Courts aren’t the final arbiter

Opponents of state sovereignty and the states’ power to nullify unconstitutional law argue that federal courts have held nullification unconstitutional.

Jillian Rayfield, in a brilliantly unbiased article *insert sarcastic tone* on writes:

This “tenther” group touts state sovereignty and nullification — the idea that a state can override a federal law it deems unconstitutional (a notion that has been consistently rejected in federal courts). (Emphasis added)

But doesn’t it seem a little fox guarding the henhouseish to deem a branch of the federal government the final arbiter of what is or isn’t Constitutional? Can we really expect agents of the federal government to protect the states and the people from federal tyranny?


Disposing the Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy

In addition to Robert Nagel’s column on rejecting judicial remedies for our political disagreements (posted earlier on the Tenther blog), National Review Online has also treated us to two columns by Prof. Robert Lowry Clinton. The first, “Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution,” disposes of the doctrine of judicial supremacy by looking at the Supreme Court’s…


Judge Favors Constitution on NSA Wiretaps

Not a common thing these days, but a Federal judge ruled against the federal government on NSA wiretaps. From The New York Times: WASHINGTON – A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the…


The Supremacy Clause Vs. the 10th Amendment: Who Has the Power?

The feds do, according to an article at Nolan Chart on Monday, which specifically takes issue with the idea that nullification is a power left to the states by virtue of its having never been surrendered: In order to advocate their belief nullification or Tenth Amendment advocates ignore the specific language of the Constitution prohibiting…