return an escaped slave to his state of origin, was an example of a legislative measure which had escalated into the red zone of our diagram. Proposed TSA limiting laws in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Texas which consider unconstitutional “strip searches” and “aggressive pat downs” to be assault are modern examples.
Conclusion
While it may not be important that everyone adopts this particular framework when talking about nullification and interposition, it is tremendously important that we know what framework is being used when we talk to each other about these concepts. When confronted with someone who opposes the concepts of nullification and interposition, before arguing about the validity and proper uses for nullification, perhaps the starting point should be to seek common ground on the definitions of the words. It may turn out that by agreeing on what the words mean, we may find that we have more in common than we knew. Also, organizing the instances of nullification and interposition using a framework like this may illuminate some tactical understandings that aren’t as easily discerned through verbal descriptions.
Steve Palmer [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center.
Nice Job!! It is a start in laying the ground work for the HUGE job ahead of us in trying to get people thinking in terms that they have never heard of much less thought of. THANKS!
Nice job my butt. What is in a word? Seems to me the meanings of the words Nullification and Interposition are not important here. It seems more like a personal argument than a real concern over meanings. Nullification or Interposition…it makes no difference what two men call what or how they understand the meaning. What makes the difference is whether or not we can get entire state to stand behind refusing to abide by laws that are not in the interest of the masses or that try to take away the rights of American citizens…like gun laws for example. We simply cannot comply with gun control. It was not what our forefathers wanted us to do. In fact, they said it was our duty as citizens to rebel against such attempts to take away our liberty.
To Mr. Chervase — In the vernacular, I would say that Interposition could amount to whining, posturing, arguing, or even fishing for compromise — flapping in the middle but not crossing the line. Nullification amounts to cleanly decking the aggressor and leaving to do your own thing in your own way. There is a definite difference. Yes, waking up the comatose public is a problem. Discussion during formation of a resolution at least offers a way for legislators to let constituents know which way the wind is blowing and also give them solid facts on the matter. Results of a vote on a resolution tip off he legislature as to probable backing for nullification. All useful. However, passage of a resolution may mean little. I am sure there are legislators who would never vote for nullification but would happily vote for a sabre rattling resolution in hopes that its true supporters would expect it to have an effect and shut up. The public had better learn the difference between interposition and nullification…and stop being afraid of nullification. (P.S.: An brief comment I made earlier was intended for Dennis Bamford — sorry.)
AMEN!!
My earlier reply "AMEN!!" was intended for you…landed in the wrong spot.
Can we just nullify Obammie? He is wreaking so much havoc, he obviously wants to destroy America with George Soros. So much association, so much evidence, why can't those with power nullify him on obvious grounds? If I knew I had only a short time to live, I'd be more than a wishful thinker…
This is something that is sorely needed and way overdue. It seems incredible that something that is such an important part of the Constitution is not more clearly defined. Perhaps the founding fathers never imagined having to explain their intentions to a dumbed down populace.
Why complicate things , to nullify is to totally ignore , enmass , From trial juries to legislation to executive orders to supreme court activism , anything not supported by the powers granted in the United States Constitution to any specified assembly .
Obviously you haven't read or studied the Constitution : example ; what is your problem with jury trials ? They are one of your God given fights and one of the 10 Amendments . Do you suppose plea bargaining is a better deal ? Or should I say ' do not pass go , pay fine or go straight to jail ' ; waving your rights ?
Maybe I'm not as smart as most people on this issue but nullification seems pretty straight forward to me. A state or the people, by an act or declaration, reclaim their 10th Amendment rights by stating they will not comply with any act of Congress that is not in compliance with any of the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.
Well said
Everyone is so busy focusing their anger on obama that they are missing the larger picture of what is really destroying our republic. Obama is merely a tool of the global banking elite who seek to ruin our economy and completely devalue our currency in order to put us in a position to accept the “salvation” of a one world currency and government. This thing is much bigger than democrat or republican. Theyve got us fighting these relatively petty battles amongst ourselves when we should be exposing the true criminals and taking the fight to them.
Yes, the big picture is George Soros's New World Order.
Steve, a great article! We must rememder that the Heretage Foundation is staffed mainly by ex polititians and their staff members. Although they are a Conservative Think Tank they are part of the "Washington Establishment" and do not necessarily go along with reducing the power of the Federal Government. Anyone who has been in Washington for very long has to be looked at as a "posible" enemy. I am pleased that you brought up the Mack/Printz vs USA decision. This confirms the sovereignty of the states. Many have either forgotten or, like the Feds, ignored this ruling. Your diagram is a great start. Thanks for your work on behalf of the American People. Ed Kilgour
LCS
From just this reading and your diagram, it seems to me interposition would imply any simple action that places you or your state positioned between (inter- Latin for between) or opposed to the federal law. To be positioned between the state or individual and the federal law ( power). That could be discussions, newspaper articles, tv appearances, protests, spoken disagreements,-proposed changes to the law. no real legal action.
Nullification would require some specific legal action by a branch of the state government. Declaring the law unconstitutional, refusing to enforce it, passing a law to declare it null and void. The constitution declares the states to be sovereign entities.. They do not have to enforce federal laws. This might require a Supreme Court decision. Although in my mind the Supreme Court is not the final authority.
The people are as the constitution says : "We, the people,… do ordain and establish this constitution".
It would seem that interposition could lead to an act of nullification.
Dan's got it right, I think. Steve made the mistake of picking up Spalding's Neocon tar baby. KISS – keep it simple, stupid. Heritage Foundation with its fascist theocracy underpinnings, has as its arena a powerful central government with its privately owned central bank. Draining the power swamp of DC and restoring State Rights and Sovereignty will destroy HF and other "think tanks", so of course those like Spalding will try to confuse the issues and semantics is a prime tool. WE in the Nullification Movement get to say what Nullification is – not those who oppose it.
IF my following missive is salient to your 10th Amendment discussion please advise and give honor and credit where honor and credit are due. Thank you.
Since the smallest Political Subdivision of any State in our American Union is the County and since the County Sheriff is the only elected Law Enforcement Officer in each State who I might add has taken the Oath before Almighty God and his fellow Countrymen to support and defend our Constitution and Bill of Rights (and State Constitution) against all enemies foreign and domestic, I think it would be unwise to omit the Constitutional role of our County Sheriff in the protecting of our God-given unalienable Rights as acknowledged, secured and guaranteed by our July 4, 1776 Unanimous Declaration of Independence.
A careful reading of that July 4th Organic Document reveals the precepts upon which our American Constitution and Bill of Rights were established. In fact, every point of our American Constitution and Bill of Rights can found in that great Charter of Independence.
That being said, I believe it is requisite to first understand and acknowledge that the County Sheriff in his role as the Supreme Authority in his County, against usurpation by the federal government or State government in his County, is necessary to a complete Constitutional defense founded upon the 9th and 10th Articles to our Bill of Rights.
The County Sheriff's unique position to insert himself between the Citizens of his County and federal and State usurpation is undeniable and self-evident.
The County Sheriff, not only the State, is the last line of defense against an otherwise unconstitutional and unlawful intrusion into his County by federal or State agents/agencies, officers/officers, etc.
The County Sheriff is also empowered to call up the 2nd Amendment Militia (all able-bodied men) in his jurisdiction to protect the Rights of the Citizens / People of his County.
In times of exigency and extremity, this, of course, is the very essence of individual self-government under God to defend those Rights and Responsibilities which Heaven gave and no man ought to take from us.
In conclusion as a practical application of the aforesaid:
I believe that if the County Sheriff and all able-bodied men (Militia) of his County understood this practical nature of self-government under Almighty God in pursuance of our Unanimous Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Constitution of every State in the United States of America, that the Federal Reserve Bank Corporation (FED) and IRS (bill collector for the FED) would be driven out of every County in which it is swarming over our Land, because the FED and IRS impose upon us obligations of an unlawful and unconstitutional credit / revenue contract of impossible performance (perpetual federal Public Policy of Public Debt and Limited Liability for Payment of Debt) underwritten by the FED (as authorized by the Federal Reserve Act as amended) which usurped Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 5 and Article I, Sec. 10, United States Constitution as fulfilled by the first Coinage Act of April 2, 1792 and Amendment V. This multi-trillion USD monetary public debt created and drastically expanded under the Bernank's QE1 and QE2 by the FED's peonage fiat monetary system has now enslaved ourselves and our posterity to God-knows how many generations and imminently threatens to destroy our Unalienable Rights, Liberties, Freedoms and our Constitutional Republic.
This FED policy is contrary to the Original Intent of our American Founding Fathers' and the Organic Documents establishing our American Republic and subjects us and our posterity to the jurisdiction of various admiralty, maritime, mercantile and / or international credit / revenue codes, laws and regulations, said jurisdiction being foreign to our Unanimous Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Constitution of every State in the United States of America. Under Almighty God our Creator and in accord with our Unanimous Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Constitution of every State in the United States of America, we the People owe the FED nothing and have Standing to demand Specie (gold and silver coin) as said FED monetary policy was imposed upon us and our posterity by way of fraud, deceit and misrepresentation.
I also believe that if the County Sheriff and all able-bodied men (Militia) of his County understood this practical nature of self-government under Almighty God in pursuance of our Unanimous Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and Bill of Rights and the Constitution of every State in the United States of America that the TSA would also be driven out of every County in which it is found swarming over our Land because it is in violation of our Rights secured by our 4th Amendment's protections and guarantees.
Are my comments salient to your 10th Amendment discussion Steve Palmer?
Respectfully and Sincerely,
Thank you very, very much, kebozarth ! You have really done your homework and are a serious and articulate writer. I applaud you. I wish you would use your knowledge and writing skills to create a pamphlet in language that would be easy for county sheriff's to read and understand. If a series of pamphlets could be written and were made downloadable, then activists could choose the ones they need, print them, and circulate them.
Again, I am very grateful to you for your post. Bravo !
The semantics stem from Calhoun's use of the word "nullificaiton" in 1839 (?) when he tried to nullify a LEGAL action of the United States (taxation with representaion). He also called out the State militia to war againt the Federal Government. He was one state warring against the entire United States. THIS is what some people call Nullification. True nullification (which others call Interposition) is where Jefferson in 1798 called on all the other states to join him in his Alliens and seditions Act revolt….they did not. It is said that ONE state cannot nullify – only if it calls on the other states to join its action and more than one does.
I am new to "the movement" and I'm thoroughly enjoying the intellectual discussions. I am glad also that the posts aren't nitpicking. I do have some questions though about the reality of implementing the Constitutional actions called for. How many states will not protect their citizens out of fear of losing federal dollars for some project or another? How many politicians in those states are quite happy to blame the feds for some action or another, yet are quite happy to bow to federal mandates when it suits their own political agenda? It seems that a lot of states are like teenagers whining to their parents. They want the perks of being adults, but not the responsibilities. So, in practical terms, how best do we as individuals get things moving in this right direction when as a country, our situation is going downhill so fast? How can we wait for election? What are our options when our so called representatives in no way respond to our calls for action? Any viable answers will be much appreciated. Thanks for the great article.
Until the Tenth Amendment Center began the movement, I, like many folks, understood two meanings. The first is Jury Nullification, as when a member of the jury decides the law is being misused or misapplied and votes Not Guilty on this basis. Since both are vital to the entire movement, I mention both when writing about… “it.”
What about nullification at the individual level? I appreciate the danger, as you could be charged with a crime, and the burden of proof would shift from the prosecutor to the defense (since you are admitting to the facts, but arguing to the jury that the law infracted is itself illegal).
It would seem that a coordinated campaign, involving hundreds of thousands or even millions of people, to infract an illegal federal law, regulation, or executive order at the the same time, would be a good strategy. Federal suits could not possibly be filed against such a large group of people, and even if a few were charged, a defense win would set a precedent that enumerated powers violations by the government can be vacated by juries, setting a precedent that would lead to a highly salutory slippery slope.
(see follow up post next)
An example might include intentional failure by hundreds of thousands of small businesses to pay FICA taxes on their owner income (the federal government has no enumerated power to force anyone to participate in a pension plan). In addition to illegal laws, there are also illegal regulations and executive orders which could be targeted. Executive orders are especially ripe for challenge, as the Constitutution grants the president no power to issue any EO that impinges on constitutionally guaranteed state or indivudal powers (the president may only issue EO's declaring holidays, and transmitting orders to federal agencies). A plethora of EO's inforce violate enumerated powers.
(see follow up post next)
The key thing is to target a federal law, regulation, or EO that the "violators" are targeting explicitly on enumerated powers grounds. Just as the states are nullifying illegal laws such as the Federal HC Act on enumerated powers grounds, the people can also do this. We need precedents, both in practice and in court, that bring the Tenth Amendment back to life. A single win won't do it. We need a series of coordinated "civil disobedience" campaigns to get the point across. Once the SCOTUS upholds even one of these actions, the floodgates for vacating over 100 years of federal enumerated powers abuse will open.
Please give this idea some thought. A mass declaration of intent could be signed by a gigantic number of participants, and then on the day prescribed, all signers would execute the infraction. Even if the MSM wimps out by not covering the story, which is likely, the internet buzz would be enormous, and probably encourage similar actions by other groups.
Comments please.
Thank you.
Great idea, Stewart. May I copy your post here and paste it into my FreedomWorks page? I went with them to the NC State Capitol a few weeks ago and, in doing so, realized that all my life I had thought of politicians as unreachable demigods in the sky. By actually going to their "place of business" and meeting some of them, I realized that they're just people like you and me… and that I really do have a voice in government. And that as a group, we can resume control. I would like to suggest to FreedomWorks that we begin just such a campaign as you have suggested. Or, better yet, why don't you suggest it yourself? We need ideas like this to bring perople together and show them that they, too, have a voice.
Wow! Just think if the State used nullification to stop the (Feds) illegal IRS from taking our money. If we used FairTax instead it would save each alot of money. Try it out for yourseves (www.FairTax.org) I don't make alot of money and it help me alot when I used the 'calculator' on the site. Talk about putting a screeching halt to the arm of the U.S. Government that is so out of control; it is in our power to do that! Afterall, being done that way, the State then gets to decide how much goes to the Government to run the country. (I believe that this is how it's done.) Wouldn't that gain the attention you want? You do want the spending to stop don't you? Stop the flow!
To Lenny P's comment, we cannot nullify the IRS. States can (and must in my view) stop mimicing the income tax system and end state level income taxation. They can collect the tax and only send in funds for what the federal governemnt is authorized to do (quit paying for all the unconsitutional areas of bureaucracy) and join in efforts to repeal the 16th Amendment and replace it with an amendment restriciting the federal taxing authority over consumption only and not productivity. Yet, as long as there is a 16th Amendment nullififcation is not the right tool (although Calhoun would argue with me over that).
Changing revenue sources instead of cutting programs limits government how, exactly?
While I fully support the Fair Tax, Michael is correct…it does not do anything to reduce the scope of the feds in our lives. Massive reduction in gov't programs must come first before changing the tax code. As for nullification/interposition, I agree with others that say that these are just words. It is the actions of the people by communicating with their elected officials (at all levels) and peaceful protests that get the attention of the politicians and the media. The Tenth Amendment Center provides a great service in educating us about the Constitution, but a complicated (I believe) framework regarding nullification/interposition is not necessary and may only confuse the issues at stake even more.
This is a long overdue and necesary discussion. Until we, as an organization, speak with a single voice for education our detractors will more easily spin their slant on federalism. You have done a really good job on beginning the discussion.
The best examples we have to build our understanding from are the Principles of '98. These two resolutions are 'Resolutions of Interposition' which have within there words an 'either or' option for the federal government. Either realize the legislative directive is outside your constitiutional power or we as a state will nullify the law within our state. Other states can join the effort and when several do what usually happens is the general government backs down. Based on the example the legislative branch of any State;
1. Passes a 'Resolution of Interposition' which officially allows the State to interpose between the people and the general govenrment.
2. If the general government does not follow the directive of the resolution then 'nullification' is the consequence of the general government failing to act in accordance to the resolution.
3. Should it be found the Sate Resolution of Interposition was the flawed document and the fedral government was in line with the Constitution it would void the resolution yet the final interpretation (as properly discussed in the article) is not the Supreme Court but the State and the people.
A State executive and judicial branch is governed in their actions by the State Constitution.
We need to agree on what it is. This discussion must lead to a clearly defined, easily explained, single understanding if we are to continue the growth of the 10th Amendment efforts and the center. Thank you for getting this front and center. Just think of the powerfully effective education we can stand on once this is settled and…how much more of a challenge our detractors will have once we are unified on the meanings and uses of Resolutions of Interposition and the consequence of nullification.
A State cannot simply nullify actions at will. The charge of the Constiuttion is to have each level of government perform what it is competent to do and what it is authorized to do. If there is a federal law the State does not like yet that is within the enumerated authority of the Constitution the State is bound to uphold that law and the process of overturning must take a different path than simply stating it will nullify it (Calhoun's approach is to deny anything the federal govenrment does that a State doesn't like and is the constitutional flaw you can find by studying his writings and his actions). This is the spin our detractors like to stake their claims on and yet this is a move toward anarchy rather than proper constituional order.
Educating the Educators is step one. It is important that we focus on the reality of what we the people can do. It matters not what is right or wrong under the umbrella of the constituton if we do not have elected officials that will honor the oath of office they swear to. Putting together a flow chart to accompany the ideas put forward by Steve is also an option to show that in order for us to restore our republic, we must restore the control of the government to the people.
Thank you for the feedback everyone. The comments have given me some insight into reasons behind the various ideas about what these words mean. It is interesting that even in the comments here, we find a variety of ideas about what "nullification" means.
Just out of curiosity, I did a quick search for the etymology of "nullification", "nullify" and "interposition". According to the Online Etymology Dictionary (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nullification), "Nullification" traces to Jefferson in 1798, but "Nullify (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nullify) traces back to 1590. "Interposition" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=interposition) goes back to the 15th century (and 12th century, old french, "interposicion")… So these words apparently had meanings even before they were used by Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun (assuming Jefferson's use of "nullification" was an adaptation of "nullify").
It is useful to know how Jefferson, Madison and Calhoun used the words, of course, but since 1.) Jefferson and Calhoun may(?) have had different understandings of what "nullification" means and 2.) People today definitely have different understandings of what the words mean, I do think it is a useful exercise to continue to clarify our own definitions and to be constantly aware that another's understanding of these words may not be identical to our own.
I would suggest that there are two questions that should be kept separate – 1.) What do the words mean & 2.) When are they used (or what are they used for)? From reading through the comments here, I suspect many of the different ideas materialize when people attempt to combine those two questions into one.
It seems to me that we need to work towards a common understanding when we're talking about these things or we're going to be talking past one another.
Dr Noe, I fully agree with your statement to Steve: "I wish you would use your knowledge and writing skills to create a pamphlet in language that would be easy for county sheriff's to read and understand. If a series of pamphlets could be written and were made downloadable, then activists could choose the ones they need, print them, and circulate them."
Alvin – brochures are already available – print away!!
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/promote/broch…
PS: As a member of Oath Keepers i'll comment that pamphlets would be a great asset.
To simplify it for me, I have always assumed that nullification involves a state's statutorialy prohibiting implementation of an unconstitutional federal act/edict/law and enforcing penalties against anyone, federal or state, who attempts to implement that act/edict/law within the sovereign territory of that state.
As the writer explains, interposition on the otherhand is nullification without a state enforcement mechanism, e.g. less confrontational resolutions and, of course, litigation.
How about "If our US Constitution does not specifically allow the Federal Government something, we ain't having any". Period. This is not rocket science, and we are not playing with people of good conscience. This is clearly a situation where we need to bring heavy artillery to the fight, and most importantly, to USE IT! Such a perspective needs to be a requirement of anyone who we elect to any office from town Dogcatcher on up to President, and also all judges. Furthermore, we need to begin recalling or impeaching those presently in office who do not hold and behave in accordance with this point of view. Geez, folks, we are seriously running out of time if we are to have any hope much less a prayer in Hell of saving our Republic! Does this make any sense at all to anyone, or am I way too late bringing this up? Oh, yeah, our local officials are subject to the same criteria as applied to the various state constitutions as well. The time has come and nearly passed to play for keeps, or to go home, bend over, and kiss our butts goodbye. Pick one, and do it soon…
When Congress handed over all that money to AIG, they crossed a line that should have sparked fire with American citizens. I was surprised this didn't happen. When the elected President went around the globe bashing America, no one demanded strong enough to impeach him. When the elected President bowed to a king, there was stink but no one wanted to impeach. When the elected President avoided questions and answers about his birth, all Americans should have risen from their sleep. When the elected President took 2 weeks to visit the disaster in the Gulf and threatens Louisiana Governor Jindal, the country rallied against oil production when oil production is one of South Louisiana's major industries. The American people are given powers by the Constitution to protect us from a big government. Many of our founders clearly stated that when our government gets to out of hand, the people have the right to over take it even by force and with arms. I'm tired of all this control. At 42, I see my children with less and less rights. Who would have ever thought you could take a bullet for your country at 18 but can't drink a beer? Or you can't get a driver's license under you're 17 without paying for it heavily. Who would ever thought that being a Christian is bad or treating a lady like a lady is a curse? Nullification is our right. We should use it regularly. I'm tired of supporting the royal class in D. C. while I have trouble making ends meet. What's wrong with America? I served 11 years for her and I feel like those years were in vain. You are right sootsme, we need to do something fast. On my website keleger.org, the information I have been collecting is startling to say the least. America is in danger and everyone is too busy playing video games, watching TV and partying to even care. This doesn't make a bit of sense.
Among other issues, the issue of medical marijuana must be addressed. Here in Washington, although the People have spoken, our complicit Governor, Chris Gregoire, ignored both the Legislature and the will of the People, and wrote to US Attorney General, Eric Holder, for an opinion. Now, she has stated that she will veto SB5073 which would regulate the State's dispensaries. Apparently, we are all FEDS now! She should be impeached for her treasonous actions, but our Legislature simply ignores her usurpations.
The FED has absolutely no JURISDICTION in any sovereign State! Don't these treasonous fools read the United States Constitution or their State Constitutions?! But, the truth is: they are all lawyers and couldn't care less. With ignorant juries and "qualified immunity" they have a license to kill. And, the People, as well as their "representatives" have become irrelevant to the New World Order. On this Easter weekend, let us remember that their is only one hope: Jesus the Christ!
Nice job Steve, but I agree with Dan, it's not all that complicated. What I would like to know is can we get PA Gov. Tom Corbett and other Governors to go along with the "Fire Arms Freedom Act", "The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act", "The Obamacare Freedom Act", and "The Illegal Invasion Freedom Act"?
I would like to know that too.. We do have versions of health care freedom act and firearm freedom legislation in Pennsylvania, but neither has made it out of committee yet. We have to get them on his desk before we find out if he'll sign them or not.
tOO COMPLICATED. States need to re-assert their Constitutional sovereignty, which encompasses both interposition and nullification.
Interposition requires an action
nullification requires nothing more than notification
The key is to ignore the federal courts.
As I see it, the State power has been effectively eliminated via the 16Th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve, i.e., central banking cartel. One can argue (I would presume) that these amendments are part of the Constitution and are not subject to nullification.
But the States no longer have any representation in the Federal System. In fact, how many people even think of the States as being a part of the Federal System? It is now just the Federal government. The Senate is now just an extension of the House of Representatives and the States are designated administrative areas of The United States rather than being these united States.
I don't see much hope for nullification by the States when the Federal government can bypass the States and tax and prosecute the State citizens directly. And throw in the Federal Reserve money monopoly and presto, the Federal government now has unlimited power and plenty of guns to back up their position.
Bottom line: I am no fan of the Constitution. It was a power grab from the start. How can you nullify laws based on a document that is totally ignored? I believe that any attempts to nullify will be met with extreme force, i.e., recall a little war back in the 1860's.
At issue is not the relevance of the 9th and 10th amendments, but the insidious lack of spine on the part of the several states to assert their 9th and 10th amendment rights. When and IF the states do finally assert their rights under the Constitution, the effect will be nothing short of a restoration of constitutional order. Surely, a worthy goal well-worth any conceivable risk. Truth is, when confronted head-on, the feds, like bullies everywhere, will fold. On that certainty I'd stake my life. And if the feds foolishly did push back with "extreme force", so be it. The military would be behind us. Remember them? The guys and gals our Homeland Security labeled potential terrorists. Even the feds know tyranny can't count on US military support. In the final analysis, nothing like the clash of arms to settle such a seminal constitutional issue–if that's what it takes. In any event, We the People, the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, will triumph! Again, I and many other Americans woud stake our lives on that. We're not afraid. We're pissed.
Thomas Jefferson said it best:
Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
The States, as the creators of the Federal government, have ultimate authority. Ultimately, if the States feel that the Constitution is no longer the guiding force of the compact between them, they can leave. However, that was tried already and Old Honest Abe brought them back at the point of a bayonet.
As Brian stated earlier:
"Interposition" – requires an action (do we have a brochure for this?)
"nullification" (proclamation) – requires nothing more than notification (thanks for the brochure ~ by the way.)
Well, is the summation of these two terms?
Do we have just one Governor from each of the five (?) Regions who is on board with this? I need to hear a plan
The 16th and 17th Amendments were never ratified! (proper documents need to be proven/shown. The burden is not ours, it is theirs!)
OK ~ so what's it going to take… REGIONAL Leaders. (Each State of each Region would need to appoint a Spokesperson. I believe I know who would stand up in Wisconsin!). Is there any list of Governors in any Region who are stronger in number, on these issues? Just wondering how far along this fight is. (Beginning by winning this view, State by State seems too long to me, but I realize that it begins there.)
I realilze that we need to be thorough and on the same page when it comes to terms. I guess I'm a little more antsy than this. My belief is that there should be a Constitutional Showdown by all States coming out in front together at the same time over the same thing ~ pick one. All of our States need to agree on just one to start this. (10th, 16th or 17th amendment).
Our power is in the numbers of States coming together over the same issue. (Not to start an open civil war or anything. That would never be my purpose.) But time is going by, things are changing rapidly. With THEIR prime tool being semantics and the 10th Ammendment’s movement's NEED/WANT to be Constitutionally correct, things may change so much between now and the time it takes to feel sure-footed on our verbage we may lose the edge to graceful resolution. They will have us hung up on every term that is any 'action' to it. Is it just me or does time feels short? It makes me squirm. I just don't want to get so hung up on verbage that action comes too late. Waiting for "them" to agree to the meaning of our verbage is a problem. Yes, let's come to verbage terms quickly and DECLARE what they mean. It would take one “REGION” to declare a nullification ~ and the term would be revealed and understood by all!!
Nullification should be the norm in every State however I would take it one step further and that is your Sheriff is the "Supreme Law" in your County and "must" follow the Constitution . Unconstitutional ? It is his duty by the Constitution to protect his citizens and not enforce such a law regardless of any interpretation by the State .
As was noted by you the State has the final authority . I disagree completely , the final authority is the County Sheriff if it is a law that cannot be taken as Constitutional regardless of the State or the Feds . He is your first and last to protect you if he holds to the Constitution .
I agree, the10th Amendment should be reaffirmed, and the 16th Amendment should be repealed. And while we're at it, the Patriot Act and TARP need to be repealed in their entirety. While Democrats control the Senate it is a waste of time to attempt repeal. It will be easier if we focus on electing candidates who are pro 10th Amendment, pro balanced budget, and pro nullification and interposition at the same time we are working on language, models and frameworks and national structure. After all, the health care bill was ready to roll when the Democrats gained control of both Houses and the Executive Branch.
As far as nullification and interposition terminology go, the more concise the language, the more support you will get.
In the 1970s I worked with a Harvard graduate (suma cum laude) who told me all Federal law takes precedence over State law. His was strictly a literal interpretation, and did not consider nullification.
All legislative models presented for use need to have included links to challenges to the same models used in other States. There should be as much legal research as possible added with arguments provided, supporting case law, and memorandums in support so States know what State and Federal courts have supported the same model legislation in other States. Representatives and Senators need to be prepared to argue for legislation, and need to do it as concisely and articulately as possible. They need to be convincing so they can gain support of their constituents and other legislators.
This is by far the best site I've visited for pro-State activities. Thanks to all of you.
That suma cum laude lad is right only insofar as the federal law falls within the purview of Art 1 Sec 8 powers listed in the Constitution. Those powers not enumerated devolve upon the states and the people. I hope he understands that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, both state and federal law taking a back seat altogether. Having been educated by living constitution and progressive academics, it may be that he believes that the Supremacy Clause means that ALL federal law trumps state law no matter what. From the left, I've heard and read that often. Absolutely not so. I take it you understand that fully, though he may not have.