Tag Archives: Nullification

Nullification: We Don’t Need Permission To Exercise Our Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare ws ‘Constitutional’, but ‘let them come and enforce it!’

“We don’t need permission to exercise our rights!”

A documentary by Jason Rink: Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

YouTube Description:

What do we do when the Federal Government steps outside of it’s constitutional boundaries? Do we ask federal bureaucrats in black robes to enforce the limits of it’s own power? Thomas Jefferson and James Madison didn’t think so, and neither do we. The rightful remedy to federal tyranny rests in the hands of the people and the several States. It’s called “nullification” or “interposition.” It’s an idea whose time has come.

This just released documentary from the Foundation for a Free Society and the Tenth Amendment Center features Thomas Woods, Michael Boldin, Debra Medina, Stewart Rhodes, Sheriff Richard Mack, Charles Goyette, Kevin Gutzman, Mike Maharrey, and others. In it we explore the history of state nullification, the constitutional legitimacy of the idea, and how nullification can be used today to push back against the encroachment of federal power.

Impeachment or Nullification?

Mr. Brown,

I read your item of October 4, 2011, calling for the impeachment of Barak Obama for a variety of either criminal or unethical conduct. I agree that the case you lay out calls for not only the immediate removal, but the prosecution of the whole lot of them on many charges in many categories. I just disagree with your approach. I believe it is doomed to failure. I admire your patriotism and your passion but believe it to be misdirected. I don’t want you to take this letter as criticism because it is absolutely not written as criticism. My intent is to make this country a better and safer place to live. I would like to see your talents and passion be put to work in what I believe to be a better opportunity for success in our common goal.

In the first place, the Democrats will tie up any impeachment proceedings until after the next election at least. Democrats will fight as dirty as necessary and racism will be the word of the day. I don’t believe John Boehner or Mitch McConnell will allow it to even get started. Then if/when it finally does get through the House, it dies a quick death in the Senate because McConnell certainly isn’t going to jump on your team. I agree Obama and his cartel of evil need to be removed but there is a better way to accomplish this task. Much mirth has been made about the question the “birthers” keep harping on. The truly funny, or maybe ironic, thing is that the birth certificate issue is quietly working its way through the courts and we are winning. Orly Taitz has long been a proponent of the nullification of the Obama regime through the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, The Naturalization Act of 1790, and an 1875 Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Heppersett (88 US 162) that upheld the eligibility provision.

The problem in the past few years has been that courts threw out the cases on the grounds that the filer had no personal vested interest in the issue, that they would not be directly harmed in any way by the issue so they could not bring legal action forward. Then a unique man steps forward. John Dummett is not interested in playing political games and mincing words about what he says. No more “definition of what is is” claptrap from the Oval Office. He is a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. He is recognized by the Federal Election Commission, and on the ballots in all 50 states.

He is also ignored by the main stream media, including the co-called “conservative” media. John is willing to take on the true issue here, the eligibility of Barak Obama to be president. The birth certificate Obama released is a very poor fake. I can see it and I am not a computer forensics expert. Not one of the Republican Party political machine candidates will touch the issue. No one in the Republican Party will speak up and tell the truth because they are afraid of the attacks. John Dummett is a patriot not a politician. John Dummett, Orly Taitz and a few others have stepped up big time to put a stop to the most evil people to ever control our nation. I hope that you will use your forum to help this issue, and help those fighting this battle.

I am not being critical of your efforts, I applaud them. I believe you are doing your best for your nation but I also look at the practicality of the matter. If Obama is impeached and removed from office, in the next 13 months, then you will have succeeded to a point. If Obama is impeached he could be removed from office. If that succeeds what do you have? Obama gone and all of his orders, rules, everything he has signed remains on the books, left to be fought over again in order to rescind them.

On the other hand, John Dummett and Orly Taitz , on the behalf of We the People, have much more to win. John has been given “in dicta” standing as a person that could be harmed by the Obama candidacy for president. If he has to run against an incumbent who has an estimated $1 billion for re-election and the free flow of taxpayer money to facilitate his expenses, and who is not eligible to run in the first place, John will be directly harmed. That is the layman’s explanation of “in dicta”. John has been given the legal standing to bring suit in federal court against Obama. No one has ever been able to do this before. The biggest difference in impeachment vs. nullification is that nullification nullifies everything Obama did during his term. It nullifies Executive Orders, czar appointments, Obamacare, everything. All laws, bills, regulations, etc. put in by the Obama administration are voided by nullification but left in place by impeachment.

This court battle will also prove that every sitting member of Congress has violated their oath of office in their lack of vetting of Obama and   in doing nothing about this issue in the 111th and 112th Congresses as they have been aware of this Constitutional Crisis from the beginning. There are even ramifications with SCOTUS in their collusion to withhold from the people “redress of grievances” in this matter. The outcome of this court battle will have repercussions that will resound through DC. Impeachment will do nothing to curb the corruption within DC. John is serious about the matter. He is also serious about his run for the nomination of the Republican Party for President. Our nation needs patriots in Washington D. C.

We have had 100 years of Ivy League lawyer career politicians running things and they have made a mess of everything. As long as we rely on people like Romney, Perry, Gingrich, et al to counter people like Obama we will get the same results we have with Obama, though to a lesser degree of “in your face” attitudes. We the People are looking for something else. We are looking for honesty, integrity, and someone willing to stand on the Constitution not just give it lip service. Nullification based on Obama’s birth certificate is the only way to completely erase the Obama abuse of the Constitution and our laws. It won’t bring the economy and stolen money back but it will erase the edicts and abuse that impeachment won’t erase.

I am including the website for the court case and John’s candidate site. I hope you will check out both sites and get to know John. He is worth your time. Even if you won’t support him will you give him the same coverage you give others? Will you at least introduce WE the People to John? Will you help them raise money to keep this legal action going? They have attorneys who are working for free but they need court costs and other expenses covered. I hope you will see my point and throw your weight into the nullification process also. You can be a great asset to your nation. You have a widespread and influential forum. You can bring this into the sunlight and force others to acknowledge the issue. You can do with the “birther” issue what Andrew Breitbart did with the ACORN issue. You can be on the cutting edge of a real and positive change in America. I truly believe this is the only course to turn this evil back. Your help would be appreciated very much by John, Orly, and the others.

But bigger than that is the gratitude of We the People. The every day commoner like me needs people like you to fight our public battles for us. My voice is through people like you who are willing to help give the voice of the common man a public forum and stand for God, the Constitution, and We the People. I am also forwarding an e-mail statement from John under separate cover.

Please take a few minutes to check out these sites: www.recruityou.info Hold control key while click to open. www.johndummett.us

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

In God We Trust,

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

October 4, 2011


Floyd Brown was trained as an economist and writes on investing and politics for the San Francisco Chronicle, The Washington Times, InvestmentU.com, Townhall, and Human Events, among other publications. He began his political interest as a student volunteer for Ronald Reagan and has served in many Republican campaigns since then, including Bush, Forbes, and Dole. He was the Executive Director of the Young America’s Foundation from 2001-2006. He is the current President of The Western Center for Journalism, training “citizen journalists” in the use of internet tools and online video creation.

When Federalism Fumbles the Ball

What are we to do when our government refuses to perform its constitutional obligation?

Some would argue, and argue effectively, that the revolutionary concept that spawned America’s independence was not freedom but federalism. It is through federalism that the United States has truly achieved long lasting freedom. It is federalism that has kept absolute power, and subsequently absolute tyranny, away from any one particular person or body. The system of checks and balances and separation of powers has forced Congress, the presidency and the courts to a level of accountability not seen in human history.

But what many people do not realize about federalism is that it creates a working relationship between the national government and those of the states. In concept, it is a two way street. It is not, as some would assume a top down process, where the federal government reigns supreme. On the contrary, federalism was designed to create responsibilities and barriers between the two governments.

Perhaps a history lesson will put this into perspective. As most people know, the Constitution that we currently live under is not the first for the United States. The Articles of Confederation served as the union’s first constitution until 1788, when it was replaced by the current document. A Confederacy is a loose association of independent states, the governments of which wield more power than that of the national government. A modern example of a Confederacy would be the European Union. The EU does not claim sovereignty over its member nations. French law is still (or should be) the supreme law of the land in France. The same goes for the United Kingdom and the other members of the EU.

However in the summer of 1787, it was obvious that the Articles of Confederation were simply too weak to keep the fledgling nation together and free. If one races through a history book, one might get the impression that the Constitution was an easy sell – it was not. From its signing on September 17, 1787, the newly created Constitution underwent scrutiny from 13 states fresh off of a protracted and bloody war against their mother country, mainly to loose its self from the oppression of a tyrant. To ratify a new governing document that would take many of their freedoms away from the state level and consolidate them in a new, stronger federal government was not the objective of many who had fought for the cause of freedom.

The proponents of the Constitution, mainly through the Federalist Papers, eventually convinced all 13 states that their new government would not be one that ruled from the top down, but rather would be a symbiotic partner with all states in the union, creating many universal freedoms, but also leaving the lion share of the decision-making to the states.

This is what federalism is. Through the expressed, denied and implied powers of the Constitution of the United States, obligations of law are separated, shared and commissioned to the respective levels of government for the proper governing of its people.

But what happens when one of those governments – state or federal – is not living up to those obligations? We are quite used to (unfortunately so) the federal government superseding state’s obligations when it feels that said state has not lived up to its task. This is a disturbing trend in and of itself but now we are faced with the opposite. What are states to do when it is obvious that the federal government will not, for one reason or another, fulfill its constitutional obligations?

States like Arizona, Georgia and Alabama have recently answered that question, particularly when it comes to the subject of immigration. In the Constitution is the federal government’s responsibility to create laws of uniformity in regards to immigration. However, it is obvious that our federal government, like so many other issues, has decided to kick the can down the road in regards to the issue of illegal immigration from our southern border. For well over 30 years, this has been an issue for these border states and now it has become one of security for the people of those states.

The current violence on the border of Texas and Arizona has once again brought the problem of a porous border to the forefront. When those states become so overwhelmed with the criminal and financial burden placed upon them due to the negligence of the federal government, what constitutional recourse do they have? States, like the ones mentioned above, have been forced to take matters into their own hands, passing laws that simply require the enforcement of federal statutes that are already on the books.

There is a concept in our country known as the doctrine of nullification. Basically, this says that the states do not have to go along with federal policy or law that they believe is a violation of their constitutional rights. Currently, there are 26 states, that are using the doctrine of notification to declare President Obama’s healthcare plan unconstitutional, citing that healthcare should be a state’s rights issue, as per the 10th amendment. But how does a state nullify negligence? Such is the burden of a country that is slowly allowed its federal government to usurp power from the states and centralize it in Washington DC over the past 100 years.

They say that all politics are local, yet the slow, decades long march towards socialism has created a society that looks to the Potomac for all of the answers to its problems. As Ronald Reagan said, “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem”.

The solution, of course, is and will be up for debate for a long time. But one thing is for sure – we got ourselves into this mess over a long period of time and it will not remedy itself overnight. The constant vigilant watch and occasional call to arms is the responsibility of every well educated individual who sees and understands what our founding fathers and framers intended for our great country. Rugged individualism, localized control and the understanding that the old adage is indeed old but true – absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Nullify the Real ID Act

House Republicans seem to be confused about which side they’re on, again. Roughly one month after voting overwhelmingly in favor of extending certain unconstitutional provisions of the so-called Patriot Act, they are urging the Obama administration not to delay the implementation of the Real ID Act of 2005, which will otherwise take effect on May 11.

The Real ID Act, an unfunded federal mandate which requires all fifty states to issue federally compliant identification cards, was swiftly signed into law by President Bush after being passed with no debate. Proponents claim that it will make it easier to combat terrorism and crime, though when asked for specifics, they tend to fall back on nonsensical Bush-era neoconservative talking points.

Critics on both sides of the aisle point out, correctly, that Real ID will make it easier than ever before for identity thieves to obtain personal information, while foisting an utterly unnecessary financial burden onto states that are already strapped for cash. And, of course, government programs always evolve, so what will the next step be? As the U.S. regresses into the ideological darkness of statism, the very authoritarianism our heroic founders left behind, how could future administrations—worse than the current one, unimaginable as that seems—abuse and exploit a national identification card?

Fortunately, sixteen states have passed laws rejecting Real ID, while another eight have enacted resolutions expressing opposition to the mandate. It is interesting to note that this is not a red/blue issue; the states opposed to Real ID are all over the map, both politically and literally, from Maine to South Carolina to Illinois to Hawaii.

Not all states have reacted so wisely. Some, like Delaware, began issuing federally compliant identification cards without any local legislative authorization whatsoever, while adamantly (and dishonestly) denying that the move would lead to a national identification card.

It’s quite likely that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has been a vocal opponent of Real ID in the past (though she wants to replace it with a similar law that would probably be even more frightening), will delay the implementation of the law.

However, Napolitano’s decision shouldn’t make a difference to the fifty states. With nearly half of them prepared to violate federal law by saying “no” to Real ID, there is no reason to assume that the implementation of the law—whether it takes place on May 11, or years from now—will affect anyone, provided that state governments simply exercise their constitutional right to nullify it.

Nullification, despite being suspiciously absent from most public school curriculums, has a long and honorable history in the U.S. It is the process by which one or more states invalidate an unconstitutional federal law, whether by blocking its enforcement, or simply ignoring it. An excellent example from the 19th century is the Fugitive Slave Act, which permitted slave-catchers to recapture escaped slaves, even in “free” states. A number of northern states nullified this unjust law, including Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Their noble efforts were opposed by the Supreme Court, but the fact of the matter is that a handful of black-robed judges cannot really force a state government to do anything, and in this case, northern states acted appropriately, if illegally.

Suppose that, say, a quarter of the states refuse to comply with the Real ID Act. What will the Democrat-controlled federal government do? Withhold funding for other programs? Send in armed troops? Throw a temper tantrum—or be forced to admit that it’s not nearly as powerful as it likes to pretend?

We’ll have to wait and see.