Nullification – the principle that, under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the states and their people have the right and responsibility to declare unconstitutional federal laws of no force within their jurisdiction – has a significant place in Massachusetts history. As a hot spot of colonial resistance leading up to the War for Independence, Massachusetts emerged as a leader in pushing back against unlawful and immoral acts of Parliament. The place Massachusetts holds in the fight for liberty and local sovereignty lends strong philosophical support to the Tenth Amendment movement and provides a historical backdrop for its emergence as a leader in constitutional integrity.

The acts of Parliament and the Crown of Great Britain that led to the Revolution were numerous and stretch far into history. But the beginning of the tensions that led to war occurred in 1764 with the passage of the Sugar Act, which restricted a free and open market in the North American colonies. It was the first act of Parliament written specifically to raise colonial money – thus generating the well known slogan, “taxation without representation.”

The Sugar Act was followed by other laws that restricted the personal and economic liberties of American colonists: the Currency Act, the Quartering Act, the Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, and the Townshend Acts. With each new piece of legislation, discontent with the English government grew into open, organized opposition that focused on the right and ability of a people to govern itself locally. And Massachusetts was at the forefront of this opposition.

In January, 1773 (the Boston Tea Party would take place in December that year), the loyalist, colonial governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, gave a speech to the state assembly to address growing opposition to the British government. In his speech, Hutchinson spoke directly to the citizens of Massachusetts who were, in effect, attempting to nullify Parliament through acts of local and individual sovereignty:

“The authority of the Parliament of Great Britain to make and establish laws for the inhabitants of this province has been, by many, denied. What was, at first, whispered with caution, was soon after openly asserted in print and, of late, a number of inhabitants in several of the principal towns in the province, have assembled together in their respective towns and, having assumed the name of legal Town Meetings, have passed resolves which they have ordered to be placed upon their town records, and caused to be printed & published in pamphlets and newspapers … some of them deny the supreme authority of Parliament.” [emphasis added]

So as far back as the early 1770s, the people of Massachusetts have asserted their rights of local sovereignty. The philosophical ideas that would give rise to the protections granted in the Tenth Amendment were present before the Revolutionary War even started. In fact, the same principles enshrined in the Tenth Amendment are the same principles that caused the people of Massachusetts and the other twelve colonies to resist Parliament through the acts of locally elected legislatures. The people of Massachusetts recognized in 1773 that a a geographically distant government, concerned with its own welfare and motives, had no place in managing their local affairs.

It was a sentiment that would be carried up to and throughout the war. The formation of the Continental Congress and individual states’ efforts to form their own legislatures with the power to make policy in opposition to that of the Parliament reflects the deep rooted American belief in self-governance – a belief that, despite efforts to suppress and overcome it, will not go away easily. The formation of a new Tenth Amendment Center chapter in Massachusetts is evidence to that fact.

Today, the people of Massachusetts face a similar situation. A distant, centralized government, concerned only with its own self interest, sits now in Washington, rather than London. This distant government has claimed supreme authority over nearly every aspect of public life and continually contrives new methods of taxation to fund its growing size and intrusiveness. The nullification pioneers of 1773 understood well that the size of government is inversely proportional to individual liberty. In our current era of bailouts, welfare-statism, and perpetual war, it’s hard to believe that individual liberty stands a chance.

But it does stand a chance as long as we recognize that we are the chance. We, the people of Massachusetts, have the power and authority to keep the federal government in check, if we take a lesson from our colonial history. Under the authority of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, we have the authority to assemble and declare, as a sovereign state, that Massachusetts is not subject to the supreme authority of the United States government when it ignores the Constitution and its enumerated powers.

Roger Prather [send him email] is the Communications Coordinator for the Massachusetts Tenth Amendment Center

(or I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts).

Ask someone what is the most important amendment to the constitution.  If he were a liberal, he would likely answer “the right to free speech”, the 1st.   If he were a conservative, he would likely answer “the right to keep and bear arms”, the 2nd.

Although all amendments are important (or at least those found in the Bill of Rights), I have another suggestion.  For those who fear the encroachment of an ever-expanding national government, might I recommend the 10th? 

Now I know that no one really talks about the tenth anymore, but here it is:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Any questions?  I shouldn’t really think so.  It is simple and straightforward.

But the problem lies in the fact that few these days tend to uphold the amendment.  For example, as written in one of my articles below, consider the Department of Education created in 1979.

Now don’t get me wrong, education is important, but the federal government has absolutely no authority when it comes to education as stated by the United States Constitution.  Now if I’m in error, let me know.  Prove it to me.  If it can be done clearly and without a lot of “promote the general welfare” jargon then I will gladly retract this statement.

How about the arts?  I’m sure you know that we have a National Endowment for the Arts.  Is it constitutional?  Promoting the arts is constitutional, but how so?  In Article One, Section 8, it is written as pertaining to the powers of Congress, “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

That is the constitutional limits of the promotion of the arts.  According to the NEA website found at http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html, they write, “The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.

Established by Congress in 1965 as an independent agency of the federal government, the Endowment is the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts, bringing great art to all 50 states, including rural areas, inner cities, and military bases.”  Well, isn’t that nice…art to one and all?

Agree or disagree with the ideals NEA, which need I remind you has brought us such national treasures as the “Piss Christ” and “The Perfect Moment”, but the simple fact remains that the agency is horribly unconstitutional, plain and simple.

Are there more departments, agencies, and laws out there that exceed the authority of the federal government out there?  I would wager that one could fill a textbook with examples.  If you care to add your own to this article, feel free to comment.

Ah, but let us now get to the second part, “The Joy of Federalism or I Don’t Care How They Do Things in Massachusetts.”  Federalism, of course, is the principle of states giving up some portion of their authority to a greater or larger government to achieve specific aims, such as a common defense, creating patents, declaring war, raising armies and so forth.

For all of the specific powers granted to the federal government by the states, I direct you to the Constitution. Although the federal government does not have any power to fund, promote, or mettle in education or the arts, states and, of course, citizens do.

Assuming that it is allowable under their state constitutions and laws, any state can and ought to be involved in these areas should the citizens of the respective states so desire.  Say that the commonwealth of Massachusetts (I select Massachusetts here because I believe many of their traditions, laws, and beliefs are antithetical to our Virginia) wants to offer free education to all of its citizens from grade school to post-graduate.

Believe it or not, I say, let them.

Will the tax burden of the average citizen skyrocket dramatically?  Without a doubt.  But that is the true joy of federalism.  What Massachusetts citizens want, as long as they obey the Constitution and their own laws, they should get.

Another example is mandatory health insurance.  In 2006 the state became the first to require health insurance of its citizens (passed by wacky Gov. “Massachusetts Mitt”).  Is it a horrid idea?  Certainly.  But they have that right to be the “laboratory of Democracy” a phrase used by Robert La Follette.  When other states see Massachusetts’ successes (or, in this case, failures) they will likely either adopt or reject their policies accordingly.

We apply the same principle to other countries, so why not other states.  Now there are caveats to this principle, of course.  If a state seeks to injure, undermine, or destroy, a citizen or another state, or the laws of that state, then certainly the federal government has a constitutional requirement to defend the injured party and ideally preventing the offense in the first place.

But let us turn back to liberal Massachusetts.  As stated, with a handful of exceptions, I don’t care how they do things in Massachusetts.  If they succeed, business and citizens will attempt to flock there, but if they fail the opposite will happen.

Heck, I’ll take that idea one further.

I don’t care how they do things in France, or Singapore, or Saudi Arabia.  As we respect the ability of others to govern themselves, so too should they honor our right.  Although many willingly choose to flounder under statism, we must jealously guard our own backyard.

If they, or anyone else, attempt to bring their socialist ideas to Virginia or our national government, we should fight them tooth and nail to defend our state, our country, our values, our culture, and our way of life.  If I wanted to live in a state like Massachusetts, I would move to Massachusetts.  Thanks, but you don’t have to bring it to me.

So what is the take home message from this tirade?  Slowly but surely the powers of the federal government have grown at the expense of the states and of ourselves, the citizens.  Whose fault is it?

Without a doubt, it is the unelected and “living Constitution” courts.  It is our weak-kneed or unscrupulous politicians who trade principles for patronage.

But, my friends, it is also ours, for we have remained either ignorant or silent.  I tell you that unless and until we have an informed public who demands that their legislators stand up for a limited and narrow federal government as the Constitution proscribes, the 10th Amendment will lay neglected and the ideal of federalism will wither until the states either become irrelevant or are dissolved.

Let us work to ensure that this dark day never comes.