Category Archives: Nullification

Nullification Confusion

Unconstitutional laws are not the “law of the land.” The states can and should resist them and the temptation to sell their independence to the federal government, the opinions of nine black robes notwithstanding.

Nullification Win! Holder, DOJ Back Down

The genie is out of the bottle and she won’t ever go back in. The feds have lost and they know it. No matter how Holder and the DEA couch their words in an attempt to maintain an illusion of control, state actions continue to effectively nullify these unconstitutional marijuana “laws.”

Taking Down Another Establishment Hack

To embrace nullification, one must reject the Alexander Hamilton – Joseph Story – Abraham Lincoln notion of “one nation” made up of “one people” and accept that the states remain sovereign political societies, only delegating specific powers to a general government for the purpose of a union.

Some Clarification on ‘Integrity’

Relying on a federal court’s opinion as to whether nullification is justified is simply begging the question. The authority of the states to interpret the constitution is the very basis of nullification. Therefore, seeking the court’s blessing is irrelevant.

Confessions of a Dangerous, Racist Fool?

They will claim anything to scare average people away from resisting federal power. Mike Maharrey takes these liars to task.

Nullification and “A Few Good Men”

Nullification is based on the federal nature of our government, on the Supremacy Clause, and most strongly, on the compact nature of the Constitution. Americans are not taught their founding history and are certainly not taught the principles that underlie their government. They talk about “checks and balances” but only the simple ones – the president’s veto power and the federal courts. But the most important of checks and balances is indeed this notion of dual sovereignty and the willingness of states to stand up to unconstitutional conduct by the federal government.

Non-Compliance is its own “Penalty”

Every time a state refuses to help the federal government enforce their laws, the feds’ court gets bigger. They simply do not have the players needed to defend the whole playing field and this lack of resources becomes a penalty in itself. Ultimately, there’s no real need to slap a technical foul on a group of players that can’t stop the other team from scoring.

Edward Snowden: Nullifier

Given the vast and secretive nature of the federal government, it’s critical for activists and advocates of personal liberty to be aware of the goings-on in D.C. and elsewhere. As Snowden famously put it, “the public needs to know the kinds of things a government does in its name, or the ‘consent of the governed’ is meaningless.”

It Only Takes One and other Nullification Truths

A few weeks ago I left a note for nullification deniers regarding some of their more frequent errors. A quick perusal of Wikipedia clears most of these up, so there’s no excuse for always being so ignorant of the subject matter. Still, some opponents of nullification seem to know plenty of its history, and yet remain plagued with misunderstanding.

For those intellectually honest enough to address the popular origins of nullification in the United States – the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions – a common rebuttal is to reference those states which opposed the “Principles of ‘98.” This fact seems to be used in order to marginalize the use of nullification and offers a convenient means of confirmation bias for those addressing this point. However, this argument is fraught with a number of problems. It ignores certain relevant historical facts that help explain the motive behind rejecting nullification at the time, it establishes a faulty chain of reasoning, and begs an important ethical question related to politics.