What if the federal government passes a “law” and everyone ignores it, or actively blocks its enforcement? What if a state said it no longer would comply with the EPA, HUD, DOE, DOT, DHS, etc. etc.? What if multiple states refused to comply with federal rules, regulations and “laws”?
If they did, what then?
Would the federal government send in Federal Marshals to arrest the governor and legislature? What if the people of the state resisted?
Would they call up the National Guard and have them enforce Martial Law? Would they round up people and put them into Internment Camps? What if the National Guard refused to follow their orders? Would they send in the Army?
Do the states have a right to refuse “laws” that violate the Constitution?
If the Constitution is a contract among the several states, as the founding fathers understood, what is the remedy to violations of the contract? As any good lawyer will tell you, three remedies are available to the injured party when a contract is violated. First, you could take the party that breached the contract to court and obtain monetary damages. Second, a court could order the defaulting party to the contract to perform his contractual obligations. And finally, “rescission,” or annulment of the contract, the contract is canceled. The aggrieved party would ask the court to make them whole again by returning them to the same condition that they had before they entered into the contract.
For a state, that finale or third option for a broken contract is secession. If the Constitution is what the founders believed it to be when they wrote and ratified it—an agreement—a compact—a contract, then the states as aggrieved parties to the contract have every right to “walk away” from the contract and return themselves to their previous status.
Was this an option, rescission or secession, something that was even discussed at the time of the ratification debates? Clearly, it was understood that nothing is forever and that if this new Constitution and the government that would be formed should violate the states or the people’s rights; they would be no longer bound by it. But the clearest examples of their thoughts on the subject are found in the Constitutional ratification debates of each state. Listed below are the best examples.
This was declared by Virginia in the ratification debates: “We the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected…do, in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them, whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” (Emphasis added)
And further New York declared: “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said Constitution, delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective State governments, to whom they have granted the same.” (Emphasis added)
Finally, Rhode Island declared in a copy of New York’s statement: “That the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness.” (Emphasis added)
But even prior to the Constitution, the founders declared in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Again, the founders dissolved their union when the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union no longer served their needs. Please note that the full name includes Perpetual Union, which obviously was not perpetual as nothing truly is. The founders did not even bother to include Perpetual Union or anything close to it in the new Constitution for obvious reasons.
It should also be obvious that the founding fathers would never have agreed to be bound together in perpetuity and forced to suffer the repeated violations of the Constitution and by extension there rights as sovereign states. They understood contract law and the remedies they had if the new federal government should violate that contract.
Most people will now point to the “Civil War” as settling the issue of secession, but did it? Yes, the Confederate States lost their bid to become a separate nation alongside of the United States. But does force validate a contract? Lawyers will tell you that if you are forced through threats, intimidation or at gunpoint into a contract that contract is not valid.
So, do I think that secession is in anyway something that is contemplated by states? No, I do not. Nor do I think that option two “forcing the defaulting party in this case the federal government to live up to the contract, the Constitution” is being pursued as much as it should be. For a state to force the federal government to do anything would be very difficult but by nullifying the unconstitutional “law” or regulation they have placed the feds on notice that they have exceeded their authority. And if enough states nullify the law, the feds are powerless to enforce it. The best example is the Real ID Act signed into law in 2005, essentially, it is “null and void” because a majority of the states refuse to comply. Is this not the answer to how to treat all unconstitutional laws, just nullify and ignore them?
Regardless of who is elected this fall, the federal government will continue to grow and with it demands on the states and citizens to submit to further loss of freedoms. This leads back to my questions at the beginning; What if the federal government passes a “law” and everyone ignores them? What if a state said it no longer would comply with the EPA, HUD, DOE, DOT, etc. etc.? What if multiple states refused to comply with federal rules, regulations and “laws”?
Will the federal government resort to force to maintain its control? If they do, will the states reconsider the use of rescission? Will some or all secede?
Will the Union break up into smaller federations of states?
Is the federal government’s quest to consolidate all power in Washington, DC actually only succeeding in driving us further apart?
Is the United States too big to fail?
Or is it too big to succeed?
As a final thought, in a recent poll 24 Percent of Americans Believe States Have a Right to Secede shows that secession, as a possibility is growing, up 10% in the last 2 years. Do any of the recent actions by the federal government cause you to believe that those poll numbers will go down anytime soon?
originally published at the North Carolina Tenth Amendment Center








If as the founding fathers understood that the Constitution is a contract among the several states,
I would like to expand the discussion on this idea. The constitution is a compact just like any set of laws or government is but all compacts or agreements are limited in one crucial and obvious way. The obligations of any contract can’t be passed on to the offspring of the signers. The signers of this ‘contract’ agreed to these rules over 8 generations ago so doesn’t it make sense that only those people are bound to it. Only the people of the states that agreed to it are bound by it which means all proceeding generations did not sign it and are not obligated to honor it. Its authority exist as a legacy ONLY and not really something current generations ever agreed to.
@theleftfails You will eventually get civil war #returntotruth
@dtlumley really? is there a civil war brewing – 17 states now defying the feds on weed…?
All the states should tell Fedzilla to take a hike.
YES! If we value and love the Constitution of our land, we should follow it, protect it, and fight for it.
Yes they should.
They should, right behind the individuals who should refuse laws that violate the Constitution and their Rights. Isn’t it Individual Rights, followed by States Rights, then followed by the Federal Governments Rights?
States have power, not rights. Reread the 10th amendment.
States collect all sorts of taxes for the federal government. Examples are gas tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, etc. These assets can be seized by states if necessary to enforce the Constitution.
refuse any and all this muslim has imposed on us!!!!!!!
Clearly, yes.
Absolutly!!
Not a right, the states have a DUTY to tell the Fed gov when they have crossed the line!
I believe they have the obligation to do so
Not only a right, but a responsibility. Freedom is never free.
Yes, they have complete control to do that. Specially coming from the Imperial President that is a Dictator.
Not only the states, but the citizens as well.
Of course they do, a right and a duty, as do the people
Absolutely and the citizens in those states!
Yes. Look into the great state of Alabama’s recent legislation banning agenda 21. Bold move & more power to them. That should be outlawed in every state.
Federal blockade
Stop enforcing the Federal income tax collection too! How does the Federal government claim to have jurisdiction over States’ citizens in order to collect a federal income tax in the first place?
If they are so American. Then they need to act like it, speak like it, work like it, and live like it. There is zero effort made as far as assimilation. They wanna live here? Fine. Obey the laws. ALL OF THEM!! And pay your own way or be consider a domestic enemy as defined by the US Constitution and be prepared to face the consequences of be an enemy of America
Nullification is like using deadly force to defend your home against a potential burglar. You’d better be d****d sure it’s necessary and justified, or else you might not get a chance to use that weapon again.
Yes
They have a DUTY to ignore laws that violate the Constitution.
Yes. I actually think there should be an amendment to the constitution requiring any federal law to also be voted on by state legislatures, and a majority vote being required in each state before the law is adopted in that state.
Yes. It should be remembered, the states made th Fed Gov to be the states agent. The state should be the deciders of whats constitutional or not, as it applies to their state. The Fed Gov.is not to decide for us. Not the SCOTUS, nobody should decide on behalf of the state. And the state should represent the will of the people living IN their state. Not do things contrary to the will of the people in their state because then THEY would be tyrants
Don’t forget that the Sheriff of the County is an elected official and the CLEO. He has more power than the president within his jurisdiction. he can tell the fed’s to stay-out or get-the-hell-out of his county and can arrest them them if they persist.
A year or so after I was exposed to the work of Dr Edwin Vieira Jr. through his 2008 speech at Faneuil Hall in Boston, his 2007 book and his commentaries on NewsWithViews, I embarked on my own analysis of the 2nd Amendment, specifically the first Clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State …” Bouvier’s 1856 Law Dictionary tells us that “security” is that which “renders certain the performance” of the “contract .. agreement” mentioned by Kennedy. To quote Vieira, who re-asserts the obvious: “A well regulated Militia” is the only thing that the Constitution says is “necessary to the security of a free State”. It doesn’t say that “secession” is “necessary to the security of a free State”.
So I have stated and asserted on cards I hand out that: Revitalized “Militia of the several States” are the current necessity and the only entities “necessary to the security of a free State”, and revitalized “Militia of the several States” are the only entities that “renders certain the performance” of the Constitutions for the U.S.A. and each of “the several States”.
Well regulated Militia of the several States are the security for performance and the enforcement mechanism inherent within and for the Constitution.
There is good reason why the Founders put-in-place properly functioning powers of the sword and the purse into the Constitution. Now, neither are functioning properly. (The Rothschild’s/ Rockefeller’s et al cabal may be evil, but they are far from stupid.) The Preamble, restated, says that We the People ordained and established the Constitution in Order to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, etc. The current Necessity along strict Constitutional lines is for State Legislators, pushed by the People and by Sheriffs, to Revitalize the dormant Militia of the several States institution composed of the whole People of the several States, to execute the Laws as the public safety may require it and necessary to the security of a free State, in times of War or public danger, imminent danger or domestic violence. [Purse: Art I Sec 8 Cl 5, Art I Sec 10 Cl 1; Sword: Art II Sec 2 Cl 1, Art I Sec 2 Cl 1, Art I Sec 8 Cl 15, Art I Sec 9 Cl 2, 2nd Am, 5th Am, Art I Sec 10 Cl 3, Art IV Sec 4]
THOUGHTS ON PART ONE OF “A CONCURRING OPINION”
PART 1 of 12
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
March 3, 2010
Responding to Timothy Baldwin’s “A CONCURRING OPINION FOR SECESSION (Part 1)”
NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin210.htm
Could one little seceded State defend itself against a world-wide international bankstering cartel, or a potential Chinese invasion? I’m sure the NWO would love help from those who would self-divide facilitating themselves being conquered. The irony is that such seceded States would each need to organize common defense, and State officials now continue refusing to revitalize the Militia of the several States along strict constitutional lines. For mutual benefit, seceded States would seek alliances for mutual common defense, and may feel the need to implement USA 2.0. Why go through all that extreme time and effort, when all State legislators need to do to solve ongoing problems is to revitalize their Militia according to existing Clauses in the Constitution?
Even I say state, I mean the 50 states.Not the STATE
I absolutely believe that states should ignore un-Constitutional laws passed by the Feds! WE are the PEOPLE and if the Sates would ignore the stupid crap coming out of these “agencies” – especially the EPA – then it would be VERY interesting to see what the Feds would do.
Well, the Federal Guvmunts reply has usually been “You don’t have to comply… but we’ll cut your funding for everything.” In other words: Blackmail.
Yes they do.
YES! YES! YES!
Absolutely they do. That is what the tenth amendment is all about.
IIsn`t it fitting that all of Dixie supports Virginia`s efforts to do so, 150 years after the last time Virginia took the lead away from a government taxing its Southern people twice to import/export their own goods.
J.t. Clifton, you are correct, that is why the county election for Sheriff is more important than any other candidate or issue on anyone’s ballot. Get to know the candidates for Sheriff, research them thoroughly before you vote, and make certain the candidate you select knows the Constitution and WILL uphold it (every part of it) within his/her jurisdiction.
Daniel McGonigle, did you also research the word “regulated” as used in the 2nd Amendment? If not, please do.
The victor’s write history. The result of the War for Southern Independence was total loss of liberty and consolidation of power at the federal level – all at the point of the bayonet. The history books tell it differently and generations of children have grown up thinking the war was about freeing slaves. How sad the truth was lost to generations and the Lincoln myth evolved as it did. . .
Amen Ken B.
in every state, the sheriff has the last word. regardless of federal intervention. the supremacy clause does not trump states rights
The obligations of any contract can’t be passed on to the offspring of the signers. The signers of this ‘contract’ agreed to these rules over 8 generations ago so doesn’t it make sense that only those people are bound to it.