States react to fed agenda with nullification

By on May 28, 2013

On the heels of a recent  poll that said 29 percent of registered voters believe an “armed revolution” may  be needed in America to restore liberties, a  second poll said Americans already have figured out a solution – reject  federal laws that are unconstitutional.

Now it appears on issues ranging from Obamacare to guns, from South Carolina  to Pennsylvania, lawmakers are listening. And nullification is starting to  encroach onto legislative language.

  At  Alabama’s, a report noted that nullification was tried when  Washington ordered desegregation.

However, “Nullification efforts today are not just found in the Deep South.  Today state lawmakers from Washington state to Pennsylvania are passing state  legislation aimed at hosts of federal laws they see as unconstitutional.”

The report continued, “Thirty-plus states, including Alabama, have passed  various laws attempting to exempt themselves from having to implement the  federal healthcare overhaul passed in 2010, so called Obamacare. States, most  notably Arizona and Alabama, have passed controversial immigration laws aimed at  regulating illegal immigration Both states have seen federal courts strike key  provisions of the laws saying they are unconstitutional and that the authority  for regulating immigration is a federal, not a state power.”

That that doesn’t even touch the long list of states that have adopted, or  are working on, various plans to nullify federal gun restrictions.

At the  Washington Times, a commentary said supporters of the idea “see it as a  necessary and effective tool to protect states and citizens from the  every-growing power of the federal government.”

The report continued, “Its first advocates were Thomas Jefferson and James  Madison, who drafted the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which  declared, ‘Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its  acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.’”

Even Barack Obama has used it. He and Attorney General Eric Holder conspired  to announce they would no longer enforce or defend the federal law that was  adopted during an earlier federal administration, the Defense of Marriage  Act.

Get “Taking  America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral  renewal

They simply announced the government no longer would defend the law,  resulting in a series of bar association complaints over ethics violations for  federal attorneys involved. They simply one day were defending the law in court,  and then next day undermining it, critics have pointed out.

The Times reported, “Over a dozen states, with South Carolina being the most  recent, have passed legislation aimed at preventing the Obamacare health care  mandate from being enforced in their jurisdictions. South Carolina’s goes the  furthest by proposing to grant taxpayers a state tax deduction equal to the  federal penalty for failing to purchase health care.”

The report said on the issue of guns, Montana, Alabama and Kansas lately  joined the battle by adopting laws preventing federal gun-control enforcement  within their borders.

The Times noted, “Even liberals are joining the trend. In California, the  state Senate has joined dozens of other states in approving legislation designed  to prevent the president from executing the indefinite detention provisions of  the National Defense Authorization Act.”

And Washington and Colorado simply ignored federal law and approved the legal  use of marijuana.

Fox  News reported in Missouri the movement came together to create a proposal  that would declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable.

Rep. Doug Funderburk said, “We have the authority to enforce these laws. We  are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer  neighborhoods.”

The  New American reported South Carolina advocated for states’ rights – and  responsibility – in opposing the Obamacare takeover of health care  decision-making nationwide.

The idea there was that the state itself would sue on behalf of patients who  may be endangered by Obama’s health care plan.

The proposal said, “Whenever the attorney general has reasonable cause to  believe that a person or business is being harmed by implementation of the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and that proceedings would be in the  public interest, the attorney general may bring an action in the name of the  state against such person or entity causing the harm…”

The  Tenth Amendment Center monitors such activity, concluded that of South  Carolina: “The fact that the assembly is willing to make constitutional  determinations on a federal act already ruled constitution by the Supreme Court  is historic. No other state is doing this…”

At  Freedomworks, a commentary explains that the federal government “only has  about 30 enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution. According to the  Tenth Amendment, any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution should be left up  to individual states to decide.”

Now, the commentary explains, “The United States has gone grossly astray …  The federal government is involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives  from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on  television.”

Freedomworks said the attitude was explained by U.S. Rep. Pete Stark,  D-Calif., who said, “The federal government can do most anything in this  country.”

The earlier poll on armed revolution was by Fairleigh Dickinson University.  It said that among Republicans, 44 percent think armed revolution soon might be  needed.

On the general question of “nullification,” 44 percent believe states should  have the right to block any federal laws they disagree with on legal grounds.  Thirty-six percent disagree and 20 percent are undecided, the pollsters  said.

Nullification previously has been used as a legal argument to overturn  everything from pro-slavery laws on, always unsuccessfully to date. The U.S.  Supreme Court contends that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution,  federal law is superior to state law and that federal courts have the final say  on interpreting the Constitution.

But some states are simply saying no.

Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, said  there are many ways to nullify a law.

“The courts can strike a law down. The executive branch could refuse to  enforce it. People in large numbers might refuse to comply. A number of states  could pass a law making its enforcement illegal. Or a number a states could  refuse to cooperate in any way with its enforcement.”

During the 2012 election alone, nearly  a dozen states voted on measures that literally snubbed Washington’s authority,  ranging from marijuana to Obamacare.

As WND  reported, Arizona and Montana reviewed proposals that would set up standing  state commissions to review “all existing federal statutes, mandates, and  executive orders” to determine their constitutionality.

The commissions would recommend to state lawmakers whether or not any  particular federal plan should be nullified in that state.

Weighing in on the subject, WND columnist  Walter Williams argued that “moral people” can’t rely only on courts to  determine what is right and wrong.

“Suppose Congress enacted a law – and the Supreme Court ruled it  constitutional – requiring American families to attend church services at least  three times a month,” he wrote. “Should we obey such a law? Suppose Congress,  acting under the Constitution’s commerce clause, enacted a law requiring  motorists to get eight hours of sleep before driving on interstate highways. Its  justification might be that drowsy motorists risk highway accidents, and  accidents affect interstate commerce. Suppose you were a jury member during the  1850s and a free person were on trial for assisting a runaway slave, in clear  violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. Would you vote to convict and punish?

“A moral person would find each one of those laws either morally repugnant or  to be a clear violation of our Constitution. You say, ‘Williams, you’re wrong  this time. In 1859, in Ableman v. Booth, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the  Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 constitutional.’ That court decision, as well as some  others in our past, makes my case. Moral people can’t rely solely on the courts  to establish what’s right or wrong. Slavery is immoral; therefore, any laws that  support slavery are also immoral. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘to consider  the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very  dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of  an oligarchy.’”


Avatar of KKCHRI


57 years old. I am a lab technician at Ascend Performance Materials in Decatur Alabama