Nullification

I know this is rather long but, I hope you will take the time to consider it!

While each individual American citizen lives under the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution and each is therefore granted the right to assemble and to participate in the development of individual communities, one must consider what action is permissible to the enabled citizen, should the need arise to resist regulations, requirements or laws that do not conform with the constraints placed upon the federal government by the very same document, and which categorically restrict the federal government from usurping the citizen’s rights; all of which are considered individual and unalienable.

Should the federal government determine to enact legislation that does not conform to the limits placed upon it by the people, by means of the US Constitution, it seems each one of us is obligated to consider what actions are available to revoke, undo or “nullify” the offending legislation. The current legislation which mandates that all American citizens purchase a specific product, in particularly, Medical Health Insurance, is just one of the unconstitutional legislative acts to be imposed upon the sovereign people of the United States which, in my opinion, requires nullification.

Beyond the immediate discussion, one must look back to the manner in which our federal government was formed. Each individual within the early settlements was considered sovereign; each being afforded a voice and a vote. Stemming from the conviction of individual sovereignty, each citizen was entitled a say pertaining to the creation of laws and into the organization of his own community. In turn, each individual consequently delegated a small amount of his sovereignty along with some of his voice, towards an individually fashioned representative state government.

The individually formed and representative states debated and deliberated and, in time, surrendered a small amount of their individual sovereignty to form a more perfect union; in the guise of a federal government. Each state within the union was from then on to be considered the final barrier between the sovereign people and any potential negative effects from the newly formed federal government.

Each state is to this day sovereign, in all contexts of the word. When the citizens of a state believe they have been dishonored or disenfranchised by the actions of the federal government, they can voice dissent through those they have duly elected to their representative state government.

An example may help to clarify the state’s representative role. The US Constitution places control of immigration within the purview of the federal government, and although it has failed in this responsibility, immigration is clearly within the federal government’s Constitutional authority. The Great State of Arizona may perhaps be acting outside of the powers it once delegated to the federal government, as they specifically apply to the enforcement of immigration laws. However, Arizona is clearly acting responsibly in its role as the last line of defense as a representative government, and it is clearly within its rights as a sovereign entity to defend its border, its economy and commerce, and to preserve the physical safety of its citizens.

Regrettably, the US Constitution does not appear to address what a state can do, should the federal government fail in its responsibilities. This is most likely due to the fact that none of the Constitutional Framers could have ever imagined such a thing occurring. The Constitutional Framers were more appropriately concerned with the possible expansion of the federal government and the potential for it to usurp the individual rights of the American people. This is why the concept of “nullification” was introduced and it is also what causes me to once again ask, what is the option that is available to the people of the United States, when the federal government acts outside of its delegated powers and imposes unconstitutional legislation?

The much maligned Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, who also served as Vice President to the United States under Andrew Jackson, gave powerful testimony for individual sovereignty and the states’ right to ‘nullify’ any unconstitutional law imposed by the federal government. Calhoun’s efforts were specifically focused on the “Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798”. The legislation of 1798 meant to prosecute anyone who the government determined had, “willingly assisted or aided in the writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and, malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government…” Because John C. Calhoun was a Southerner and at that time supported slavery, he is to this day, as is anyone who references his grounds for nullification, is subject to arbitrary and impertinent criticism.

“Nullification begins with the axiomatic point that a federal law that violates the Constitution is no law at all. It is void and of no effect. Nullification simply pushes this uncontroversial point a step further: if a law is unconstitutional and therefore void and of no effect, it is up to the states, the parties to the federal compact, to declare it so and thus refuse to enforce it.”

We, as individually sovereign people and rightfully assembled into sovereign, representative states, must urge our elected officials to ambitiously work towards the nullification of any and all unconstitutional laws imposed upon us by our federal government.

I must thoughtfully acknowledge and say thank you to Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Regnery Publishing, Inc. for most all of the background data for the development of this essay. Please look for, Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Which was published in 2010 by Regnery Publishing Inc. ISBN 978-1-59698-149-2.

Thanks JH for another excellent essay. Can I borrow your copy? Never mind, actually ordered it online after reading this essay. Are you a writer? Could be one if you were so driven. Keep up the excellent posts.

Nmysys wrote: Are you a writer? Could be one if you were so driven. Keep up the excellent posts.

I guess for all intents and purposes, I am. I did write this, but only after reading the book.

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

-- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

Jonathan Hemlock wrote: An example may help to clarify the state’s representative role. The US Constitution places control of immigration within the purview of the federal government, and although it has failed in this responsibility, immigration is clearly within the federal government’s Constitutional authority. The Great State of Arizona may perhaps be acting outside of the powers it once delegated to the federal government, as they specifically apply to the enforcement of immigration laws. However, Arizona is clearly acting responsibly in its role as the last line of defense as a representative government, and it is clearly within its rights as a sovereign entity to defend its border, its economy and commerce, and to preserve the physical safety of its citizens.

Regrettably, the US Constitution does not appear to address what a state can do, should the federal government fail in its responsibilities.

I will concur that you wrote a very nice essay on the topic JH, and while I agree with a lot of what it contains, I must point out where I disagree with what you have written.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants the Congress the power to establish "an uniform Rule of Naturalization", which is to say that they get to decide how non-citizens get to become citizens.

Article I, Section 9 states that Congress will have no authority to prohibit the importation or migration of persons into a state that the state thinks it proper to admit prior to the year 1808, but that it can levy a tax upon any such person.

This gives the Congress the authority to tell Arizona that it can't allow the 2 million people, who are not citizens of another state or of the union of states, that they have decided is proper to allow to migrate to migrate into that state, but says nothing of the ability of Congress to prohibit Arizona from disallowing the migration of any non-citizen into that state, especially if the person seeking to migrate into Arizona has not been deemed proper to admit by either the federal government or the state government. Here again we see that the power of Congress is a negative power, as are most of the powers granted it in the Constitution as amended.

Lastly, the 10th Amendment clearly states that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States are retained by the states themselves. Thus, since the Constitution does not grant to the United States the authority to compel a state to accept migrants that the state thinks improper to admit, the state is under no obligation to allow that migration which it deems to be improper of people who are not citizens of either the United States or of one of the several states that are members of that union. A state may not prohibit the migration of a citizen into their state, but nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments has the authority of a state to decide for itself if it is proper to allow the migration of those who are not citizens into that state been ceded to any government other than the government of that state.

Thank you PrintSmith and BearMtnHIB.

As I had hoped to convey and perhaps was not clear with my reference to the US Consitution, I wished to show that immigration is in fact in the purview of the federal government and that Arizona may perhaps be acting outside of its Constitutional rights if its efforts are in fact to stop immigration yet, as a soveriegn state and as the last line of defense for the security of its citizens, the state of Arizona must be allowed to secure its borders from an immigrant population that many times includes a significant criminal element. The State of Arizona is not required to allow narcotics smuggling or human traficking to occur at its border. It also has the sovereign right to arrest and prosecute any individual who is not of legal status and who may also hold a job illegally and who may also have illegally immigrated children, attending its schoools and all, draining services from the state's emergency services and human services.

The sovereignty of the State is all I had hoped to explain as an example of how a State can at times work in difference to the wishes of the federal government, particularly when certain legislation is uncontitutional.

To: BearMtnHIB,

That is a very interesting take on the nature of indivdual sovereignty and the right to declare certain legislation unconstitutional.

I was particularly impressd as to how a citizen can be asked to defend the consitituion with one's life yet, the federal government continues to disagree with our belief that an unconstitutional law must be considered, null and void.

One more aspect of this issue is important. The fact that the US government, particularly the Executive Branch, places the US Supreme Court Justices and does place them for life. This is curiously where all uncostitutional laws must also be challenged. Should a President load the Supreme Court with favorable judges, the government becomes the lawmaker as well as the judge as to whether cetain legislation is constitutional.

That is why so many States insist on one more barrier (nullification) between the US Citizen and the effects of a potentially ever-encroaching federal government.

I'm afraid that perhaps I wasn't clear as well JH. The only part of immigration that falls under federal purview is the process by which an immigrant can become a citizen and to tell a state that the migration of peoples that the state has deemed proper to admit is not, in fact, proper in their eyes and therefore will not be allowed. These are the only powers vested in Congress by the Constitution with regards to immigration.

Article I, Section 9 is really, when you get right down to it, a provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to decide whether or not the union of states will continue to allow slaves to be imported or migrated into any of the states within the union. That was the intent of that particular section of the Constitution. The framers knew that they couldn't ban the practice of slavery outright and have the document ratified by enough states to put it into effect, so they made a deal that assured enough support that it would be ratified and replace the constitution that was currently in effect, and had proven to be ineffectual, before the confederation of states fell apart.