1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/14422/nullification-what-youll-never-learn-in-school/

Nullification: What You’ll Never Learn in School

October 29, 2010 by

The trouble with nullification is not that it is too “extreme,” as the enforcers of opinion would say, but that it is too timid. But it gets people thinking in terms of resistance, which has to be a good thing, and it defies the unexamined premise of the entire political spectrum. FULL ARTICLE by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.


BioTube October 29, 2010 at 8:28 am

What I find interesting is the number of self-described “strict constructionists” who take the Supreme Court’s word for it that they have the authority to decide whether or not a law’s constitutional, despite the fact that the tenth amendment would place it with the states.

Walt D. October 29, 2010 at 9:21 am

You could probably count on one hand the number of members of congress who have actually read and remember the Constitution and all of the Amendments, let alone those who have read and remember the Federalist Papers. Their oath office to defend the Constitution is an empty one. How can you swear to uphold that which you do not even know?

A Liberal In Lakeview October 29, 2010 at 10:12 am

BioTube, concerning the attitude of ” ‘strict constructionists’ “, see Article VII, in which it is claimed that the ratifications of the conventions of nine states would be sufficient to make the Constitution into law, that is, to establish it.

Now, how in the world could Art. VII have ever been relevant to establishment without first presupposing establishment of the “Constitution for the United States of America” before the ninth ratification? (That was on June 21, 1788, by NH’s convention.) In short, it couldn’t. So there was no reason to have incuded it in the first place. And if ever the Constitution were established as law, then Article VII, would be superfluous.

Thus, Article VII is a necessarily superfluous article.

You should already suspect the motive for including the same requirement for nine in the resolution that was attested by Jackson and distributed by Washington, et al. on Monday, Sept. 17, 1787. That motive was to stipulate a supreme law which fixes the criteria for ratification and establishment of the Constitution. But what conventions were held to determine if the resolution, in whole or in part, is to be established as law? Well, none. And what power did the Articles confer for their action. None.

I’ve heard several objections to this argument, but never anything persuasive. One guy, for example, claimed that the same technique is used in statutes. It didn’t seem to occur to him that it must be that those alleged statutes have a defect in common with the Constitution.

Russ the Apostate October 30, 2010 at 4:18 pm

I think that your entire argument is more or less superfluous. The fact of the matter is that all of the thirteen states eventually ratified the Constitution. They decided that they would all rather be member states of the United States of America under the new Constitution than secede and try going it on their own. This was a definite option back then, and yet none of the states chose it. And it also doesn’t matter that the Articles of Confederation did not confer the power to make a new constitution. The states were sovereign, at that point, and could choose to re-unite under a new constitution if they so chose, which they did.

A Liberal In Lakeview October 29, 2010 at 10:27 am

One more thing:

To say “states” in reference to the State of Delaware, the State of Illinois, etc. is misleading and encourages the commission of the fallacy of drawing an inference from a name or title.

A state without sovereignty is an absurd concept, and the examples given are not sovereign. So, the State of Illinois is a province, not a state.

The provinces of the USA, a provincial republic, may be divided into two classes. There are provinces called “states”, and there are those, e.g. Puerto Rico, which are not.

Drigan October 29, 2010 at 8:43 am

A slightly more extreme idea that would be far more effective would be to have the states or even the people of the states send 2 delegates into a new branch of government we can call the ‘anti-legislative branch.’ (ALB)

The ALB would have no power to create nor enforce laws, but rather would have the power with a 40% minority (Yes, I said “minority,” that wasn’t a typo) to banish any law it chooses.

The immediate effect of this is that congress would be forced to make laws that at least 61% of state delegates support. This would encourage less partisanship. Another effect is that bad laws that are supposedly constitutional would get repealed.

Unfortunately, this plan would require a constitutional amendment, and I just don’t see that happening.


Zorg October 29, 2010 at 1:01 pm

Yeah, it’s pretty easy to come up with simple yet profound improvements
of the system. We could all sit down and in one afternoon come up with something
ten times better than the constitution. But that’s not how politics works. It’s
not about good ideas or “limiting government”. It’s just about power.

What you’re talking about I would just call The Veto Amendment. As long
as the lower political jurisdictions have veto power, you don’t need other
fancy constructions. Why was this not included in the con? Why was the
right to secession not spelled out in black in white? Well, they didn’t miss
“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes,” but they did neglect
to say that states could lawfully secede and/or veto or nullify bad
legislation. I wonder why. : )

Wildberry October 29, 2010 at 2:31 pm

“We could all sit down and in one afternoon come up with something
ten times better than the constitution.”

Really? Man, you are good. I hope you really are planning to spend an afternoon on this. That would really help us all out.

Allen Weingarten October 29, 2010 at 9:17 am

“Nullification is the Jeffersonian idea that the states of the American Union must judge the constitutionality of the acts of their agent, the federal government…”

I would add that the states are closer to the people than is the federal government, which is why Madison wrote “The power delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

That is, the more fundamental issue than the relative power of the states and the federal government, is that between the individual and the government. The individual was to be the master (or sovereign), and the government the servant (or agent). Instead the opposite has occurred, where people now believe that their rights come from government, rather than government derives from the right of people to choose it.

Walt D. October 29, 2010 at 9:22 am

Tom – brilliant article. Can you do a follow up post on jury nullification?

Barry Loberfeld October 29, 2010 at 9:45 am

Agreed, W.D. — definitely a topic worth review.

J. Murray October 29, 2010 at 9:46 am

It appears that the original intent was to build the United States power structure in a pyramidal fashion. The closer the political figure is to you, the more power they are permitted to have. The local town council was meant to be the most important political body in your life. The State was then of lesser importance and the Federal level of such little importance you barely register it even exists.

Our system today is completely the opposite of this. Everyone can name the President, but almost no one knows who is on the city council. The citizenry pays intense attention to national politics, but you’ll probably have one or two people show up during a city hall meeting. Our political system is built on this inverted pyramid. And as anyone with basic knowledge could grasp, standing a pyramid on its tip is a difficult task and making it stable is impossible.

Price October 30, 2010 at 6:09 am
British October 29, 2010 at 11:23 am

What I would like to know is where in the articles of the confederation, the bill of rights and the constitution does it state that the supreme court ” Interperts the constitution” . Is it not supposed to enforce it?

J. Murray October 29, 2010 at 12:22 pm

Article III of the US Constitution just sets the Supreme Court as the last place you can appeal your charge to. It’s a whole of three short paragraphs long and makes zero mention of nullifying law. The court basically granted itself the power.

scineram October 30, 2010 at 6:03 am

So there should be no constitutional check on Congress? Only its voluntary restraint?

BioTube October 30, 2010 at 11:14 am

See my post above: because the constitution makes no mention of dealing with unconstitutional laws, the tenth amendment dictates that this ability belongs to the state.

Russ the Apostate October 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm

What if two states went at it against each other in federal court? It doesn’t make much sense that both the plaintiff and defendant get to independently decide what they think the applicable federal law means.

And what if a state and a citizen of said state went to court, with a constitutional matter at issue? It also doesn’t make much sense for the state to get to decide what is constitutional, when the state is the defendant who allegedly did something unconstitutional against a citizen. The citizen would always lose.

And if a case involves the Federal gov’t against a state, who decides? Another state? A majority of other states, and then each state gets to nullify that ruling or not, as it sees fit? It all makes no sense.

The ugly fact of the matter is that the whole concept of imperium in imperio, as embodied in the Tenth Amendment, is riddled with logical contradictions. The only logically consistent alternatives are having the “several states”, as Hayek would say, be completely sovereign and independent; or having one national state with the component “states” actually being mere administrative provinces. For better or worse, we have the latter. Nullification would effectively take us back to the former, which is of course why it would never be allowed. Heck, even something as relatively trivial as state laws permitting marijuana use are being fought tooth and nail by the Federal gov’t. Something as devastating to its “authoritah” as nullification would never in a million years be allowed. Even if it became a popular idea, I would bet it would not happen unless it instigated another war of secession.

Jordan Viray October 29, 2010 at 2:17 pm

Enforcement of a law requires usually requires some kind of interpretation which the courts are meant to help provide. Also, courts don’t enforce the laws directly; Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said about a Supreme Court decision, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!”

Anyway, when the Constitution was created, Article III did not explicitly establish the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the Constitution. That power was established as precedent in Marbury vs. Madison in the early 19th century.

No doubt Dr. Woods’ book will go into proper detail about these things. It would be nice if he would release it into public domain after a while like a lot of other authors on here.

Wildberry October 29, 2010 at 2:36 pm

I think the relevant cases were Marbury v. Madison (Congress and Executive) and Fletcher v. Peck (state statutes).

Joe October 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm

Google Marbury v Madison for your answer. This case established “judical review” by the Supreme Court. The court can say whether a law is unconstitutional.

scineram November 1, 2010 at 5:30 am

Doyou have a problem with that? Judicial nullification.

Joe October 30, 2010 at 1:34 pm

Look up Marbury v Madison. You will see where the Supreme Court set up precedent for “judical review.

LetUsHavePeace October 29, 2010 at 11:36 am

Nullification is “extreme” because it is a nice word for what it was in 1820 – ignoring the plain language and meaning of the United States Constitution because you don’t like the results. It is the legal and philosophical equivalent of how Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s powerhouse team used to play touch football on the weekends in D.C. Whenever the opponents showed even a chance of evening the score, the Attorney General would pick up the ball and go home.

Matthew Swaringen October 29, 2010 at 1:28 pm

So what if I don’t like the results? You are for forcing everyone else to go along with them? I suppose this is clear from your response, but I’d like to know how you are different from a fascist with these notions of your superiority merely based on being with the majority on certain policy matters. I don’t know how you can carry a name like “LetUsHavePeace” when you seek for government to carry out violence against others to enforce policy decisions.

I personally disagree with you about the meaning of the Constitution in this regard, but even if I did agree with you I think nullification should be practiced more often. The Constitution is no sacred text and unlike a voluntary game of touch football public policy is supported via theft and is not a game at all.

Wildberry October 29, 2010 at 2:54 pm


Within very broad limits, you are personally free today do quite a bit of rejection. For example, anarchists could band together and pretty well insulate themselves from the rest of American society and be well within their Constitutional freedoms. Your right to do so would largely be PROTECTED by the government.
Consider the Amish and to a lesser extent, the Mennonites.

So why don’t we see more of that happening? Someone said here there are 50,000, give or take. That should be enough to establish a anarchist colony somewhere. That’s a lot more than, say Walden’s pond.

As Tom Woods says in his promo here, (I’m in the middle of his book) that may not be going far enough, but hey, it would be a major step in the right direction. Praxeology scholars could have a field day analyzing the results.

Maybe something like the Truman show? I’d tune in to that.

In the meantime, this should generate some interesting points of view about what the Constitution actually says, and how what is says has been interpreted and expanded upon up to our current day, and just what vehicles for change are PROTECTED by its existence.

One thing I can say we seem to mostly agree upon, change is desirable. OK, let’s pick something.

Jordan Viray October 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm

“For example, anarchists could band together and pretty well insulate themselves from the rest of American society”

And could anarchists insulate themselves from property, income, sales taxes, FICA, SUTA, FUTA, Medicare taxes? Could anarchists insulate themselves from OSHA, EPA, DEA, BATF, DHS, DOT, USDA, Department of Education, the Civil Rights Act, DOE, HHS etc.?

No – at least not without incurring aggression from the government.

nate-m October 30, 2010 at 12:42 am

We’ve seen what happens when people try to insulate themselves from the government. Ruby ridge comes to mind.

Gil October 30, 2010 at 6:25 am

So what? Those who wrote the Declaration of the Independence knew that too. They knew the British Government would not leave them alone and send the army to stop the separatists. Hence it was going to be a War of Independence and not mere chat or paper-signing. Had the British won they would have made life for the Americans very harsh indeed. However the Americans knew perfectly well if they wanted freedom they would have to quite literally fight for it.

Seattle October 31, 2010 at 5:55 am

Gil: And we all see how well THAT freedom turned out, eh?

Eric October 29, 2010 at 11:58 am

It seems that most people think of nullification as done by the State GOVERNMENTS. What about nullification by the people – through voting on state propositions?

In CA, if we all vote to legalize Pot, isn’t that nullification? There’s been a lot of libertarian calls for not voting lately. I agree on the uselessness of voting for politicians, but there’s a dream vote in CA next week.

The late (great) Harry Browne used to say, “don’t vote – it only encourages them”. But he also was in favor of voting on propositions – at least he used to talk approvingly about how the Swiss could vote on propositions at the National level. Well, Harry passed before the idea of Nullification was reintroduced, but I’m sure he’d approve of voting on nullification propositions. It’s been mentioned that medical marijuana is a form of Nullification; then surely libertarians should approve of voting on any proposition that increased freedom. Lowering taxes would also apply.

J. Murray October 29, 2010 at 12:25 pm

The problem is that virtually every state requires you to vote on EVERYTHING on the ballot or your vote doesn’t count. I usually get around this by writing myself in on every electable position.

Eric October 29, 2010 at 1:42 pm

A quick google of this seems to overwhelmingly state this is not true. They do mention some issues with party affiliation, during a primary, but otherwise, nothing popped up. I found a site that definitely stated that it’s not true in CA.

But your solution works, and you could just vote libertarian, they won’t win anyway. But what if someone ran unopposed, it would then require that you vote for that person. I think you’ve been had by a myth.

Jordan Viray October 29, 2010 at 2:44 pm

What state are you from?

“The problem is that virtually every state requires you to vote on EVERYTHING on the ballot or your vote doesn’t count. ”

I’m fairly sure that is wrong.

J. Murray October 29, 2010 at 3:01 pm

I’ve lived in a few and I guess I just got lucky. Currently in Florida and that’s the case here. You can’t leave anything blank.

Capn Mike October 30, 2010 at 1:05 am

Yeah, that jumped out at me during the Fla. 2000 debacle news stories.

That is SO WRONG. (In principle, that is, I’ll concede that it’s probably true…)

As pointed out by Jordan, above, if someone ran unopposed, you would be FORCED to vote for him/her????? Wow! Stalin would love it.

Jaycephus October 30, 2010 at 3:38 pm

And then there is NV, where this year, the check-box for Harry Reid is pre-selected for you! You can’t select anyone else until you un-select Reid by un-intuitively clicking on his pre-selected check-box.

nate-m October 30, 2010 at 3:33 am

> I’m fairly sure that is wrong.

It depends on the specific juristiction. When you do not vote for particular category that is called a ‘undervote’. When you vote multiple times for a particular category then that is called a ‘overvote’.

Depending on the juristiction undervotes or overvotes may cause your entire ballot to be rejected, or just that particular category to be ignored. Every election keeps track of them and you can find out your own particular policy by calling into your regional office. Just ask them about undervotes/overvotes and it won’t take you long until you find somebody that will be answer your question.

The rules for elections vary quite a bit and can be unique to states, countries, or even precincts.

People generally don’t talk about the rates of overvotes or undervotes because there is a certain percentage of the population that will freak out and think it is talking about the number of votes being ‘not counted’ or ‘counted multiple times’. No matter how often you try to explain this stuff to people there is a very significant, and very vocal, portion of the voting public that will freak out and make your life hell.

What makes things even odder is that there is a sizable portion of the population that simply comes in and signs a blank ballot. Mostly it’s because the local population are busybodies and will know if somebody notable did not show up to vote.

I know this, because I worked in the voting industry for a couple years.

Basically the only thing stupider and less informed then the average voting public is the people that run the elections.

If this country required voters to not be on welfare and eliminated all official recognition of political parties (either in setting election rules, or mentions in documentation and ballots) then it would go a VERY VERY long way to solving a lot of issues. Most people will just vote across party lines completely regardless to any position or statements that a official ever made.

The way things are now it’s very sad:
In 2006:
220,600,000 = potential voters
135,889,600 = registered voters
80,588,000 = actual voters.

During a non-presidential election you only need to convince about 18% of the population to agree with you to gain dominance.

Think about that for a little while.

Jordan Viray October 30, 2010 at 3:20 pm

So do you know of any jurisdictions (other than Florida) where undervotes disqualify the entire ballot?

I’m wondering whether Florida’s requirement to vote on every item or California’s (and I’ve always assumed Washington’s) non-requirement to vote on every item is more common in the US.

I know my specific ballot says to the effect that an overvote on a specific item will mean that vote for that item will not be counted. It did not mention anything about undervoting, however.

There are always some items I am ambivalent towards.

A Liberal In Lakeview October 29, 2010 at 1:59 pm

Liberty is more likely to have room to flourish in a world of many competing jurisdictions rather than under a single, irresistible jurisdiction.

A very interesting idea which prompts questions. What is the fewest number of people that a jurisdiction could have? Must it have more than one? If the reply is yes, then why should one suppose that adding another person establishes legitimacy? Or is it not just one more, but two more, i.e. a total of three people?

In what, precisely does the property of jurisdiction inhere if not in an individual human? Could jurisdiction be a property, that is, a quality, a feature, a characteristic, of a group? …when, in fact, a group of people is not a living being but a set? …and the set does not have physical reality but is a mental object? …of every person who forms it in his or thoughts? …in which case it may be that ‘group’ is incorrect term but groups appropriate?

Do collectivists attempt to get around the problems here suggested by claiming that laws proclaimed for a jurisdiction inhere in the land as a property of that land? …hence the term, supreme law of the land? …to which you must submit even if you do not consent?

Gil October 30, 2010 at 1:45 am

Indeed, a case of Sorites’ Paradox. Is a group of three unjust or a group of 100 million? Is liberty only achieveable in a “group” of one? When Robison Crusoe is alone with the island all to himself then he is totally free- there is no one to tell him what he can or can’t do. However as soon as another person arrives on the island then what? The only way Robison Crusoe can keep 100% liberty is to either expel the person from his island or to make him his slave otherwise Crusoe loses some of his freedoms to the newcomer. By the same token why would smaller governments and populations be beneficial? Vlad the Impaler’s kingdom and economy would be puny compared to most U.S. State economies yet the people were way more unfree than the average American. A lot of tinpot African dictators command way fewer resources and people than what is in most U.S. States yet the people within are way more unfree than the average American too. Hence this line of thinking “that size matters” doesn’t follow.

A Liberal In Lakeview October 30, 2010 at 12:46 pm

Let’s try another question, to see if that will get you past your block:

How can a republic be unless every one of its individuals has authority?

And how could the republic be unless each such individual had authority prior to proclamation of the republic? This raises other isses, esp. about how you could make legitimate any vote on the question, ‘shall we establish a republic?’ without presupposing the (1) existence of a republic before you hold your vote and (2) laws which sanction the election. I don’t think you can. If you cannot solve these problems, suggested above in a response to BioTube, then you can never have a republic, as is popular to pretend that there is in the USA, in the geographical sense of the term.

Further, what does it mean to say, “there is a republic”, in the sense of the word used in the Constitution? Where does your republic exist (1) if it is not the land, (2) if it is not any single individual, and (3) if a society is not a living being? Well, it exists only in your head, so to write, and that mental object would be a different republic than all the other republics that exist in all the other heads of the purported citizens of your republic.

Now, it’s proper to be concerned about tin pot tyrants and Vlad the Impaler, but such people are collectivists. They propose a government of a few over many. I propose no such thing nor do I envision it. (I suspect that you are projecting…more on that in a few moments.) So also was Ludwig von Mises a collectivist, and loudly so since at least the 1920s.

Don’t believe me? Read his words in Liberalism. He clamoured for a worldwide superstate, a Weltueberstaat, as I recall reading in the German edition. His Weltueberstaat would be a secular paradise made safe for turbocapitalism under the protection of a superstate of provinces. In other words, it would be a gangster organization the path to which would invariably elicit opposition from those who don’t want it (i.e. terrorists, in Weltueberstaatspeak) and a powerful warfare-police state. The military would deal with stubborn opponents outside the territories dominated by sympathic (to superstatism) leaders of subglobal territories, and the police would manage dissidents within.

Rothbard should have been ashamed of himself if he never condemned Mises.

When you asked, “[b]y the same token why would smaller governments and populations be beneficial?”, what you really meant is, “why would it be more beneficial to have a lower ratio of (1) tyrants to (2) those who are compelled to submit than it would be under a different system of tyrants, like Russia, China, or the USA?”. We know this is so by your immediate segue to Vlad and tinpot tyrants. But I suggested no such thing whatever, so your rhetoric is diversionary and illicit.

Finally, what do you mean by “100% liberty” and “totally free”? That Crusoe should have the right to expel any visitor, even a castaway who should happen to wash up on the shores of the island of despair? I believe that’s exactly what you think. But even if you didn’t believe that, consider the perniciousness of such a doctrine. The castaway would almost certainly be denied what is proper for Homo, namely, life, not to mention the opportunity to work for the sustenance of its life, for Crusoe would be empowered to deny the castaway respite on dry land, fresh water, fruits and vegetables, etc.

What a sparkling liberty your libery would be.

Gil October 30, 2010 at 11:47 pm

1. The U.S. became a Republic when they desired to have no Monarchy to replace the one they rebelled from.

2. I stand by my comparison to the issue of Sorites Paradox especially to Libertarians who talk of “State rights” as if to say “having only State Governments and no Federal Government would be better”. However that’s just replacing one government with another. By the same token I also presume that the ratio of government to people doesn’t really matter especially if the ruler is a tyrant – you’re unfree regardless.

Jaycephus October 30, 2010 at 3:51 pm

You do realize that you proclaimed the ‘idea’, presumably the full idea contained within the quote, as ‘interesting’, and then went about ignoring that idea to dwell merely upon the concept of ‘jurisdiction’?

guard November 1, 2010 at 7:45 am

I have actually put a great deal of study into the subject. The only theory that explains all the extant phenomenon is a spiritual one. I use the word theory advisedly. Jurisdiction is derived from Latin words diction, as in dictator or speaking with power, and jurare, an oath or swearing. What we have is simply a restatement of magical terms known from the beginning of recorded history. All government power is based on oaths, which historically is a method of
calling upon, i.e invoking supernatural powers. It is the supernatural power that enforces the jurisdiction and it does indeed have an existence independent of human beings. All government offices, the “justice” system, all armed forces, subjection to the IRS, all are entered into under oath. We now call it “conjuring” which means from Latin “to swear together”. Anyone who attempts to cram all this spiritual content into the materialist perspective will continue to be stymied. Politics is religion and is in fact the old religion – magic.

Jordan Viray November 1, 2010 at 11:46 am

Thanks for that – I always enjoy learning the etymological history of terms.

Vedpushpa October 29, 2010 at 11:53 pm

‘Nullification’ as a constitutionally politically valid de -activization of an ongoing Federal [Central policy or programme by the constitutuent States is indeed a critical factor in preserving the Republic structure of any Nation. For – it is the over centralization which will gradually turn even an honestly elected people’s government into a tyranny uncontended .
And – more often it is the so seeming ‘timid’ and ‘tame’ central laws which can silently frustrate many of the citizen or the state-specific beneficial claims on the central Politic – both in terms of the moral and the material count.

social anthropologist
Bangalore – India

Vedpushpa October 30, 2010 at 1:38 am

If I may add… I find ‘Scularism’ or Secular Polity… are the two National/Federal political proclamations which by their awowed ‘avoidance or distancing from Religion and Philosophy … have rendered the civic society ‘ a moral’ as it were…and already now we are facing its dangerous consequences …erratic and arbitrary human individual ‘self-oriented’ behaviour without any common notion of ethics or morality whatsoever — The were the two checks and balancing factors that were provided by religion and philosophy….and which neither the law legal or the rule political can logically accommodate.
So as ‘Secularism’ meaning a particular recognition of ‘here and now materialistic notion’ which is an obvious political value can only be a ‘redundant statement’ and not any innovative additive political merit needs the ‘Nullification.
And that can reactivate many a now ‘tabooed’ but valid religio-philosophical and socio-cultural human mores vital.

Joe October 31, 2010 at 11:47 am

Hear, hear. We could accomodate a lot like you in this country.

Chad K October 30, 2010 at 12:40 pm

Dr. Woods is a refreshing breathe when interpreting reality. I read Nullification a few months ago, and just finished his New Deal course. It is important to understand both perspectives when examining historical events. Our society’s perspectives our fueled by our liberal media and our politicians. These politicians want to promises us the best life imaginable. But imagination and reality are to very different things. And gentlemen like Dr. Woods allow us to see the reality that is blanketed by mainstream ignorance and disillusion. Hail to the education and the awareness Dr. Woods brings us.

Kirk October 30, 2010 at 7:07 pm

We are seeing an example of nullification right now in many states regarding the Obama insurance purchase mandate. Many states have passed laws against the mandate. Another example is the Real ID Act which many states have refused to participate in, some even passing laws prohibiting it.

Of course, if you don’t happen to live in a state that will stand up to the fed., then you are exposed to any and all liberty grabbing policies that come down the pike, hence the problem with timidity.

Linda October 31, 2010 at 3:15 am

States aren’t sovereign, people are or aren’t. The capstone at the top of the pyramid is there only because of the support beneath it. Stop cooperating. As Sheri Peel Jackson said, “Show me the law” – in reference to being a taxpayer to IRS. One has to consent to being a taxpayer. Hemp will never be legal, not in the terms that you guys are thinking. Law does not operate on paper, particularly whenever the law is based on Nature. Law implies morality-not tangible. Legal is words on paper, a statement of law. The administration’s collection of debt codes. We can’t drink the word ‘water.’ We’re seemingly stuck in a political alphabet of words that are constantly having their meanings changed. Politician -self-centered, short-sighted, profit motivated. Government – govern Latin for control and mente Latin for mind. That is the main reason marijuana (flowers and leaves) will not be ‘legalized’ – the World Management Team wouldn’t be able to control our minds. I find it odd that CA. INC. has the second largest Constitution in the world, since Constitutions go from the people to the state. But then the game was well underway by 1850 when CA. INC. signed in as a state. I’d find it a step in the right direction if our public servants would stop serving the state by transferring wealth to the state. They can’t serve the people when they’re serving the state. As a side, how about the fact that every state’s Tax labeled vehicle code is a franchise?

scineram November 1, 2010 at 5:37 am

Show the law for yourself! It is called Internal Revenue Code. And why would everyone have to consent to being a taxpayer?

publius January 22, 2011 at 10:18 pm

Idaho reads Woods. Bravo!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: