I have written previously on this subject, however, it is the best weapon We The People have, through the state legislatures, to bring the federal government to heel.

In any discussion of politics, constitutionality, congressional mandates and laws, federal regulations, etc., the very mention of the word "nullification" is like throwing a bomb into a crowded room. It is the one method the states possess under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to tell the federal government to go fly a kite, we will not obey their unconstitutional actions.

In short, nullification is a process, mostly dormant since the Civil War, by which a state legislature can tell the federal government that we believe their actions are unconstitutional and that we nullify their law, regulation, etc. on that basis and will not comply. The popular belief is that nullification is unconstitutional and a discarded political doctrine; this could not be farther from the truth. It was enshrined in the ratification process of the Constitution by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions:
KENTUCKY RESOLUTION OF 1798.txt
KENTUCKY RESOLUTION OF 1799.txt
VIRGINIA RESOLUTION OF 1798.txt

An example of the power of nullification was seen February 1, 2007. The Montana House of Representatives unanimously passed two bills condemning the federal REAL ID Act as an improper use of federal legislative power. Both bills were designed to exempt Montana from the Act; however, the bill introduced by Rep. Diane Rice of Harrison went a step further, stipulating that "the legislature of the state of Montana hereby nullifies the REAL ID Act of 2005, as it would apply to this state." Since that time, several states have passed resolutions or laws nullifying their participation in the highly corrupt national health care legislation winding its way through Congress presently.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

In opposition to South Carolina's decision to nullify the Tariff of 1828, President Andrew Jackson denounced the idea that a state could "annul a law of the United States," arguing that nullification was "incompatible with the existance of the Union, contridicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." This is the Supremacy Clause argument, though the Constitution is plain in that the federal government is only supreme in its enumerated powers and, by reading the Supremacy Clause again, it plainly states that the Constitution and all laws made persuant to it are supreme, not the federal government itself or any law it passes on a whim. Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts agreed with Jackson in 1833, as did Abraham Lincoln in 1861. These men were all nationalists, rather than federalists. They all believed that the Constitution had formed a consolidated nation-state, not a confederation, and thus they held the belief that the Union was sovereign over the states. Their other mistaken belief was that the Constitution had been established among the "people of the United States" in the aggregate sense, not among the states themselves, and hence, it was not a compact as the Jeffersonians contended, and those who ratified the Constitution did.

Those who believe in a nation-state need to reconcle several serious problems that go all the way back to colonial times when the American Union actually began. The thirteen original colonies that became states were always seperate political entities and attempts to institute a common government over them were always defeated by differences between the colonies or by interferrence from England. The Declaration of Independence did not create an American nation, it merely stated that they were united in their desire to be free of British rule. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Martin Luther stated, "At the seperation from the British Empire, the people of America preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen seperate sovereignties, instead of incorporating themselves into one."

When the Articles of Confederation were cast aside in favor of a new Constitution in 1778 and presented to the states for ratification. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by the state legislatures, the Constitution was ratified by the people of each state in convention called for that purpose. The states never created the Constitution, the American people did. The new Constitution was a confederation or compact between the ratifying states, with the federal government created to be their agent, not their master.Even Alexander Hamilton, the earliest proponent of a strong federal power, repeatedly referred to the Constitution as a compact to which the states had acceded, and the new Union as a confederacy and a confederate republic.

As the Constitution plainly states, the powers of the federal government are delegated, not inherent and in ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed to give up certain sovereign powers (such as the power to declare war) in deference to having those powers exercised by the Union on behalf of the states as an agent of the states. All other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are retained by the states as defined in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The states certainly did not, nor did they intend to, give up their sovereignty in any other manner than defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton surmised in the Federalist Papers that "it will not follow that this doctrine (the supremacy provision of Article VI) that acts of the larger society which are not persuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will merely be acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such, ,,,It will not, I presume, have escaped observation that it expressly confines this supremacy to laws made persuant to the Constitution..." This concept was echoed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798.

A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO RESIST

If a government is empowered to do only certain things, and is forbidden from doing anything else, it follows logically that any attempts made by that government to reach beyond the scope of its rightful powers are illegitimate and any law passed or any regulation not contained in those delegated powers are not legitimate or constitutional. It also follows that if a state has rights and powers reserved to its exclusive use, it must also possess the natural right to defend itself and protect those rights. This is where the doctrine of nullification is valid. The states must step up to the plate and defend those rights with every means at hand. Nullification serves precisely this purpose.

Thus, Andrew Jackson's assertion that nullification is "incompatible with the existance of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great objective for which it was founded," is dead wrong, and any others who believe that the federal government is supreme over the affairs of the states are just as wrong. Federal usurpation is expressly forbidden by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and also by the limitations in the Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

In the words of James Madison in Federalist No. 14, The great object for which the Union was formed was to serve as "Our bulwark against foreign danger, as the conservator of peace among ourselves, as the guardian of our commerce and other common interests, as they can only substitute for those military establishments which have subverted the liberties of the old world, and as the proper antidote for the disease of faction, which have proved fatal to other popular governments..."

It then necessarily follows that nullification -- a state exercising its natural right to self-defense in protecting its reserved rights and powers -- is not destructive of any of the things Madison surmised, but usurpation of a state's rightful power is most certainly destructive of those ends, as we have seen time after time throughout our history

Presidents who were usurpers, such as Lincoln, Truman, Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Both Bushs, and Obama have killed more than half a million Americans in undeclared wars and other police actions and peace keeping missions, none of which were constitutionally authorized by a declaration of war from the Congress. Unconstitutional acts of Congress and activist judges have severely restricted our commerce and disrupted our common interests with partisan, political corruption, exacerbating the "disease of faction" feared by Madison and others. We are now beginning to see military establishments, the like of which subverted the liberties of the old world, as federal paramilitary raids increase against the civilian population, and as the current government seems determined to use military forces in future "domestic crisis" situations, with or without state permission or cooperation, directly in conflict with the Posse Comitatis Act.

TWO COMMON OBJECTIONS TO NULLIFICATION

Since the early days of our history, the nationalists, especially Chief Justice John Marshall, have planted the idea that the federal courts are the final arbiter of the Constitution, and the majority of supposedly educated legal scholars and professionals believe it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In Federalist No. 81, Alexander Hamilton, himself a nationalist, remarked that there is "not a syllable in the plan under consideration (the Constitution) which directly empowers the national courts to construe laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is evident opposition, the laws ought to give way to the Constitution." There is no place for activist judges or courts to legislate from the bench or to make up new rights never intended under the Constitution. The idea of a living constitution, preferred by the progressives (liberals) is a myth. The Constitution means exactly what it says.

Additionally, since the election of 2000 was thrown into the courts, they have become particularly politicized. Blind justice was now on the take. Currently, politicians go to great efforts to appoint and confirm judges who agree with their agenda, tilting the scales of justice. Our sacred liberties have been supplanted by the advancement of political agendas operating in the halls of justice. The Constitution no longer reigns supreme, it has been replaced by politics.

The Framers of the Constitution never foresaw the way political parties, with their partisan wrangling, would corrupt our system of government, particularly the courts. Marshall said, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." He had it wrong when he decided the federal courts should fill that role. The ultimate arbiter is the people, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or two-thirds of the states. This provision has allowed us to settle our differences peacably, rather than resort to force as other nations have done.

In conclusion, nullification is a constitutionally consistent principle whereby sovereign states can defend their reserved rights and powers from usurpation, far from being a discredited political doctrine. It is consistent in every aspect with the Constitution's fundamental principles, particularly the concepts of delegated powers and the seperation of powers. It should easily be recognized that it is not a state nullifying an unconstitutional law, it is the Constitution itself, since the Constitution limits what the federal government may lawfully do and excludes all other inconsistent actions.

If we are to restore constitutional government in the United States, the states must take a stand and use the tools available. After all, if nullification does not work, secession is the next logical step.