Many freedom lovers rejoiced when Eric Holder announced he was stepping down as Attorney General. They see his resignation as a step in the right direction. But that is not necessarily the case. In truth, his replacement will either do exactly the same things, or actually turn out worse.

The three AGs who served under Bush didn’t exactly promote federal restraint or safeguard the rule of law. Remember that it was John Ashcroft fighting in court for the ability to conduct raids of medical marijuana clinics even if state law authorized them. Alberto Gonzales was forced to resign due to a laundry list of scandals. Michael Mukasey fiercely defended abuses such as waterboarding and limetless spying during the short time he was around.

As for the Clinton administration, feel free to ask a Branch Davidian or Weaver family survivors about what Janet Reno stood for. It certainly wasn’t fidelity to the Constitution.

Eric Holder’s successor may even be able to get away with more than he did. After all, Holder was incredibly unpopular and generally recognized as a corrupt, hypocritical oathbreaker. It will be hard for the new guy to have less credibility and respectability.As a result, he may be able to operate with less scrutiny. Putting a new face on the Obama regime’s Justice Department might be just what’s needed to muscle its anti-constitutional agenda through even faster.

The shuffling of bureaucrats should provide no relief to anyone. We have been burned too many times. The continuity of the agenda will remain no matter who is appointed. The destruction of the Bill of Rights, the removal of state sovereignty, the shielding of criminal elements in the public and private sectors from prosecution, and endless lies to cover it all up will continue. You can pretty much always expect that from a federal bureaucrat, regardless of the political team is in power.

No, changing out parts in Washington D.C. will not solve our problems, but we do have a strategy that will allow us to shift power back to the people. Consider James Madison’s words from Federalist #46:

Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.

By working at the local and state levels, we can organize effectively to reduce centralized power. Tyrants like Holder rely on state support to enact nearly all of their unscrupulous acts. If we remove that much-needed compliance, we can cut them down to size. Nullification can handicap these overzealous Attorney Generals and other federal officials before they can devastate our rights.

While Eric Holder may be finished, his legacy lives on in Washington D.C. Holder’s successor will continue in his direction of lawlessness and criminality, but we can turn the tables. This is not achieved in the voting booth, but rather in state legislatures across the country. It is what James Madison would have wanted us to do.

If it’s good enough for the Father of the Constitution, it’s good enough for you and me.