WhatFinger


Sic semper tyrannis!

Tyranny Negation with Nullification 



Tyranny Negation with Nullification The alleged “Nullification Powers” of the individual States are likely the only powers capable of saving us in this age of a tyrannical, lawless and unconstitutional Federal Government. The power of the States to nullify unlawful Federal edicts is ostensibly hidden in plain sight within the single sentence that comprises the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”

Authors of the Bill of Rights believed the Tenth Amendment provided some sort of useful function to the States--some significant degree of power to the States

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution serves as a sort of exclamation point for the message conveyed throughout the Constitution: The powers of the Federal Government are intended to be the least of the powers governing our country--and in particular powers that are well-circumscribed, specific, and limited. All remaining power is to be vested in the States and the People. And where there is confusion, the power of the individual States, and the People, supersedes.  Lamentably, the Supreme Court has never upheld the 'nullification interpretation' of the Tenth Amendment, citing the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to mean Federal law is superior to State law. And since Federal law--in particular Article III--grants the Supreme Court sole authority to interpret the constitutionality of Federal law, this means there is no role for the States to do so.  But logic suggests that the Constitution's Bill of Rights contains the Tenth Amendment for a reason. Moreover, since the Bill of Rights is comprised of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution it is only logical to presume that when the Tenth Amendment was written it obviously took into account the language already written and present in the Constitution.  Clearly, then, the authors of the Bill of Rights believed the Tenth Amendment provided some sort of useful function to the States--some significant degree of power to the States--that would at minimum justify the ink used to print it. And if this were the case isn't it prudent to consider that such powers must need be  consequential--such as the power to defy a federal law or edict the State thinks unlawful –  or even unconstitutional? 

Support Canada Free Press


In any case, the States' powers of nullification have remained neutered from the moment they were first  implied within the Tenth Amendment. And, admittedly, the Tenth Amendment is not without its baggage. In 1860 the nullification powers implied in the Tenth Amendment were employed as a  pretext for Secession--and the Civil War.  However, in recent years certain States have already employed sweeping nullification powers--if by another name. These States have--in actual practice--successfully nullified Federal Law within their boundaries, including so-called Sanctuary States and States which permit the legal use of marijuana and similar drugs--in contravention of Federal law. While it is true the Federal government has failed of yet to assail these States for their nullification activities it is nevertheless also true that these States'  nullification persists and has become regularized.  So where might a State's powers of nullification come into play in our own tempestuous and perilous times? How might these powers protect us from a Federal government gone rogue? Examples abound.   Consider border control: Regardless of the Supreme Court's prior rulings, certain States on the Southern Border might conclude that the Feds are in violation of their assigned duties to protect and defend, wherein the Feds are commanded to “... protect each of them (the States) against Invasion; and....against domestic violence.” (Article IV, Section 4, U.S. Constitution). These States might decide that it is unlawful for the Feds themselves to violate Federal laws regarding management of unlawful entry into the U.S.--whereupon the States would begin, themselves, to enforce 'Federal Law.'  To this end States might decide to build their own border fence or similar (as Texas is doing) and also might decide to arrest, detain, and deport anyone unlawfully crossing into the US over that State's own borders. And States might decide to do all of this without regard for Border Patrol or DHS prohibitions and perhaps in defiance of injunctions by the Courts. Even more bizarre, States might even threaten to jail any Federal official or officer attempting to interfere with its nullification powers.  Of course, all of this would risk a showdown between the State and the Feds; the Feds might even attempt to arrest and jail the State's elected leaders who enjoined (the unconstitutional) Federal statute. Practically, and usefully, such a showdown would serve the dual purpose of highlighting what is actually going on at the border and would bring national attention to the debate over the Feds' unlawful unenforcement of Federal Immigration Policy. 

Seems increasingly likely that if we are to survive the tyranny overwhelming us at every turn we must seriously consider deploying the very reasonable interpretation of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: A State's Power of Nullification 

In any case the outcome could be no worse than what we have now, with 400,000 illegal immigrants--and more--crossing into our nation every month.  Another example; consider the federal vaccine mandate: Certain States might conclude it is unlawful for the Feds to act with such caprice as to decree--outside of the legislative process--that America's mid-sized and larger companies be forced to terminate unvaccinated employees lest the company become bankrupted by ruinous government fines. These States might decide to indemnify these companies against any such fines--for however long it takes the States to reach the Supreme Court--and with the intention the State will never pay the fines because the edict would be found to be  unconstitutional in the first place.  In these times that try men's souls one must ask whether any method other than nullification might be useful. Secession? Hegemony of one political party over a nation comprised of two political parties? Capitulation? A 30-year march back through the institutions? Dependence upon Legislators or the Courts--on winning elections? Reason and persuasion?  Each of these options has already failed or would be intolerable, insufficient, or untimely.  Instead, it seems increasingly likely that if we are to survive the tyranny overwhelming us at every turn we must seriously consider deploying the very reasonable interpretation of the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights: A State's Power of Nullification.  Sic semper tyrannis! 


View Comments

Dr. Brad Lyles -- Bio and Archives

Dr. Brad Lyles is an independent writer for the Tea Party.


Sponsored