Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nullification Deniers! This Is What James Madison Really Said
American Clarion ^ | January 28, 2013 | Publius Huldah

Posted on 02/01/2013 10:18:03 AM PST by WXRGina

This is The Age of Ignorance. Our “intellectuals” can’t think. Our “scholars” parrot each other. The self-educated fixate on idiotic theories. Our People despise Truth and disseminate lies.

Nullification deniers such as Matthew Spalding of Heritage Foundation, Jarrett Stepman of Human Events, law professor Randy Barnett, David Barton of Wallbuilders, and history professor Allen C. Guelzo, say that nullification by States of unconstitutional acts of the federal government is unlawful and impossible. They make the demonstrably false assertions that:

-States don’t have the right to nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because our Constitution doesn’t say they can do it;
-Nullification is literally impossible;
-The supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says; and
-James Madison, Father of Our Constitution, opposed nullification.

Their assertions contradict our Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, our federal Constitution, and what James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton really said.

What are the Two Conditions Precedent for Nullification?

The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important – you will see why!:

-The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional – usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
-The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey: the act must order them to do something or not do something.

What is “Interposition” and What is “Nullification”?

A State “interposes” when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition takes various forms, depending on the circumstances. Hamilton refers to interposition in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]

“Nullification” is one form of interposition. Now! Here are three highly relevant illustrations:

When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional and orders The States or The People to do – or not do – something, nullification is the proper form of interposition.

When the act of the federal government is unconstitutional, but doesn’t order The States or The People to do – or not do – something (the alien & sedition acts), nullification is not possible. The States may interpose by objecting, as in The Virginia & Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.

When the act of the federal government is constitutional, but unjust (the Tariff Act of 1828), the States may not nullify it; but may interpose by objecting and trying to get the Tariff Act changed.

Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell

In order to understand The Right of Nullification, one must also learn the Founding Principles set forth in The Declaration of Independence (2nd para). Then one can see that “when powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act” [1] is “the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [2] These Principles are:

1. Rights come from God;
2. People create governments;
3. The purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and
4. When a government We created seeks to take away our God given rights, We have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.

Let us look briefly at these Principles:

1. Our Declaration of Independence (2nd para) recognizes that God is the grantor of Rights. So Rights don’t come from the Constitution, the supreme Court or the federal government.

2. The Preamble to our Constitution shows that WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government. It is our “creature”. Alexander Hamilton says this in Federalist Paper No. 33 (5th para); and Thomas Jefferson, in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (8th Resolution). As our “creature”, it may lawfully do only what WE authorized it to do in our Constitution.

We created a “federal” government: An alliance of Sovereign States [3] associated in a “federation” with a national government to which is delegated supremacy over the States in few and defined areas only. James Madison says in Federalist No. 45 (9th para):

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. [4]

These enumerated powers concern:

-Military defense, international commerce & relations;
-Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
-Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
-With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights (for blacks, women, citizens who don’t pay taxes, and citizens 18 years and older).

It is only with respect to the enumerated powers that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People.

3. Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure our God-given Rights in the following ways: [5]

It is to secure our rights to life and liberty by:

-Military defense (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 11-16);
-Laws against piracy and other felonies committed on the high seas (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 10);
-Protecting us from invasion (Art IV, Sec. 4);
-Prosecuting traitors (Art III, Sec. 3); and
-Restrictive immigration policies (Art. I, Sec. 9, cl. 1).

It is to secure our property rights by:

-Regulating trade & commerce so we can produce, sell & prosper (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.3). The original intent of the interstate commerce clause is to prohibit States from levying tolls & taxes on articles of commerce as they are transported through the States for buying & selling.
-Establishing uniform weights & measures and a money system based on gold & silver (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 5) – inflation via paper currency & fractional reserve lending is theft!
-Punishing counterfeiters (Art I, Sec. 8, cl. 6);
-Making bankruptcy laws to permit the orderly dissolution or reorganization of debtors’ estates with fair treatment of creditors (Art I, Sec 8, cl. 4); and
-Issuing patents & copyrights to protect ownership of intellectual labors (Art I, Sec 8, cl 8)

It is to secure our right to liberty by:

-Laws against slavery (13th Amendment);
-Providing fair trials in federal courts (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments); and
-Obeying the Constitution!

This is how our federal Constitution implements The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us.

4. The fourth Founding Principle in our Declaration is this: When government takes away our God given rights, We have the Right & the Duty to alter, abolish, or throw off such government. Nullification is thus a natural right of self-defense:

Thomas Jefferson said:

“… but where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” [6] [boldface mine]

James Madison commented on the above:

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” [7]

Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 28 (5th para from end):

“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success …” [boldface mine]

Hamilton then shows how The States can reign in a usurping federal government:

“… the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority…”

Do you see?

But the nullification deniers do not see because, in addition to their apparent unfamiliarity with the original source writings on nullification (as well as The Federalist Papers), they reject, or do not understand, the Founding Principle that Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution and come from God. Nullification is not a paltry “constitutional right”! It has a hallowed status – it is that natural right of self-defense which pre-dates & pre-exists the Constitution.

Now, let us look at the false assertions made by the nullification deniers.

False Assertion 1:

That States can’t nullify unconstitutional acts of the federal government because the Constitution doesn’t say they can do it.

1. As we have just seen, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton saw nullification of unconstitutional acts of the federal government as a “natural right” – not a “constitutional right”. And since Rights come from God, there is no such thing as a “constitutional right”!

2. The Right of Nullification, transcending as it does, the Constitution; and being nowhere prohibited by the Constitution to the States, is a reserved power. The 10th Amendment says:

“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.”

Nothing in the federal Constitution prohibits The States from nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. Thus, nullification is a reserved power of the States & The People.

3. We saw where Madison says in Federalist No. 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government are “few and defined”, and all other powers are “reserved to the several States”.

Thus, it is the federal government which is supposed to look to the Constitution for the list of “enumerated powers” We The People delegated to it.

The States don’t go to the Constitution to look for permission because they retain all powers they didn’t exclusively [8] delegate to the federal government, or prohibit by Art. I, Sec. 10.

The nullification deniers have it backwards: They permit the federal government to ignore the “enumerated powers” limitations set forth in the Constitution; but insist The States can’t do anything unless the Constitution specifically says they can!

Do you see how they pervert Our Constitution?

False Assertion 2:

That Nullification is literally impossible.

We saw above the two conditions which must exist before nullification is proper and possible:

-The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional, and
-The act must be something The People or The States can refuse to obey.

Here are examples of unconstitutional federal acts the States can and should nullify:

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power to ban Christianity from the public square. But in 1962, the supreme Court first ordered The States to stop prayers in the public schools. That Court next banned the Ten Commandments from the public schools. Since those orders were usurpations of powers not lawfully possessed by the Court,the States should have nullified them by directing their School Boards to ignore them.

If Congress by “law”, or the President by “executive order”, orders The People to turn in our guns, We must refuse to comply. The Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to disarm us. So, The States and The People must nullify such law or order by refusing to obey.

Here are examples of unconstitutional & unjust State laws Martin Luther King nullified:

The Jim Crow laws required black people to sit at the back of the bus, and prohibited them from eating in public places and using public restrooms, water fountains, park benches, etc. Using non-violent civil disobedience, MLK led black people to refuse to obey these unjust and unconstitutional (Sec. 1, 14th Amdt.) laws. This was nullification by brave Citizens!

Now, I’ll show you unconstitutional acts which couldn’t be nullified because they weren’t directed to anything The States or The People could refuse to obey:

In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote The Kentucky Resolutions, and James Madison wrote The Virginia Resolutions. These Resolutions objected to laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President dictatorial powers over aliens and seditious words.

Kentucky and Virginia could object, but they couldn’t prevent the President from enforcing the alien & sedition acts, because the President had the raw power to send out thugs to arrest aliens or people who had spoken or written “seditious” words; and then to persecute them.

So Jefferson and Madison showed why the alien & sedition acts were unconstitutional, protested them, and asked other States to join the protest.

Now! Note Well: Randy Barnett, law professor, and other deniers crow that the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions prove there is no “literal power” of nullification in the States.

But Barnett should know better because he is a lawyer. Every litigation attorney knows this: At a motion hearing before the judge, opposing counsel whips out a court opinion which he cites as authority for a legal point. He gives the judge a highlighted copy and gives you (opposing counsel) an un-highlighted copy. While he is making his argument to the judge, you must listen to what he is saying, and at the same time, read the opinion and develop an argument which “distinguishes” the opinion opposing counsel is using from the case at bar. When opposing counsel finishes, the judge looks at you and says, “And how do you respond?” You must be ready with your argument right then.

Are we to believe that Randy Barnett, law professor, sitting in his ivory tower and under no pressure, is unable to distinguish between situations where a State does have a “literal power” to nullify an unconstitutional act of the federal government [when it orders The State or The People to do -or not do - something]; and when The State does not have a “literal power” to nullify the act [because, as with the alien & sedition acts, it does not dictate something The States or The People can refuse to obey]?

False Assertion 3:

That the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not; and The States and The People must submit to whatever the supreme Court says.

The federal government has become a tyranny which acts without constitutional authority.

This came about because we were lured away from The Founding Principle that the purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us; and were seduced into believing government should provide for our needs and protect us from the challenges of Life.

Progressives of the early 1900s [9] transformed the federal government into the Frankensteinian monster it is today. They imposed the regulatory welfare state where the federal government regulates business and commerce, natural resources, human resources, and benefits some people [e.g., welfare parasites, labor unions & obama donors] at the expense of others.

The Progressives claimed the power to determine what is in the “public interest” and have the federal government implement their notions of what advances the “public interest”.

Under the Progressives, the federal government was no longer limited by the enumerated powers delegated in the Constitution; but would follow the “will of the people” as expressed by their representatives in the federal government. In other words, the Progressives gave the federal government a blank check to fill out anyway they want. People in the federal government now claim power to do whatever they want to us.

The federal government imposed by the Progressives is evil:

-In order to provide benefits to some; the federal government violates the God-given property rights of others. The federal government robs Peter to pay Paul.
-In order to protect us from the challenges of life (including made up problems such as “global warming” and “lack of medical insurance”), the federal government violates everyone’s God-given rights to Liberty.

And thus today, the federal government:

-Usurps powers not delegated to it in the Constitution. Most of what it does is unconstitutional as outside the enumerated powers delegated in our Constitution.
-Has become an instrument of oppression, injustice, and immorality.
-Has taken away most of our God given rights, and is now conniving to take away our God given right to self-defense.

Now you know how the federal government was transformed from being the securer of our God given rights to a tyranny which oppresses some of the people for the benefit of others; and takes everyone’s Liberty away – except for those in the ruling class.

So! What do We do? What can We do?

The nullification deniers insist We must obey whatever Congress and the President dictate unless five (5) judges on the supreme Court say We don’t have to. They say the supreme Court is the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not.

But think: Who created the federal government?

We did! It is our “creature”. Is the “creature” to dictate to the “creator”?

The nullification deniers say, “Yes!” They say that:

-Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] is “supreme”; and
-Every executive order issued by the President [the Executive Branch of the federal government] is binding; and
-The States and The People must obey, unless and until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] say the law or executive order is unconstitutional.

In other words, only the federal government may question the federal government.

Under their vision, the federal government WE created with the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers WE delegated to it; and the opinion of five (5) judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Jarrett Stepman regurgitates the statist lie that “the ultimate decision maker in terms of America’s political system is the Supreme Court.”

Randy Barnett, law professor, chants the statist refrain, “…What has the Supreme Court said and meant? and … Are there now five justices to sustain the claim

Barnett selects two paragraphs from Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), (which address the alien & sedition acts), and claims they show Madison “expressly denies, or at minimum equivocates about whether, there is a literal power of nullification in states”.

Well, We saw above that States couldn’t nullify the alien & sedition acts because they purported to grant dictatorial powers to the President; and did not require The States or The People to do – or not do – something.

And the two paragraphs Barnett claims are so “telling” as to The States’ lack of “literal power” to nullify anything, and as to the ultimate authority of the Judicial Branch, appear under Madison’s discussion of the last two Resolutions where Virginia had asked other States to join the protest. Madison merely says the citizens and legislature of Virginia have the right to communicate with other States; and in so doing, they are not exercising a judicial function.

Now! Note Well: Madison actually says, in the same Report Barnett cites, that it is “a plain principle, founded in common sense” that The States are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated our Constitution! Under his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, Madison says:

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison explains that if, when the federal government usurps power, the States cannot act so as to stop the usurpation, and thereby preserve the Constitution as well as the safety of The States; there would be no relief from usurped power. This would subvert the Rights of the People as well as betray the fundamental principle of our Founding:

“…If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous power, palpably withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the State constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.” [emphasis mine]

A bit further down, Madison answers the objection “that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the Constitution, in the last resort”.

Madison explains that when the federal government acts outside the Constitution by usurping powers, and when the Constitution affords no remedy to that usurpation; then the Sovereign States who are the Parties to the Constitution must likewise step outside the Constitution and appeal to that original natural right of self-defense.

Madison also says that the Judicial Branch is as likely to usurp as are the other two Branches. Thus, The Sovereign States, as The Parties to the Constitution, have as much right to judge the usurpations of the Judicial Branch as they do the Legislative and Executive Branches:

“…the judicial department, also, may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority as well as by another — by the judiciary as well as by the executive, or the legislature.”

Madison goes on to say that all three Branches of the federal government obtain their delegated powers from the Constitution; and they may not annul the authority of their Creator. And if the Judicial Branch connives with other Branches in usurping powers, our Constitution will be destroyed. So the Judicial Branch does not have final say as

“…to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other department hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; [10] and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.

Shame on you nullification deniers who misrepresent what Madison said, or ignorantly insist that Madison said the Judicial Branch is the Final Authority!

False Assertion 4:

That James Madison opposed Nullification by States of Unconstitutional Acts of the Federal Government.

Matthew Spalding (Heritage Foundation) and David Barton (Wallbuilders) cite South Carolina’s Nullification Crisis of 1832 as “proof” that James Madison “vehemently opposed” nullification.

What Spalding and Barton say is not true. Did they read what Madison wrote on S. Carolina’s doctrine of nullification? Are they so lacking in critical thinking skills that they can’t make the distinction between the nullification doctrine Madison (and Jefferson & Hamilton) embraced, and the peculiar doctrine of nullification advanced by S. Carolina?

We saw in Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800) that in a proper case, “interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil” is essential “to preserve the Constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it”.

And we saw above that the condition which must be present before nullification is proper, is that the act of the federal government must be unconstitutional.

Now, let’s look at The Tariff Act of 1828 and the S. Carolina Nullification Crisis:

South Carolina was an agricultural state. During the 1820’s, they bought manufactured goods from England. England bought cotton produced by S. Carolina and other Southern States.

However, “infant industries” in the Northeast were producing some of the same manufactured goods as England; but they were more expensive than the English imports. So they couldn’t compete with the cheaper imports.

So! In 1828, Congress imposed a high tariff on the English imports. The Southern States called this the “tariff of abominations”, because the tariff made the English goods too expensive to buy; and since the Southern States stopped buying English goods, the English stopped buying Southern cotton. The Southern States had to pay more for manufactured goods, they lost the major buyer of their cotton; and their economy was weakened.

Now! Note Well: Our Constitution delegates specific authority to Congress to impose tariffs on imports, and the tariff must be the same in each State (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 1).

Thus, the Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional! [11]

So! Can you, dear Reader, see something which Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., and David Barton are unable to see? South Carolina wanted to nullify a constitutional law! Of course, Madison opposed S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine of nullification! Madison (and Jefferson & Hamilton) always said the act nullified must be unconstitutional! In his Notes on Nullification (1834), [12] Madison addressed S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine. He said that in the Report of a special committee of the House of Representatives of South Carolina in 1828, a doctrine of nullification was set forth which asserted that:

-A State has a “constitutional right” to nullify any federal law; and
-The nullification is presumed valid, and is to remain in force, unless ¾ of the States, in a Convention, say the nullification isn’t valid.

What Madison opposed was the particular doctrine of nullification set forth by S. Carolina; and what Madison actually said about the S. Carolina doctrine is this:

-The federal government has delegated authority to impose import tariffs;
-The Constitution requires that all import tariffs be uniform throughout the United States;
-States can’t nullify tariffs which are authorized by the Constitution;
-¼ of the States don’t have the right to dictate to ¾ of the States on matters within the powers delegated to the federal government;
-Nullification is not a “constitutional right”;

And near the end of his Notes, Madison quoted with approval Thomas Jefferson’s statement:

“…but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…”

Madison then says:

“Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression.” [emphasis mine]

Do you see? Madison is saying that:

-S. Carolina couldn’t nullify the Tariff Act of 1828 because the Act was constitutional.
-Nullification is a “natural right”- it is not a “constitutional” right. Rights don’t come from the Constitution.

-All agree that when the federal government acts outside of the Constitution, nullification by the States is the proper remedy.

Application Today

When WE THE PEOPLE ratified our Constitution, and thereby created the federal government, WE did not delegate to our “creature” power to control our medical care, restrict guns and ammunition, dictate what is done in the public schools, dictate how we use our lands, and all the thousands of things they do WE never gave them authority in our Constitution to do.

Accordingly, each State has a natural right to nullify these unconstitutional dictates within its borders. These dictates are outside the compact The Sovereign States made with each other –WE never gave our “creature” power over these objects.

As Jefferson and Madison said, without Nullification, The States and The People would be under the absolute and unlimited control of the federal government.

And that, dear Reader, is where these nullification deniers, with their false assertions and shameful misrepresentations, would put you.

To sum this up:

-Nullification is a natural right of self-defense.
-Rights don’t come from the Constitution. Like all Rights, the right of self-defense comes from God (The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).
-Nullification is a reserved power within the meaning of the 10th Amendment. The Constitution doesn’t prohibit States from nullifying, and We reserved the power to do it.
-God requires us to disobey civil authorities when they violate God’s Law. That’s why the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence says we have the duty to overthrow tyrannical government. See: The Biblical Foundation of our Constitution.
-Nullification is required by Oath of Office: Article VI, cl. 3 requires all State officers and judges to “support” the federal Constitution. Therefore, when the federal government violates the Constitution, the States must smack them down.

Conclusion

Our Founders and Framers were a different People than we of today. They were manly men who knew statecraft & political philosophy and could think. But our “experts” of today have been indoctrinated with statism and can’t think. They just repeat what they hear. We need them to man up, throw off the indoctrination, learn our Founding Documents including The Federalist Papers, get a Logic Book, and stop disseminating misinformation! We need them to repudiate cowardice as the proper response to the evil which is overtaking our Land. Man up, People! PH

Endnotes:

[1 Thomas Jefferson, The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, 8th Resolution.

[2] James Madison, Notes on Nullification (1835). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.

[3] The deniers seem unaware that The States retained sovereignty in all matters not exclusively delegated to the federal government. Alexander Hamilton says in Federalist No. 32 (2nd para):

“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention [the Constitution] aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not … EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States…” [caps are Hamilton's; boldface mine]

Federalist No. 62 (5th para):

“…the equal vote allowed to each State [each State gets two U.S. Senators] is …a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty… [in order to guard] … against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.” (Madison or Hamilton)[boldface mine]

See also Federalist No. 39 (Madison) (6th para, et seq.)

In Madison’s Report on The Virginia Resolutions (1799-1800), he several times refers, in his discussion of the 3rd Resolution, to the States acting “in their sovereign capacity” when, as “the parties to the constitutional compact” they decide “in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated”:

“…The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition….” [boldface mine]

[4] Contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. E.g.:

“…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects…” (Federalist No. 39, 3rd para from end) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...” (Federalist No. 14, 8th para) (Madison) [boldface mine]

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [Congress], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…” [caps are Hamilton’s] (Federalist No. 27, last para)

[5] Our Constitution authorizes the federal government to secure our God-given rights in the ways appropriate for the national government of a Federation. The States secure them in other ways.

[6] The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798,8th Resolution.

[7] Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834). The quote is near the end. Use “find” function.

[8] This explains the limited “exclusive jurisdiction” of the federal government, and the areas where the federal government and The States have “concurrent jurisdiction”.

[9] Teddy Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Platform of 1912. Both major parties have been dominated by progressives ever since.

[10] Hamilton says, respecting the Legislative Branch (Federalist No. 78, 10th para):

“…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.[emphasis mine]

[11] The Tariff Act of 1828 was constitutional; but benefited the Northeast at the expense of the South. It thus violated our Founding Principle that governments exist to secure the rights God gave us. God never gave us the right to be free of competition in business! Since the tariff was constitutional, but unjust, the remedy was to get Congress to fix it.

[12] Madison’s Notes on Nullification (1834) are long & rambling. Copy to Word, enlarge the type, & color-code to sort out the strands of arguments. Keep in mind that what Madison is addressing is S. Carolina’s peculiar doctrine where they wanted to nullify constitutional tariff! PH


TOPICS: Government; History
KEYWORDS: apaulogists; fff; lewrockwellcom; skinheadsonfr
Another profoundly excellent, educational paper from Ms. Publius Huldah.

My hands are gimped-up from html coding, but it's worth it--a very valuable read!

1 posted on 02/01/2013 10:18:07 AM PST by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: logitech; shibumi; Lazamataz; onyx; Vision; WKB

Constitution Paper PING!

Long read, but rich in education.


2 posted on 02/01/2013 10:22:36 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Surpised he didn’t also reference the Articles of Ratification of the several states also.


3 posted on 02/01/2013 10:28:26 AM PST by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
John WXR gave me a picture of you once. I didn't know why at the time. It was very old - torn, faded. You were young like you are now. You seemed just a little sad. I used to always wonder what you were thinking at that moment.

I memorized every line, every curve.

I came across time for you, Gina. I love you; I always have.

4 posted on 02/01/2013 10:30:05 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Laz, who is “John WXR”?

Regardless, you sound profoundly philosophical.


5 posted on 02/01/2013 10:34:33 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
State Nullification of Federal Laws

In June-July of 1798, the Congress passed what are known collectively as the "Alien and Sedition Acts." The Sedition Act made it illegal to publicly criticize the government or government officials. As an obvious restriction on free speech, in violation of the First Amendment, The Sedition Act was the most controversial of the Acts.

Recognizing The Alien and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional, Thomas Jefferson, then Vice-president of the United States, and James Madison assisted Kentucky and Virginia, respectively, to void The Acts within their borders. Jefferson drafted resolutions against The Acts for the Kentucky legislature. Madison likewise drafted resolutions against The Acts for the Virginia legislature. In November, the Kentucky legislature passed Jefferson's resolutions declaring the Acts void, and in December the Virginia legislature passed Madison's, declaring the Acts unconstitutional.

The states, Jefferson wrote, "have the unquestionable right to judge of [the Constitution's] infraction; and that a nullification, by [the states], of all unauthorized acts done under color of [the Constitution], is the rightful remedy."

6 posted on 02/01/2013 10:34:48 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Unfortunately the power of the States to overrule the Supreme Court ultimately lies in Ratification of Amendments — and you need 38 States. Little did anyone foresee that more than 12 states would give up their rights to the “Progressives”. For the foreseeable future, we on the Right are not going to be able to pass any Amendment which would bring back balance to the Constitution.

I would recommend an Amendment that would be a re-write of the Tenth Amendment, with specifics and some teeth....


7 posted on 02/01/2013 10:35:25 AM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Great reading and very educational!


8 posted on 02/01/2013 10:37:29 AM PST by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Good work.


9 posted on 02/01/2013 10:37:52 AM PST by bmwcyle (People who do not study history are destine to believe really ignorant statements.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Wait! I think I saw that movie, too. Good picture.


10 posted on 02/01/2013 10:39:38 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
Laz, who is “John WXR”?

John WXR. We were that close to going out forever, Gina. But there was one man who taught us to fight, to storm the wire of the camps, to smash those metal m******* into junk. He turned it around. He brought us back from the brink. His name is WXR. John WXR. Your son, Gina... your unborn son.

11 posted on 02/01/2013 10:42:04 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nabber; WXRGina
Madison and Jefferson already used state nullification.

Thomas Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolution:

That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy

12 posted on 02/01/2013 10:43:04 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

I may have the wrong picture in mind... I don’t guess it’s the bridge between the past and present, a time travel picture about firemen. No, I don’t think it is.


13 posted on 02/01/2013 10:48:54 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
This will explain it all
14 posted on 02/01/2013 10:51:59 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
Very informative!

Thanks for posting.

15 posted on 02/01/2013 10:57:00 AM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

And, it’s a picture I haven’t seen (the real film or the parody love bit). But, I dig those eighties styles.


16 posted on 02/01/2013 10:58:03 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

OMG!!! MANDATORY VIEWING! GET “THE TERMINATOR” TONIGHT!!!!!


17 posted on 02/01/2013 11:00:46 AM PST by Lazamataz (LAZ'S LAW: As an argument with liberals goes on, the probability of being called racist approaches 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

The Terminator 1984. I know this story of the time-traveling terminator and John’s Mom, but don’t remember watching it! Maybe it’s time to refresh my memory.


18 posted on 02/01/2013 11:07:26 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

We need to have a vigorous debate in public on this topic. Like the topic of a Constitutional Convention, there are still peaceful avenues left by which we can resolve the growing threat of the Leviathan Feral State. Moreover, the closer this debate gets to having credibility, the more it will electrify and frighten the left because both topics threaten their gravy train and their ideology, the secular Utopia.


19 posted on 02/01/2013 11:07:26 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Legal scholar Randy Barnett has been working for a number of years on amendments to the Constitution to repair some of the more glaring faults we are now suffering under.

One of those proposed amendments is:

Article [of Amendment 6] — [Power of States to Check Federal Power]

Upon the identically worded resolutions of the legislatures of three quarters of the states, any law or regulation of the United States, identified with specificity, is thereby rescinded.

see:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/20/bill-of-federalism-constitution-states-supreme-court-opinions-contributors-randy-barnett_print.html


20 posted on 02/01/2013 11:11:30 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

Did you read the above paper in which she talks about Randy Barnett?


21 posted on 02/01/2013 11:25:06 AM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Nabber

“Unfortunately the power of the States to overrule the Supreme Court ultimately lies in Ratification of Amendments — and you need 38 States.”

That applies to federal acts that are within its power and constitutional.

When the federal government exceeds its power with unconstitutional acts that’s when the statements of Jefferson/Madison come into play and state nullification kicks in.

Example: It’s within the federal governments power to raise and support armies, and states can’t deny that power without a 38 state amendment.

However, if the federal government were to pass a law establishing a church for example and requiring everyone to join, or pass a law shutting down all newspapers, then the states can nullify.

The Supreme Court really only has one choice in regards to rights guaranteed by the constitution, not interpret them but obey them. If they don’t then that’s where state nullification comes into play.


22 posted on 02/01/2013 11:56:21 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

I was pointing out that there is are several routes to the same goal, which is to put the Feral Leviathan State back in its cage. While I am sympathetic to this article, the truth is that the burden of proof lies with those who support it. And the headwinds will be doubly strong. However, the process to amend the Constitution is not controversial.


23 posted on 02/01/2013 11:59:03 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
I don't understand people that think that we need an Amendment in order to do something that's already been done before.

I believe that they view the Fed Gov as all powerful in the same way that the Fed views itself. It is a creation and not the creator. The states gave it it's power and limited that power. The states did not create "one ring to rule them all".

24 posted on 02/01/2013 12:02:14 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Understand completely.

Please note that I stated that my answer was conditioned as “ULTIMATELY.”

Nullification is a great historical principle to stand upon (and discuss), but if the Supreme Court decides something in contravention, an Amendment ratified by the 38 States is the final word. Even the Supreme Court would not (or I suppose, could not) try to overturn an Amendment. Or would it?


25 posted on 02/01/2013 12:06:00 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Right. We don’t need “new” rules; just follow what we had to begin with, which would nullify 99 percent of the lawlessness of the past couple of hundred years.


26 posted on 02/01/2013 12:08:09 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

bttt


27 posted on 02/01/2013 12:09:09 PM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Absolutely agree! :-)


28 posted on 02/01/2013 12:10:21 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nabber
SCOTUS is the Fed Gov and giving them final say would make them despotic.

Jefferson:
In the wake of Marbury v Madison, Jefferson wrote, in a letter to Abigail Adams, "... the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." Simply put: if the Supreme Court has the power to say what is and is not constitutional, there is no limit to the court's power (and hence, to that of FedGov).

29 posted on 02/01/2013 12:17:44 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

“Simply put: if the Supreme Court has the power to say what is and is not constitutional, there is no limit to the Court’s power.”

Again I say, a well-written Amendment cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court (I hope; who knows at this point).


30 posted on 02/01/2013 12:49:50 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Nabber

“... a well-written Amendment cannot be overturned by the Supreme Court ...”

What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? For that matter, the same question could be asked of a number of well-written passages in the Constitution.


31 posted on 02/01/2013 1:05:57 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nabber; WXRGina
An Amendment is not needed for states to nullify as it has a precedent.

The states created the Fed Gov and limited it's power. Scotus is part of the Fed. It is the created, not the creator. States clearly have the right, as the creators of the Constitution, to nullify a law that is contrary to the Constitution. SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. State legislatures can vote a federal law nullified in their state based on unconstitutionality.

32 posted on 02/01/2013 1:08:51 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (My faith and politics cannot be separated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

“What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? For that matter, the same question could be asked of a number of well-written passages in the Constitution.”

Got it. Really. Now you need to go back and see how the Supreme Court has chipped away at the Tenth Amendment over the last 70 years, so you will understand about infringement. Me? I don’t think it is hard to understand. But SCOTUS does.

A new Tenth Amendment could be written very, very specifically to overthrow SCOTUS decisions over the last 70 years, and reinvigorate the rights of the States. If specific, the Amendment would be incapable of being modified by SCOTUS, the way it was in the 1940s with the Interstate Commerce ruling about wheat — from there it has been all downhill.


33 posted on 02/01/2013 3:59:43 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

“What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand? For that matter, the same question could be asked of a number of well-written passages in the Constitution.”

Got it. Really. Now you need to go back and see how the Supreme Court has chipped away at the Tenth Amendment over the last 70 years, so you will understand about infringement. Me? I don’t think it is hard to understand. But SCOTUS does.

A new Tenth Amendment could be written very, very specifically to overthrow SCOTUS decisions over the last 70 years, and reinvigorate the rights of the States. If specific, the Amendment would be incapable of being modified by SCOTUS, the way it was in the 1940s with the Interstate Commerce ruling about wheat — from there it has been all downhill.


34 posted on 02/01/2013 4:00:12 PM PST by Nabber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nabber

You read my mind. The Tenth sprang to my mind as well. I started to think about enumerating all the ways that the SCOTUS has mooted the enumerated powers, but then thought it best to writing a post that just touched on the theme because a lot of FReepers would just need a little prompting to know where I was going.


35 posted on 02/01/2013 4:16:56 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Anyone familiar with Davis and Lee knows about nullification. No need to read it.


36 posted on 02/01/2013 6:42:42 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va

No need to read it? Oh, okay.

I found Ms. Publius Huldah’s paper here to be an exceptional and valuable read (which is why I busted my hands coding it), and a priceless paper to share with those who may not see how far from our foundation the US has fallen and who could use the educational ammunition to speak with knowledge on the subject.

But, it’s nice that you know everything there is to know about nullification without reading this.


37 posted on 02/01/2013 6:54:43 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Secession is the ultimate nullification, isn’t it?


38 posted on 02/01/2013 6:57:54 PM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

The States can’t nullify because they were not a party to the original compact between citizens of the several states. The Constitution was ratified by special conventions of specially elected representatives in each state. It was not ratified by state governments.

As such, the people themselves created both the state and federal governments and delegated power and authority to them in their respective constitutions, reserving certain rights to themselves FROM government. As such, only the people can dissolve or alter that delegation of authority. I don’t see how the state has been delegated the power of nullification by the people. Where does it say that in any constitution - or is it an expansion of power beyond that specifically delegated?


39 posted on 02/01/2013 6:58:27 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

Laz, you and Keith have convinced me. We’re going to rent this thing off Amazon to watch with our morning coffee this weekend. Although I know the story and may have seen the movie, my crummy memory is not pulling it up.


40 posted on 02/01/2013 8:09:53 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

Did you even read the above paper?

Our rights come from God.


41 posted on 02/01/2013 8:16:34 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Secession is not the point of the paper, but I get your point.

The point of the paper is to explain how the states and the people have authority over this lawless federal government because of our natural rights.


42 posted on 02/01/2013 8:18:54 PM PST by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

The states can nullify, I agree. But if they cannot consider taking the ultimate step, secession, then that state(s) will always be the bitch of FedGov™.


43 posted on 02/02/2013 3:57:59 AM PST by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
OMG!!! MANDATORY VIEWING! GET “THE TERMINATOR” TONIGHT!!!!!

Laz, we watched it tonight, before we listened to the last few minutes of the bastard's Satan of the Union speech. The speech made us sick. Thank goodness we didn't hear any more than we did.

But to the movie. Awesome. Husband Keith had already seen it and loved it. Something that hit both of us tonight was that there was a reference to Big Bear in it. Trivia that not many people will remember, but that we just heard-saw.

Thanks, Laz. We both have seen T-2, and we'll now watch it again.

44 posted on 02/12/2013 7:44:27 PM PST by WXRGina (The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson