by Michael Boldin

“If you don’t like it here, move to Cuba!”

“Why don’t you go spout your mouth off in Iraq with your buddy Saddam, you terrorist!”

Those were common emails for me to receive while George W. Bush was president. Opposing Bush policies like the Patriot Act, Real ID, and just about everything else back then didn’t win too many conservative friends for the Tenth Amendment Center, of which I am executive director.

These days, taking a stand for the Constitution – every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses – doesn’t win us too many friends from the left. When writing about our Nullify Now! event in Manchester on March 19th (http://www.nullifynow.com/newhampshire), a local “blue” blogger proclaimed:

“There ought to be a price paid for this sort of misbehavior”

Montana’s Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer recently told the AP that state nullification bills were “unamerican.”

Nullification – any act or acts which result in a particular federal law being rendered null and void, or unenforceable, in your state – really seems to get people’s blood boiling. On this issue, though, I believe both sides of the political aisle have been guilty of being little more than partisan hacks. They support the idea when “the other side” is in power, and viciously attack it when their team is in charge.

In my home state of California, medical marijuana has been “legal” for nearly 15 years now. When the idea was first proposed, it was attacked as nearly treasonous, mostly by those on the right. “You can’t just pick and choose what federal laws to obey” and “the supremacy clause pretty much settles the question” were the most common attacks on those who believed that the federal government shouldn’t have any say in whether people here could grow and consume a plant as they saw fit.

In 2007, when Governor John Lynch signed House Bill 685 refusing compliance with the Real ID Act, New Hampshire was participating in a nationwide nullification movement championed by the ACLU. The bill stated, in part:

“The general court finds that the public policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13, is contrary and repugnant to Articles 1 thro