Author Archive | Thomas Woods

In my exchange with Dean Clancy, I presented (in the comments section) a few of the initial problems that opponents of the compact theory of the Union (which holds that the Union was created by the sovereign peoples of the states) have to confront. The nationalist view, by contrast, holds that the Union was created by a singular “people”; from there comes the inevitable conclusion that the Union is indestructible, nullification is unthinkable, etc.

Thus I wrote:

Where is the proof of this “one people”? Where did it come from? Where is evidence of this “one people” doing anything? I see zero such evidence.

The compact theory of the Union is just about one of the most persuasive theories I have ever encountered.

Why would the states have ratified the Constitution one by one?

Why did the Declaration speak of free and independent states?

Why did the states perform actions we associate with sovereignty?

Why did Britain acknowledge the independence of individual states?

Why did the Articles of Confederation say the states “retained” their sovereignty? If they “retained” it, didn’t that mean they must have had it to begin with?

These are just a few of the difficulties the nationalists have to overcome.

Pastor Douglas Wilson, who sent me this video, urges the governor and legislators of Idaho to embrace nullification. He kindly references my book on the subject around 18:18.

From The O’Reilly Factor, email segment for July 5:

“Bill, you keep asking what the Republicans have to replace Obamacare. Under the Constitution, there is no role for the Federal government in healthcare.”
–Felicia

O’Reilly:
“That’s not true, Felicia. The opening paragraph of the Constitution says the welfare of the people must be promoted. A just healthcare system comes under that banner.”

I couldn’t resist answering this. Continue Reading →

On the forums over at my Liberty Classroom, a member asks Brion McClanahan, one of our faculty members: “You mention in part one of Mr. Lincoln’s War that Jefferson believed there would eventually be multiple American federal republics. Can you tell me where to find more information on his thoughts regarding this?”

Professor McClanahan replied:

Jefferson made several statements in support of “separate confederacies,” decentralization, and secession throughout his life. In Virginia, he advocated something he called “ward republics.” In essence, Jefferson contended that a republic should be small enough that everyone could realistically participate in the political process.

In his 1801 inaugural address, Jefferson suggested that those who wished to secede from the Union should be free to do so, and he backed that up in several letters from that point forward (and of course this is not including the Declaration of Independence).

In 1804 he wrote Dr. Joseph Priestley about the prospects of a western confederacy.

In 1816, he expressed similar ideas to William Crawford.

His statements, by the way, also echoed what many in the founding generation thought about Union in 1787 and 1788. Union was only possible if the central government concentrated on the general interests of the Union (commerce and defense) and left all else to the States.

In an unintentionally funny aside in an article at Forbes.com, a guy named Richard Salsman (who runs an investment research firm) condemns nullification in the most uncomprehending words — and as someone who’s written a book on the subject, I can tell you this is quite a feat.

(If you are unfamiliar with nullification, here’s what it’s all about.)

He tells us: “Such hostility to the judiciary today isn’t found only in Mr. Obama and his ilk or in the Democratic Party, but also in the Jeffersonian libertarians, as is obvious in the works of Thomas Woods and Andrew Napolitano, which defend the Jeffersonian notion of ‘nullification’ (a loopy, anarchic idea that says juries, legislators, and executive branch officials can decide on their own what’s constitutional, and thus can ignore, defy or nullify’ rulings by courts and judges).”

So he speaks of this “loopy” idea without once using the word “states”! This is his level of knowledge. Juries is one thing — there he’s just confusing state nullification with jury nullification, which of course (as I note in my 33 Questions) the Founding Fathers also supported. But legislators and executive branch officials? Does he mean federal or state? He never says. If federal, then he is confusing nullification with concurrent review, another Jeffersonian position.  (Concurrent review holds that all three branches, not just the judicial, have a responsibility to determine the constitutionality of proposed federal activities.) And of course if he means federal, then one might cite both Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln as fairly well known fellows who had a different view from that of Richard Salsman. Continue Reading →

My speech from Nullify Now, Philadelphia, this past Saturday. Listen at least through my Norway joke. Then, if you’re so inclined, check out Nullification and Rollback, referred to in the video. (Erratum: for some reason I said “Siberian Khatru” came out in 1971, when of course I know it’s on the 1972 Close to the Edge album.)

NOTE: Tom Woods will be the evening keynote speaker at Nullify Now! Philadelphia. Get tickets here – http://www.nullifynow.com/philadelphia/ – or by calling 888-71-TICKETS

*******

That poor soul from the other day who insisted Lincoln never said that blacks shouldn’t be voters or jurors, or intermarry with white people, or that he had no intention to interfere with slavery where it existed, still thinks the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause makes state nullification unconstitutional.

The Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. It reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…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.”

“Grand Old Partisan” takes this to mean:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws, whether or not in pursuance of the Constitution… 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.” Continue Reading →

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was asked last week about whether Obama intended to consult Congress before committing to future military action; Panetta hemmed and hawed about how they would of course inform Congress after the fact of what they had done. Nice answer. It gets worse from there. (In this video, Panetta appears after a few minutes.)

I’ve already smashed every one of these arguments in my piece “The Phony Arguments for Presidential War Powers.” The best book on all this is Louis Fisher, Presidential War Power.

I had a chance last month to speak to the convention of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. I talked about nullification, the book and the concept. Not much new here for longtime readers; I gave my basic overview because I assumed the audience was relatively new to the subject. The main significance is that over 100 sheriffs and peace officers were in the room. Naturally, YouTube chooses a still shot of me with my hands up…

The Heritage Foundation, as usual, is trying to rein in all non-establishment thinking, which is popping up all over the place these days. Its New Year’s Resolutions for Conservatives basically amount to this: if you still have any conservative instincts left, drop them and become a neoconservative already.

Of course you should not consider nullification, since CNN won’t like that. The post then proceeds as if I hadn’t answered Heritage’s arguments on this already — here and here — or as if people couldn’t simply get to my fairly comprehensive “Nullification: Answering the Objections” via Google. Continue Reading →