Nullification: The means to reestablish federalism

In a USA Today article titled A solution to secession – federalism, Glenn Harlan “Instapundit” Reynolds  proposes federalism as a way to rein in government without splitting up the Union.

He defines federalism as, ” Let the central government do the things that only central governments can do — national defense, regulation of trade to keep the provinces from engaging in economic warfare with one another, protection of basic civil rights — and then let the provinces go their own way in most other issues.” After all, that political philosophy is the foundation of the country.

The Instapundit doesn’t suggest how we might actually make that happen.

Judging by the size and power of the central government, the reach of the laws it passes, and the accelerating rate of increase in all of the above, expecting the Congress and president to voluntarily stop doing what they’ve been doing for the past 100 years, or so, is insanity. It doesn’t matter which party wrests control of the system, the federal government continues to grow. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to side with Liberty, either.


Cheerleader or Jeerleader?

I’m hearing a lot of ruckus about the presidential election.  People on the left blindly defending Barack Obama; people on the right blindly criticizing him.  I have heard plenty of stories on this topic.

Amongst them

“We need to do a recall”

“Sign this petition to secede”

“Obama is the savior of the middle class”

“Yes We Can”

I’m sick of it from both sides.

The truth stands alone.  Barack Obama is one in a long list of horrible presidents.  His total disregard for the Constitution and our liberty is without question.

And let’s be honest, Romney wasn’t going to be much better.

Since the election, Republicans and Democrats alike have done very little to advance the cause of liberty.  Both red and blue governors are still playing politics, even when the voters in their states have clearly spoken out on the issues such as healthcare, medicinal and recreational use of marijuana, indefinite detention, the TSA, and many other issues.

Pundits continue to regurgitate media propaganda, argue issues of who’s right and who’s wrong and why, and use outlandish insults and claims to generate buzz and inflate their own agenda driven ego’s.  The only problem is…they have no agenda.

Politicians are not interested in solving any problems.


Defending the Supremacy Clause via State Nullification

The major argument used by those that oppose Nullification is the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, but the arguments for the Supremacy Clause ARE the arguments for Nullification.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article VI, US Constitution

Timothy Bloodworth in the State Ratifying Convention of North Carolina stated the consensus of those that opposed the Supremacy Clause when he stated, “It appears to me to sweep off all the Constitutions of the states. It is a total repeal of every act and Constitution of the states. The Judges are sworn to uphold it. It will produce an abolition of the state governments. Its sovereignty absolutely annihilates them.”

So, was Timothy Bloodworth and others who opposed the Constitution and the Supremacy Clause right or were the Federalists?

The major architects of the Constitution and those that led the fight for its adoption laid down what the Supremacy Clause meant in reality at the Ratifying Conventions, by doing so they defended State Sovereignty, and set the stage for the negation of unconstitutional actions.