In an article on the WRAL.com website entitled “Gun proposal highlights nullification debate,” there were several statements made concerning nullification I would like to address.
First let me say that I’ll address the merits of House Bill 246 , “The Gun Rights Amendment,” in a latter posting, but one quick point. As an amendment, it will not be voted on till 2014. Those that will take away our gun rights aren’t going to wait that long. We need protection NOW!
But to the statements made concerning nullification, Rep. Pittman is correct when he said, “The states created the federal government, not the other way around, and the federal government needs to learn once again to be servants of the states and not our masters”
It is also reported, “Pittman said many of his constituents believe in nullification – that a state can simply refuse to comply with federal law.”
I believe the first part is true, “many of his constituents believe in nullification,” but I think that the later part is not what Rep. Pittman said or believes. A state can only refuse to comply IF that “law” does not follow the Constitution listed under the enumerated powers granted the federal government by the states and the people.
But Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland statements concerning nullification are typical of “constitutional law professors,” and most lawyers, concerning nullification. They seem to know everything about case law decided by the Supreme Court, but know nothing about the Constitution its writers and its ratification.
Here is a quick analysis of incorrect statements made in this article concerning nullification.
“Over the years, however, the courts have found one big problem with nullification.”
Of course they have, as well as have the other two branches, because nullification blocks their continual collusion for power outside of the Constitution.
“It’s patently unconstitutional,” said Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland.
Really, please show me in the Constitution where States are denied the right and power of nullification. I’ll save you the trouble; it’s not in there. But I’ll show you where the power of nullification is reserved to the states or to the people.
“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.” Tenth Amendment (Emphasis added)
“Glazier, a constitutional law professor, said the supremacy clause in the Constitution makes it clear states can’t just refuse to follow federal laws if they don’t agree with them.”
We are not talking about a disagreement over a policy we are talking about Constitutionality and a constitutional law professors should know better; only those laws written in “pursuance thereof” (accordance to) the Constitution are laws. If it wasn’t in accordance to the Constitution then as our founders, writers and ratifiers to the Constitution clearly stated they are no laws at all and are therefore “null and void”.
“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land…” (Emphasis added)
Why is it when siting the Supremacy Clause statist ALWAYS leave out that key part “made in pursuance thereof”, maybe because they know there “law” is unconstitutional. In reality nullification is just a statement in fact that the “law” in question never was a law because it does not follow the Constitution.
“That is not a mature option given to responsible legislators. It has never been that way,” he said. “They tried that in the Civil War, and we’ve come a long way since then.”
As usual it is claimed that the “Civil War” was a result of nullification — and it was to an extent, but not in the way Rep. Glazier thinks. One of the main reasons stated in the Declaration of Causes of Secession by South Carolina was that NORTHERN states were NULLIFYING the federal Fugitive Slave Laws and refusing to return slaves as required by federal law.
So, Rep. Glazier in the case of nullification of the Fugitive Slave Laws which side of that question would you have made your stand? Would you have stood with the federal government and federal courts and demanded that their “laws” be followed and those seeking freedom should be capture and returned to a life of slavery? Or would you have stood with those states that NULLIFIED those laws because they believed that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
“Nullification used to be a fringe idea, but it’s gotten more popular during the gun control debate. Even some North Carolina sheriffs have publicly said they will defy federal gun laws with which they disagree.”
Nullification is a fringe idea only in the sense that it isn’t used often enough. But I would contend that those that first proposed its use against unconstitutional actions by the federal government know more about the Constitution and the way the federal government is supposed to operate than does Rep. Glazier.
So, dear reader you tell me who is smarter when it comes to the Constitution and nullification?
Thomas Jefferson Founding Father, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, and James Madison the fourth President of the United States considered to be the “Father of the Constitution” and the key champion and author of the United States Bill of Rights.
Or Rep. Glazier a “constitutional law professor”?
“I think this nullification view is driven by what’s happening in Washington and by the polarization between the parties, which is destroying some confidence in the ability of government to govern,” Glazier said. “That’s something we need to work on.”
No, Rep. Glazier, not by a lack of “confidence in the ability of the government to govern,” but by their lack of ability to govern constitutionally. That is why we are turning once again to the Tenth Amendment and nullification.
Glazier said there are better ways to deal with laws one finds disagreeable. ‘The answer is not nullification. It’s litigation or political elections and the democratic process.’”
So, citizens and voters how is that working out for you?
You are asked to continue to do the same thing over and over and too expect a different result – that’s the definition of insanity! Sending new politicians to DC or wasting time and money to hire lawyers to argue a case in a federal court has only enriched the politician and the lawyers. Those in federal government will never fix the problems they have caused it would require them to give up power that they have taken from the states and We the People and it is time we take the power back!
Nullification is the Rightful Remedy according to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and those that wrote and ratified the Constitution!
For further reading on the constitutionality of nullification, please see my article “The Defense of the Supremacy Clause Establishes State Nullification”.