The Tenth Amendment Center had the dubious honor of being included among “fake new sites” in a list compiled at Harvard University. It is easy to write off the list as some absurd pet project of pseudo-intellectual, Ivy League elitists. However, it represents an ongoing conflict between traditional, mainstream sources of knowledge that have for decades controlled the political narrative, and independent entities such as the TAC that threaten their power by presenting opposing viewpoints.

It’s no secret that newspaper circulation is declining at an alarming rate, and online subscriptions are failing to compensate for the financial losses. Legacy TV and cable news outlets are also bleeding viewers.

Why?

Before the age of the Internet, people had no choice. Outside of niche publications, there were only a handful of newspapers, magazines, and news channels from which regular people could access information. Thirty years ago, hardly anyone outside of academic circles that held strict constitutionalist views were even discussing nullification or anti-commandeering. Few in the general public have even heard of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The Tenth Amendment was rarely discussed at all in schools. States’ rights was tarred a “racist” term. To mutter it was akin to advocating slavery.

All that has changed.

Not only is information about nullification and the Tenth Amendment readily available, but proponents now have a bullhorn as loud as those peddling government-approved version of events. When some historian claims Madison opposed nullification, people can easily find TAC artic