Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures.

The Proposed Tennessee Resolutions of 2012

PLEASE NOTE:  I have revised these model resolutions.  The revised version is better organized and reads better.   You can find the revised resolutions by clicking on the following hyperlink:

Now, How Do We Get Rid Of Obamacare?  Nullify It!

Do use the revised model for your study, instead of the one below.

The revised version – which you can find at the link – sets forth in a nutshell all one needs for a basic understanding of our Constitution – and how the supreme Court destroyed it.

As always, feel free to post your questions.  PH

Proposed by Publius Huldah.

1. Resolved, That the States composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to the federal government; but that, with the Constitution for the United States, they established a federal government for limited purposes only.  That they delegated to this federal government only limited and enumerated powers; and reserved, each State to itself, all remaining powers, along with the right to their own self-government.

That whenever the federal government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.

That to these Principles, each State agreed as a State, and as the Parties to the Constitution.

That the federal government is not a party to the Constitution, but is merely the creature of the Constitution; and as the mere creature, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; since that would have made the creature’s will, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers.  That as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each State has an equal right to judge for itself as to whether the creature has committed infractions, and as to the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 2, of the Constitution of The State of Tennessee acknowledges the Principle that the doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

3. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States ordained and established a Federation of Sovereign States which united only for THE LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce and relations; and domestically the creation of an uniform commercial system:  Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery.  That the 10th  Amendment to the Constitution also declares that “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.”

That nowhere in the Constitution of the United States was any power granted to Congress to make laws respecting agriculture, farming operations, labor and employment, or children and families; and that nowhere in the Constitution are powers over these matters prohibited to the States. These matters are altogether outside the scope of powers delegated to the federal government. Therefore, power over these matters is reserved solely and exclusively to the respective States and THE PEOPLE, each within its or their own territory.

4. Resolved, That Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States provides that all legislative Powers granted by that Constitution are vested in CONGRESS; therefore, Departments within the Executive Branch are forbidden to make any “rules” or “laws” of general application whatsoever.  That administrative rules promulgated by the Department of Labor, one of the Executive Departments of the federal government, set forth at 29 CFR Part 570, and which pretend to regulate child labor throughout the several States; are altogether void, and of no force,  as in violation of Art. I, Sec. 1, of the federal Constitution.

5. Resolved, That child laborers, including agricultural workers and children who work on family and other farms, are under the jurisdiction and protection of the Constitution and laws of the State wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “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”; the rules of the federal Department of Labor set forth at 29 CFR Part 570, which assume powers not delegated by the federal Constitution over child laborers, including agricultural workers and children who work on family and other farms, is not “law”, but is altogether void, and of no force.

6. Resolved, That since children and their parents or employers are under the protection of the State Constitution and laws of the State where they are; in cases of any violations of the Laws of such State, they are entitled to have their cases handled by the duly convened Courts of such State.  That transferring power of defining, prosecuting, and judging any such violations from the three branches of the State Governments to bureaucrats within one of the federal executive departments, is altogether unlawful and an intolerable usurpation of power.

7. Resolved, That the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government to the so-called “taxing”, “general welfare”, “interstate commerce”, and “necessary and proper” clauses, to the effect that these clauses bestow unlimited powers on the federal government, goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the federal Constitution. That the true and genuine meaning of those clauses is as follows:

a) The “taxing” and “general welfare” clauses:  Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.1, employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. It is “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; thus, to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” is “an absurdity” (Federalist Paper No. 41, last 4 paras).

The federal Constitution declares that “the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases.  This specification of particulars…excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended…” (Federalist No. 83, 7th para).

b) The “interstate commerce” clause: “Commerce” is the buying and selling of goods – only that and nothing more. Webster’s American Dictionary (1828) says “commerce” is:

“an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals… by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick… inland commerce…is the trade in the exchange of commodities between citizens of the same nation or state.”

Federalist No. 22 (4th para), Federalist No. 42 (9th  &10th  paras), Federalist No. 44 (at 2.), and Federalist No. 56  (5th & 6th paras), explain the two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause: (1) to prohibit the States from imposing tolls and tariffs on articles of import and export – goods & commodities – merchandize – as they are transported through the States for purposes of buying and selling; and (2) to permit the federal government to impose duties on imports and exports, both inland and abroad.

Article I, Sec. 8, cl.1; Art. I, Sec. 9, cls. 5 & 6; and Art. I, Sec.10, cls. 2 & 3, of the federal Constitution give express effect to these two purposes of the “interstate commerce” clause.

c) The “necessary and proper” clause:  This clause merely delegates to Congress the power to pass laws necessary and proper to execute its declared powers (Federalist No. 29, 4th para); a power to do something must be a power to pass all laws necessary and proper for the execution of that power (Federalist No. 33, 3rd para); “the constitutional operation of the intended government would be precisely the same if [this clause] were entirely obliterated as if [it] were repeated in every article” (No. 33, 2nd para); and thus the clause is “perfectly harmless”, a  tautology or redundancy” (No. 33, 3rd para).  Madison writes to the same effect in (Federalist No. 44, at 1.).

The clause merely permits the execution of powers already delegated and enumerated in the federal Constitution.  No additional substantive powers are granted by this clause.

That contrary to the misconstructions long and unlawfully applied by the federal government, the federal Constitution is one of enumerated powers only:

“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, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.”  (Federalist No. 45 , 9th para)

“…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)

“…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)

“…It merits particular attention … that the laws of the Confederacy [those made by 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).

That The Federalist Papers – and not the U.S. supreme Court – is the highest authority and evidence “of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning”. The supreme Court is merely a creature of the Constitution and is completely subject to its terms; and when judges on that and lower federal courts – who serve during “good Behaviour” only (Art. III, Sec. 1, cl. 1) – usurp powers, they must be impeached and removed from office (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

8. Resolved, That to take from the States all the powers of self-government and to transfer all powers to a general and consolidated national government, in defiance of the Constitution which was ordained and established by THE PEOPLE, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of THE PEOPLE.

Therefore this State is determined to refuse to submit to undelegated powers exercised over them by the federal government; and rejects altogether the notion that the federal government may exercise unlimited powers over them.

That in cases of an abuse of the delegated (enumerated) powers, the members of the federal government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But, where powers are usurped which have not been delegated to the federal government – when the federal government acts outside of, and in defiance of, the federal Constitution by exercising powers not delegated to it by that Constitution; then a nullification of the unlawful act is the rightful remedy.

Thus every State has a natural right – which pre-dates & pre-exists the federal Constitution – to nullify of their own authority all such lawless assumptions of power within the boundaries of their State.  That without this pre-existing natural and original right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whoever in the federal government chooses to exercise tyrannical powers over them.

The States alone are The Parties to the compact; and thus are solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it.  Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch are not parties to the contract; but are merely the creatures of the compact (Federalist No. 33, 5th para).  As mere creatures, they may exercise no powers other than those enumerated powers specifically delegated to them.

9. Resolved, That matters pertaining to “labor”, “employment”, “farms”, “children” and their employers or parents, are nowhere delegated to the federal government by the federal Constitution; but are among the countless multitudes of matters reserved to the States or THE PEOPLE.

Therefore, the federal Department of Labor is itself an unlawful department, and its mere existence an affront to the Constitution; and all of the powers it exercises are usurped powers as outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government by our Constitution.

That if the pretended “rules” of this spurious federal Department of Labor should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that unelected bureaucrats within the Executive Branch of the federal government may force upon The States and THE PEOPLE their own ideas of what children and their employers or parents may and may not do; that they may place any act they think proper on a list of prohibited activities, that they will send out swarms of officers to trespass upon private farms and places of business, to harass employers, children and their parents;  and then prosecute and punish violations of their pretended “rules” in their own pretended “administrative courts” with their own pretended “administrative judges”.

That the federal departments within the Executive Branch of the federal government have established a pattern of unlawfully functioning as legislators, when they write “agency rules”; as executives, when they investigate and prosecute violations of “agency rules”; and as judges and juries when they decide whether violations of their “agency rules” have occurred.  Thus the Executive Branch unlawfully functions as legislator, accuser, judge & jury, in violation of the Constitution and of the Principles of Separation of Power and of Checks and Balances.

To this abomination is added the additional affront that the objects of these pretended “rules” are altogether outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government in our Constitution.

That in this way, those within the Executive Branch of the federal government are sweeping away all the barriers of our Constitution; and that no ramparts now remain between their unbridled and insatiable lust for power over THE PEOPLE except for the several States.

10. Resolved, That if the States do not now resist all such blatantly unlawful usurpations of power, THE PEOPLE of their States will be delivered into abject slavery subject to the unbridled control of whosoever occupies the office of President.  Our Representatives in Congress have shirked their constitutional obligation to support the Constitution (Art. VI, cl. 3), by acquiescing in the blatant usurpations by the Executive Branch; and  have failed in their duty to impeach and remove those within the Executive Branch who usurp powers (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para, and No. 77, last para).  That the supreme Court long ago took the side of those who seek to exercise unlimited control over the States and THE PEOPLE; and that Congress has failed in their duty to impeach and remove federal judges who usurp powers (Federalist No. 81, 8th para).

That pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3 of our federal Constitution, all State legislators, State Officers and State Judges take a solemn Oath to support our federal Constitution. Therefore, they are bound to protect THE PEOPLE of their States from the usurpations of the federal government whose clear object is the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the States and the People.

That our Framers anticipated the dangers we now face and provided wise counsel for such a time as this.  Federalist No. 28 (last 5 paras) states that when “the representatives of the people betray their constituents”, the people have no recourse but to exert “that original right of self-defense” [The Declaration of Independence, 2nd para], against “the usurpations of the national rulers” (5th para from end).

That in a Federation of States united under a federal government for only limited purposes,

“…the people… are…the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general [federal] government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress…” (4th para from end)

Thus, THE STATE LEGISLATURES are the ultimate bulwark of The People and The Ultimate Human Protectors of our Constitutional Republic:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adopt a regular plan of opposition, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty.”  (3rd para from end)

The last paragraph of Federalist No. 28 recognizes that when the federal government seeks

“… a despotism over the great body of the people … [the people] are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense…”

11. Resolved, That because men may not be trusted with power, the federal Constitution fixed the limits to which, and no further, the federal government may go.  Would we be wise if we permit the federal government to destroy the limits the Constitution places upon its powers? Would we be wise if we permit unelected bureaucrats in the Executive Departments of the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives?

That if those who administer the federal government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by the federal Constitution, by disregarding the limits on its powers set forth therein, then annihilation of the State Governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated  government, will be the inevitable consequence.

That the several States, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of infractions to the federal Constitution; and that nullification by those sovereign States of all unauthorized acts of the federal government is the rightful remedy.

THEREFORE, this State, recurring to its natural rights in matters outside the scope of the powers delegated to the federal government, declares these acts void, and of no force, and will take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the federal government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within this State.

Notes:

1. The above is patterned on the relevant portions of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson in response to the alien and sedition acts passed by Congress which purported to grant to the President tyrannical powers with respect to aliens & “seditious” words.

2. These proposed Resolutions focus on administrative “rules” made by a Department within the Executive Branch of the federal government. This Model may be easily adapted to address acts of Congress which are outside the scope of its enumerated powers; Executive Orders which are outside the scope of the President’s enumerated powers; and supreme Court opinions which exceed their enumerated powersand disregard the federal Constitution, such as their lawless rulings banning public expressions of the Faith of Our Fathers and misapplying Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to undermine the morals of the People and to destroy the residuary sovereignity of The States.

3. Several attorneys, historians, and others who claim special knowledge on this subject have asserted that States have no right to nullify anything the federal government does; that the States and The People must submit to the federal government no matter what it does; that only the federal government may question the federal government; thatthe federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five supreme Court judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers.

Such people may not understand the distinction between abuses of delegated powers (e.g., unwise bankruptcy laws – Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4), for which election of better Representatives is the answer; and usurpations of powers which have not been delegated and are thus outside the lawful reach of the federal government (e.g., obamacare), for which nullification is the proper answer. When any branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution to make laws or “rules” or issue “opinions” which exceed their delegated powers; the States must resort to those original rights which pre-date & pre-exist Our Constitution to nullify such usurpations by the federal government of undelegated powers.

Such people also do not seem to understand our Founding Principles: Our Declaration of Independence says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …”  (2nd para)

In that one paragraph, we learn the five foundational principles of our Constitutional Republic:

  • Our Rights are unalienableand come from God;
  • The purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given Rights;
  • Civil government gets its powers from THE PEOPLE;
  • Civil government is legitimate only when it stays within the powers WE delegated to it; and
  • When civil government becomes destructive of the purposes for which WE created it, WE may throw it off.

The Constitution is the formal expression of our Consent for the federal government to exist; and it is our formal statement of which specific powers WE agreed to delegate to the three branches of that government. Look atthe opening words:

“WE THE PEOPLE … do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The federal government operates with our consent only when it restricts itself to the powers WE delegated to it – when it obeys the Constitution. When it exercises usurped powers which have not been delegated to it, it becomes illegitimate. 

When the federal government loses its legitimacy – as it now has – it is the sworn duty of the States, pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, of our Constitution, to resist.

4. Others who claim special knowledge on this subject insist that a single State may not nullify any act of the federal government; that only a majority of the States acting in concert may do so.

But they overlook the nature of the laws protested in the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions. Those Resolutions addressed laws made by Congress which purported to grant to the President certain dictatorial powers and jurisdiction over “aliens” and “seditious words”. The States have no means of stopping the President from enforcing such laws since the President has the raw power to send out armed thugs to arrest people by night; and then to prosecute, convict, & execute them in secret tribunals and chambers. The States may object – but they can’t stop it. The supreme Court may denounce it, but can’t stop it. Only Congress can put an end to it by impeaching & removing such a usurping President (Federalist No. 66, 2nd para & No. 77, last para).

But when Congress by means of a law (which is outside the scope of its delegated powers); or the President by means of an executive order (which is outside the scope of his delegated powers); or federal executive departments by means of administrative rules (which they are altogether prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 1 from making); or the supreme Court by means of opinions which contradict Our Constitution; purport to require THE STATES to do something, or stop doing something, then of course THE STATES – on an individual basis – have both the POWER and the DUTY (imposed by their Art. VI, cl. 3 Oaths of Office) to nullify such usurpatious acts within the boundaries of their States.   The proper battle cry in such events is, “Not in my state!”

Do you see? PH
Posted March 13, 2012

Postscript Added March 15, 2012:

The federal government is not God.  It is merely our “creature”. We The People created the federal government when We ordained and established Our Constitution. And when We enumerated the powers We delegated to each branch of the federal government, We told the federal government what We were giving it permission to do.

But we have now come to believe that the federal government may do whatever it wants; and we must obey it.  And because we have believed this for so long, a totalitarian fascist dictatorship is right now being imposed on us.

So what should we do?  Revolution and bloodshed? No!  There is a better way, and our Framers show us:  On behalf of The People of their States, The State Legislatures must now resort to that original right of self-defense which pre-exists & pre-dates The Constitution; and must nullify those acts of the federal government which are outside the scope of the powers We delegated to it in Our Constitution.

The Model Resolutions  set forth the Authorities on which they are based, so that State Legislators may propose them in their State Legislatures with complete confidence that Our Framers “have their backs”. PH

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

March 13, 2012 - Posted by | 10th Amendment, Administrative Law, Checks and Balances, Declaration of Independence, Department of Labor, Elastic clause, General Welfare Clause, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Necessary and Proper clause, Nullification by States, Nullification of unconstitutional acts, Nullification Resolutions, Oath of Office, Resistance to tyranny, Rulemaking by Executive Agencies, separation of powers, States Retained Powers, States Rights, Tennessee Constitution, Tenth Amendment, The Tennessee Resolutions, Usurpations of power | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

60 Comments »

  1. [...] must nullify Obamacare.  Here are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address Obamacare and the HHS rules. State officials, [...]

    Pingback by The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare | Grumpy Opinions | November 13, 2012 | Reply

  2. [...] States must nullify obamacare.  Here are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address obamacare and the HHS rules. State officials, [...]

    Pingback by The “Taxing Clause”, Five Lawless Judges, and obamacare. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | July 5, 2012 | Reply

  3. [...] States must nullify Obamacare.  Here are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address Obamacare and the HHS rules. State officials, [...]

    Pingback by The ‘Taxing Clause’, Five Lawless Judges, and ObamaCare | The Constitution Sentinel | July 3, 2012 | Reply

  4. [...] States must nullify Obamacare.  Here are model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. These can be easily amended to specifically address Obamacare and the HHS rules. State officials, [...]

    Pingback by The “Taxing Clause”, Was Chief Justice Roberts Right? « Off My Front Porch-Conservative Ranting | July 2, 2012 | Reply

  5. [...] Elect State and County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions. Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by Before It's News | June 25, 2012 | Reply

  6. [...] Elect State and County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions. Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by Obamacare Constitutional Fight Validates the RTP…Again. | Roanoke Tea Party | June 25, 2012 | Reply

  7. [...] ELECT State & County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions.  Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution. « Publius-Huldah's Blog | June 23, 2012 | Reply

  8. [...] ELECT State & County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions.  Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution | Illinois Conservative Beacon | June 19, 2012 | Reply

  9. [...] ELECT State & County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions.  Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution | The Constitution Sentinel | June 19, 2012 | Reply

  10. [...] ELECT State & County officials who will nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress, executive orders, & judicial opinions.  Here are Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. [...]

    Pingback by The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution | Christian Patriots USA | June 19, 2012 | Reply

  11. NOTE: This was emailed to me by somebody. I’m posting it as a reference for a paper I’ll be writing on this whole issue of the national government’s retention of lands when the western States were admitted to Statehood.

    tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/annexation/march1845.html#top-of-page

    My question was since this is a Joint Resolution is it Constitutional since Congress is granted authority under the Constitution to address the admission of territories and not a Legal Nation. It seems to me this should be a Treaty and it failed 3 times in 1845 to get the necessary 2/3 vote in the Senate and this Joint Resolution did not pass the Senate by the required 2/3 vote to ratify a Treaty. You have already answered the question of the right to withdraw from this Joint Resolution but without war how does this happen or is that the only remedy?

    Comment by Publius/Huldah | April 3, 2012 | Reply

  12. Thank you for your careful research and clear thinking.
    Your citation of the Declaration of Independence in a response to a reader is something that is rarely discussed, especially the part about the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. I live in Nevada and the legislation admitting Nevada to the Union includes a order that Nevada will do nothing that is repugnant to the Declaration.
    I didn’t notice reference to a few other subjects that pertain to this subject such as the supremacy clause, void court judgements, and the fact that the Constitution does not include a general grant of law enforcement authority. I apologize if I missed them, but please comment.

    Comment by Floyd Rathbun | March 27, 2012 | Reply

    • Thank you for your kind comment, Floyd. And yes! The Declaration of Independence is the GLORIOUS fundamental act of our Founding. And the left hates it more than they hate the Bible. That is why that evil elena kagan refused to even acknowledge its existence.

      Would you post a link to the law admitting Nevada to Statehood? I’d like to collect them all for a project.

      I have several other papers which explain the “supremacy clause”. Look under the category, “Supremacy clause”.

      Re “void court judgments”: I don’t know what you mean – but I often refer to the “check” which Congress has on federal judges – Congress should impeach & remove them when they usurp powers – see Federalist No. 81 (8th para). And I am the supreme Court’s most severe critic – see, e.g., my papers on the 14th Amendment and what those usurpers did on “separation of church and state”.

      Re “general grants of law enforcement authority”: I have separate papers on the enumerated powers of each of the 3 branches of the federal government. See the Categories “enumerated powers”.

      There is also a paper on the authority of Congress to make criminal laws for the Country at large. See: Criminal Code (US).

      When writing a paper, one must keep them short as possible and narrowly focused. Otherwise, every paper would be about everything. This is the most difficult part of what I do – deciding what I must put in and what I can leave out.

      In order to understand any one part of Our Constitution, one must understand it all. So, there is a period of time where one must take in information, and then – on one glorious day – it starts to come together in one’s mind. Of course, that understanding must be kept subject to constant refinement and correction. Every day, I understand Our Constitution better and marvel even more at the genius of our Framers. I have no doubt that God blessed that assembly.

      But my job is made difficult by all the MISINFORMATION and LIES which have been told to us for so long about Our Constitution by supreme Court judges, by law school professors, and by those brainless twits who chatter about Our Constitution on Faux News (Lis Wheil comes to mind).

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 27, 2012 | Reply

      • Here is the link from the Nevada Legislative web site

        leg.state.nv.us/Const/NvAdmActs

        Act of Congress of 1864 enabling people of Nevada to forma constitution and state government

        Section 4

        Same section 4 also forces Nevada to enter the union with federal claims to lands still in place — they contracted to enter the union on less than an equal footing

        I was told some time ago that court decisions that violate law in their own right are void, they do not have to be declared void because they already are. But the process requires informing the federal courts in some certain manner. I’d have to look for what I read to be more specific.

        Comment by Floyd Rathbun | March 28, 2012 | Reply

        • Oh my! I am reeling with shock & horror. Nevada was NOT admitted on an equal footing!

          Contrast the Act admitting Nevada to Statehood with the 1796 Act admitting Tennessee to Statehood:

          memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=614 (it’s at the bottom of page 491 – top of page 492). Tennessee was admitted on a footing equal to the original States which ratified the Constitution!

          Nevada was admitted as a subordinate subject to the bullies in Congress and that tyrant, A. Lincoln.

          I certainly learned something from you. I will have to look into this and see what may be done. [Be assured, something may be done!] Question is whether the People of the Western States have the spine to fix this. I’m assuming for now that the other Western States have similar status to Nevada’s.

          Re unlawful court decisions: No need to look anything up – I know what you are talking about. It is an ancient Principle of Law that a “law” which is contrary to the Constitution is “no law at all” – it is void ab initio (void from the beginning) and binds no one.

          When a trial court (or intermediate appellate court) issues an unconstitutional judgment, the proper remedy is to appeal the judgment to a higher court.

          Your State may have other provisions which require – in other situations – a person or other entity to notify a Court when such person or entity deems the Court’s decision to be unlawful.

          But I plan to draft a Nullification Resolution for State Legislatures to use in repudiating the U.S. Supreme Court’s unconstitutional bans on prayer and posting of the 10 Commandments in the public schools and other public places. I’ll also have an addendum which can be used for States to ban abortions within the borders of their States.

          States could properly just go ahead and do this – just tell their public schools to go ahead and have the prayers and post the 10 Commandments – and when the atheists file a lawsuit, States could just tell the federal judge to take a hike and refuse to participate in the Litigation. State legislatures could go ahead and ban abortions within the borders of their States – and when the baby killers object, tell them to go take a hike. The supreme Court’s opinions on these issues are so clearly unconstitutional and lawless.

          But people like things done neatly. Hence, a formal Resolution Nullifying unconstitutional supreme Court decisions is appropriate.

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 28, 2012 | Reply

        • Nye County Nevada made a real effort to solve this and that effort got labelled the sagebrush rebellion. President Reagan agreed but stopped short of pulling the regulatory agencies out of the western states (Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, etc.)

          So did Catron County New Mexico and at this time Otero County New Mexico is having substantial success in convincing the federal agencies that Otero County has not given them permission to enforce a variety of laws and regulations.

          I believe that it is easy to make an argument that all these federal agencies have failed to fulfill the intentions of Congress, failed to meet the goals that they set for themselves, and often fail to even follow the regulations that they wrote; they are no longer necessary and should be decommisioned.

          However, those agencies have been really successful with propaganda claiming that any area controlled by federal agency is “public land”. In doing so they get the edorsement of environmental activists and even hunting groups. The arguments used by Wayne Hage and Helen Chenowith-Hage included public lands being a synonym for a federal enclave or territory. The BLM and FS areas throughout Nevada are covered by private property in the form of water rights and the rights-of-way or easements necessary for people and livestock to use the water. More damage is done to private property value by judges who do not recognize why federal laws such as Federal Land Managemtn and Policy Act include a savings clause that is supposed to protect those existing private property.

          Comment by Floyd Rathbun | March 29, 2012 | Reply

          • I am looking forward to getting immersed in this issue of whether Congress violated the Constitution of the United States by imposing unlawful conditions precedent upon the western States for their being admitted to Statehood.

            I’m posting a link now from Wikipedia to start gathering my references for a paper on this issue:
            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood

            Also, you have a knowledge of the facts which I don’t yet have – since I (being from the East) have never dealt with the issues you in the West face. I remember being shocked when I first saw a map of these United States which showed how much land the federal government claims to own in the Western States. What we need is an argument showing that Congress unlawfully retained ownership of these lands. I’m sure there is an argument out there just waiting to be picked up. There always is.

            I can’t take credit for this idea – I heard it from Dr. Walter E. Williams: These federal lands could be transferred to the people (in some fashion) to liquidate their SS & Medicare claims. That would get the property out of federal hands and would liquidate the unfunded liabilities for SS & Medicare (which is not the federal government’s business anyway). E.g., it’s better to give you title to a plot of land in exchange for all your SS & Medicare claims. I’m not an administrator or businessperson or economist – but do know that some system could be set up to do this.

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 31, 2012

  13. [...] supported power of nullification. Furthermore, we learned that constitutional scholar Plubius-Huldah has done the yeoman’s task pf preparing a template, a blue print if you wish, of exactly how [...]

    Pingback by What If We Had A Redstate Rebellion (Part 2) « Conservatives on Fire | March 22, 2012 | Reply

  14. [...] the federal government to render Obama Care unconstitutional. In another interesting move, a model NULLIFICATION resolution for states has just surfaced that would essentially tell the Federal Government where to get off. [...]

    Pingback by Anonymous | March 20, 2012 | Reply

  15. [...] federal government to render Obama Care unconstitutional.  In another interesting move, a model NULLIFICATION resolution for states has just surfaced that would essentially tell the Federal Government where to [...]

    Pingback by “The Commerce Clause – Pathway to a Dictatorship!” « Marions space | March 19, 2012 | Reply

  16. [...] the federal government to render Obama Care unconstitutional. In another interesting move, a model NULLIFICATION resolution for states has just surfaced that would essentially tell the Federal Government where to get off. [...]

    Pingback by “The Commerce Clause – Pathway to a Dictatorship!” « The PPJ Gazette | March 17, 2012 | Reply

  17. PH, Thank you so much for all you do.

    We would be wise to provide every member of our military and law enforcement agencies the training you recommended to the Department of Homeland Security. And they should be tested on their knowledge. They are all sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. How can they do this if they don’t know what it says?

    We also need to demand from our local and state boards of education that they ensure this be taught in every school as appropriate for every grade level, Pre-K through 12.

    Comment by FiddlerBob | March 17, 2012 | Reply

  18. Hello. Excellent article. I would love to see this passed, or at least debated, in some state. Be hilarious to see the look on the President’s face.

    Anyway, did you write this article in response to some specific occurrence in Tennessee (or elsewhere) or was it just a whim? I looked through the news and didn’t see anything that might have given you the idea. You seemed to mention child labor and labor laws a lot throughout. Is the department of labor having a disagreement with Tennessee?

    Comment by Ross | March 15, 2012 | Reply

    • Hello, Ross!

      Someone in TN did ask me about this – and I am here to serve. Yes, the federal Department of Labor wants to expand its regulation of children who work on their parents’ farms. Outrageous. And some farming organizations are upset about this too.

      I’ve been meaning for a long time to write Nullification Resolutions. Now that I’ve done one set, I could fairly quickly make the needed changes for nullification of other unconstitutional acts of the federal government which purport to require the States to do something or not do something.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012 | Reply

      • Apologies for top posting, but I have a question about this whole ‘nullification’ thing. Back in 1807, there was a case of Pennsylvania trying to put nullification into practice, and 11 states (there were only 15 back then, so that’s a significant percentage) refused to back Pennsylvania. Madison was president and came down on the side of the Supreme Court, which had shot down Pennsylvania’s attempt.

        If, only 20 years after the adoption of the Constitution, nullification got shot down, how would it succeed now? Wouldn’t it have to address some specific law/statute/policy via the state equivalent? Not that that piecemeal approach works too well, given past experience with tougher state rules and regs getting the boot in favor of lax, lobbyist-written ‘suggestions’…

        BTW, I am a radical leftist – a progressive – and the Declaration and Constitution are as sacred to me as the Bible because they guarantee my right to read it and worship as I chose (among a whole lot of other things). It’s my country, too, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.

        Comment by Karen Cook | March 16, 2012 | Reply

        • Hi, Karen,

          1. In 1807, there were discussions in New England about nullifying the federal Embargo Act of 1807. But it would have been improper for States to nullify the Embargo Act of 1807 because Congress acted within the scope of its delegated powers in making that law. As you may recall, English ships had been capturing our ships and impressing American sailors into the service of the British Navy! So, it was a proper exercise of Congress’ delegated War Powers to embargo British ships. Congress also has delegated powers to regulate international commerce – so an embargo of British trade ships would have been proper under that power as well. The Embargo Acts may not have been a good idea, but Congress had authority under the Constitution to make the laws. Hence, they were constitutional, and not properly subject to nullification.

          2. During the early 1840s, Pennsylvania asserted that the federal Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. However, as atrocious (and unBiblical) as the federal Fugitive Slave Act was, it was permitted by Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3. [I haven't read the Act, but you see what Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3 says.] Nullification of a constitutional Act of Congress would not be proper.

          3. But I don’t know of any attempts by Pennsylvania during 1807 to nullify a federal law. I minored in American History, but that was 50 years ago. If you can refresh me on the facts, then I’ll address that.

          The Key is this: If Congress makes silly bankruptcy laws, then the proper remedy is to defeat the Representatives who passed the silly bankruptcy laws and replace them in the next election with sensible Representatives. This is because Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 delegates to Congress the power to make bankruptcy laws. Thus, the laws they make are “constitutional” even thou they might be unwise. But since they are constitutional, they are not properly subject to nullification by States.

          It is only when a branch of the federal government steps outside of the Constitution and makes laws, or issues Executive Orders, or issues Executive Agency “rules”, or pronounces usurpatious supreme court decisions, WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO THAT BRANCH IN THE CONSTITUTION that a State may properly revert to that original right of self-defense and nullify such usurpatious act. See?

          See my comments at the end of the Model Nullification Resolutions about the 5 Founding Principles set forth within the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence. People today think the federal government is god and can do whatever it wants. They have forgotten that the federal government is merely our “creature” – WE “created” it when WE ordained & established the federal Constitution. The federal government may properly do ONLY what WE permitted it to do when we wrote up the lists of delegated & enumerated powers.

          See also my comments re the practical difficulties of actually stopping a President from carrying out certain unconstitutional usurpatious acts (such as the alien & sedition laws).

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 16, 2012 | Reply

      • Thanks for the answer! I actually had another question. Kind of unrelated, but I’ve been chewing on this one for a while.

        This all hinges on my understanding of English Common Law, and if I don’t understand it correctly, please correct me.

        So, you frequently mention the enumerated powers of Congress and the other branches of government. And yet, based on my reading, much of the way that our government functions at both the low and high levels is based on English Common Law, and making laws related to English Common Law are not in Congress’s enumerated powers.

        So my question is, are laws that ban, for example, murder, unconstitutional? Or, to put it in less obvious terms, laws that set guidelines for punishment for things that are obviously common-law crimes? Is the FBI unconstitutional, as the creation of it, as well, is not an enumerated power? (And it seems that the president’s enumerated powers only allow him to execute *constitutional* laws, so it would not be constitutional based solely on the powers of the executive branch)

        Or is this all governed by the states? And if so, what would we do about a multi-state serial killer (for example)?

        Thanks!

        Comment by Ross | March 16, 2012 | Reply

        • I remember when I had the same question, Ross. So, of course, it’s an excellent question! (grin)

          1. What is “the Common Law”? In law school, we are told that it is “judge-made law” – that it is the law the judges “make” when they write their precious opinions. You see how this corrupts the minds of law students: it indoctrinates them with the notions that (a) judges get to “make” law, and (b) the law “evolves” as the judges write their opinions. And in this way, an attitude – a mindset – is shaped; and years later, lawyers take positions on issues on the basis of beliefs they have never examined and don’t know how they got. This is how indoctrination works – ideas are instilled and the victims know nothing about it.

          But actually, the common law is God’s Law which is set forth in the Bible. The concepts of negligence, contract law, business law, slander, the criminal code, etc., all come out of the Bible. The legal system of Western Civilization (primarily Protestant countries) was based on God’s Law as set forth in the Bible. In John W. Whitehead’s book, “The Second American Revolution”, he tells the Truth about the origin of the Common Law. [BTW, it's an excellent book - written for intelligent laymen like you as well as for lawyers whose eyes are opening.] I read the Bible for the first time towards the end of a long legal career – and was stunned to see how much of the Law came from the Bible!

          2. Now let’s look at the U.S. Constitution. Each branch of the federal government has only those enumerated powers which are delegated to it. So with the federal government, we are speaking primarily of specific powers – not “common law” – though the notion that civil government is subject to the law IS a concept which comes from the Bible. The Bible clearly puts the civil authorities UNDER GOD’s Law. The civil authorities are not the source of law – their duty is to enforce God’s Law. Our Framers understood the Bible very well indeed. [Compare this with the model of the European statists - Hegel, etc. - where all power originates with the State and the State is subject to no authority other than it own Will.]

          We did not set up a theocracy in our Country. Rather, as in the Bible, where the King is subject to God’s Law; in our Constitution, all 3 branches of the federal government are subject to The CONSTITUTION. See?

          So! Remember, the “common law” is God’s law as set forth in the Bible.

          Our Constitution is about the Powers which WE THE PEOPLE decided to delegate to our Creature (Federalist No. 33, 5th para). Some of the powers we delegated to Congress reflect the Common Law origin of Our Constitution.

          One of the powers which WE delegated to our creature, Congress, was the power to establish uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4). The concept of “bankruptcy” is provided for in the Common Law – God’s Law – the Bible provides for the forgiveness of debt when a debtor is overwhelmed and can’t pay off all his debts.

          Art. II, Sec. 4 provides that civil officers shall be removed from office for impeachment & conviction of, among other things, Bribery. This condemnation of accepting Bribes is part of the common law – God’s Law – as set forth in the Bible.

          The flaw in Our Constitution – slavery – specifically Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl. 3 – was in direct conflict with the common law as set forth in the Bible. The Bible provides that a “slave” who escapes his master shall NOT be returned to his master, but shall go free. [so-called “slavery” in the Bible was very different from that barbaric form practiced in the American South. [See what happens when a people spit in God's Face? - WAR when many die.]

          So, if you read the Constitution very carefully, and read a modern translation of the Bible very carefully (for both Testaments, I recommend the Revised English Bible, Oxford Univ. Press); and as you read the Bible, pay special attention to the passages about Law and civil government, you will see that Our Constitution is modeled after God’s Law of Polity as set forth in the Bible.

          So there are a number of places in the Constitution which reflect the Common Law – God’s Law.

          Now, ponder the concept of enumerated powers of each branch of the federal government. If you read my Paper on Congress’ Enumerated Powers, you will see that the list of objects on which Congress may make laws of general application throughout these United States, is a VERY SHORT LIST! Murder is a crime under the common law – God’s Law. However, Congress has no general criminal jurisdiction over the Country at large. So if Congress makes a “law” making murder throughout the States a crime, that would be outside the scope of the legislative powers granted to Congress and would be unconstitutional.

          Except for those few matters over which the Constitution does grant a general criminal jurisdiction to Congress [see paper under the Category: "Criminal code (US)], all powers to make laws making murder, rape, arson, etc. crimes is reserved to The STATES. Thus, if a serial killer goes on a multi-state killing spree, every State in which he commits a murder has criminal jurisdiction over him. The federal government has no lawful jurisdiction over a multi-state criminal. NONE!

          Note that Congress has been specifically granted exclusive jurisdiction over the D.C., military bases, etc. (Art. I, Sec. 8, next to last para), and over the Territory belong to the U.S. [Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 - this referred primarily to the Western Territory which was later broken up into States]. Over these specifically defined geographical areas, Congress has general legislative jurisdiction and may make laws prohibiting murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery [these are all common law crimes prohibited by God's Law in the Bible].

          Note also that Congress has been specifically granted jurisdiction over the military (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 14 & 16). Thus, Congress may make criminal laws for the military prohibiting murder, rape, robbery, etc.

          Re the FBI: If Congress were restricted to its enumerated powers with respect to making criminal laws, there would be VERY FEW federal criminal statutes. The FBI only came into being b/c Congress was making so many things “crimes” for which it had no constitutional authority whatsoever! See my paper on the U.S. Criminal code). Federal drug, firearms, kidnapping, murder, hate crimes, etc., etc., etc., are all unconstitutional as outside the scope of the legislative powers delegated to Congress.

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 17, 2012 | Reply

          • Wow. Very enlightening. Thank you for such a detailed answer. Even after reading through most of this blog, it’s still shocking to me how perverted our government has become from what it was supposed to be. It’s saddening, really.

            Comment by Ross | March 19, 2012

          • I appreciate your detailed article and responses. The Founders and Framers certainly believe that God’s laws should be the foundation of municipal law. Thank you for the specific examples.

            Comment by Carolyn Alder | March 22, 2012

          • You are most welcome, dear. I am going to prepare a 2 hour presentation where I will show (among other things) how Our Constitution came from the Bible – except for one terrible violation of Biblical Law. Can you find it?

            Ross’ question got me started thinking again about this – and then someone asked me to give a 2 hour presentation so…..

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 22, 2012

  19. A more descriptive term for these sobs is “socialist/communist/Marxist/islamofascist”. This covers all the bases.

    Some think the “socialist/communist/Marxist/islamofascist” are idiots. However, they are not. These people have been working for decades to get their puppet into the Whitehouse and now the “socialist/communist/Marxist/islamofascist” pull the strings to make their puppet dance.

    Pointing out that which is not so obvious to way too many people is easy. What is not so easy is deciding what to do about our Republic being destroyed by the “socialist/communist/Marxist/islamofascist”.

    At this time, we can enlighten as many people to the grave danger in which our Republic has been placed. This with the hope those enlightened will vote this November to kick the “socialist/communist/Marxist/islamofascist” lot out of DC.

    November 2nd 2010, many millions of us sent a message to DC. It is obvious that too many did not get that message or chose to ignore the message. FYI those people, we are still here and still mad as hell. Politics as usual and the dirty stinking act of COMPROMISE has made us even madder.

    We millions are going to take great pleasure in sending an even stronger message to DC this November!

    REMEMBER NOVEMBER!

    Comment by Joe | March 15, 2012 | Reply

  20. The problem I have with all of the ideas where the state legislatures can nullify Federal Laws is that the states legislatures are not part of the compact that was ratified and is now our Constitution. It is very clear in the Federalist Papers and particularly in Madison’s 1800 Report explaining the Virginia Resolutions that it was the people of the various states that ratified the Constitution and not the state legislatures. It is the people as the parties and the only parties to the Constitution that can determine if violations are occurring. It is the people using state conventions that need to be mobilized to nullify Federal Laws and not the legislatures in my opinion. I put my thoughts in a blog on the teaparty911 site titled “We the People can Nullify Federal Laws”.

    Comment by Donald Mellon | March 14, 2012 | Reply

    • I often refer, in my writings, to the need for us all to lay aside our own precious “thoughts” and “opinions” and “ideas” and put them where they belong [in the trash] and go with the original intent, and the clear guidance of our Framers. In your comment just above, you said:

      “The problem I have…”
      “…in my opinion.”
      “my thoughts”

      This is not about you or what you think or your opinions or ideas.

      The Federalist Papers are the best evidence of the original intent of Our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson was primary author of The Declaration of Independence – the fundamental document of our Founding.

      The Principles set forth in the Model Nullification Resolutions I drafted are ALL from The Federalist Papers & The Kentucky Resolutions. Over and over in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton & Madison say that when push comes to shove and the national government trespasses on the Rights of the People and usurps powers over them that the People may make use of the STATES to fight back. I quoted the last 5 paras of Federalist No. 28 – did you miss that?

      In various of my other papers, I quote at length from other of The Federalist Papers explaining that the People may make use of their States to defend themselves from a usurping federal government.

      You are tinkering with matters of statecraft which you do not understand. What distinguished the French Revolution from the American Revolution? Why was the French Revolution characterized by murderous MOBS? Why did the American Revolution lead to the greatest country which ever existed? B/c the American Revolution was based on PRINCIPLES – Rule of Law – not mob rule. And the doctrine of “the lesser magistrate” – a concept with which our Framers were well versed. Look it up. The doctrine of the lesser magistrate is one of the ways a People avoid MOB RULE – which would be the consequences of your “thoughts” and your “opinions”.

      I have studied and worked is this area all my life, and would not presume to think I know better than our Framers. My task is to show how what THEY said is relevant to our Problems today. THEY are much wiser and more knowledgeable than you – and I.

      Statecraft is serious business.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 14, 2012 | Reply

      • I used the terms like thoughts and opinions to temper the post so that the author would not think I was viciously attacking their thoughts and ideas.

        I did read #28 and believe it was more about the states with the help from the people in being able to raise an army greater than that of the Federal Government and thus protect their liberty through force of arms if necessary. I didn’t see nullification of congressional laws mentioned.

        And was the process of ratifying the Constitution MOB RULE? That is the same process I propose for nullifying unconstitutional Federal actions.

        Look I was just putting out other thoughts and ideas to help broaden everyone’s thinking on what nullification entails and perhaps enrich the discussion. Not everyone with thoughts and ideas different from yours is ignorant. If you only want comments about how much we all agree with every word you say then just say so and I will never be here again.

        Comment by Donald Mellon | March 15, 2012 | Reply

        • One of the results of the philosophical collapse which characterizes our time is that everyone thinks he is an expert; that his ideas are somehow important; and that discussions by people who have no particular expertise on a subject will somehow lead to a solution.

          You are missing the point: This isn’t about me and my ideas – it isn’t about you and your ideas. You can’t “broaden” everyone’s thinking and “enrich” discussions by spreading “other” ideas which are not true. What is TRUE is a matter of OBJECTIVE FACT. Truth is not determined or discovered by group discussions or consensus.

          What you say in this regard IS the prevailing dogma of our time – it is the sort of thing they teach in the Colleges of Education in this Country – the ridiculous notion that “discussions” by ignorant people have merit. The purpose of foisting that notion on the American People was simply this: To drown out the TRUTH.

          Nothing on this site is “my” idea. I would not presume to speak as an Independent Authority on statecraft and The Constitution. All I do is modernize the writings of Our Framers and show those whose eyes are open how OUR FRAMERS can guide us out of the predicament we are in.

          The political problem of our time is that everyone thinks Our Declaration and Constitution are blank canvasses on which they can paint their own precious “views” and “opinions”.

          So, right: YOUR views & opinions on matters of Statecraft are irrelevant. So are mine. But Our Framers nailed it. THAT is what I teach on this site. This site is not an opinion forum for every Tom, Dick and Harry to set forth their own precious views. We have had quite enough of that with the supreme Court – all they have done for a very long time is set forth their precious views.

          Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012 | Reply

          • One of the problems we have today is truly understanding the true meaning of our Declaration and Constitution because we were never taught it in school. That is why i have my grandchildren (12) using this blog and things like Constituting American and Hillsdale College Constitution 101 to try and understand the true meaning of our documents. When we have all but 3 congressmen vote for something as Free Speech styfling as the bill that passed congress last week we know our elected representatives do not understand it.

            Comment by Charles E. Spence | March 15, 2012

          • When I read all 85 Federalist Papers and published summaries for the teaparty911 site, being active in the tea party, I was looking for words you seem to have found that give states legislatures the power to nullify Federal law either on their own or in support of the peoples liberties. I was particularly distressed then when I arrived at #78 by Hamilton. In the 10th paragraph he makes it pretty clear that state legislatures do not have this power.

            Here are his key words “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

            Of course those words are not my view or opinion and since Hamilton is one of the Framers and they nailed it then this appears to be a nail in the coffin of the state legislatures with respect to nullifying Federal Law. But you might have a different interpretation.

            Comment by Donald Mellon | March 15, 2012

          • Donald,
            Then that would leave no recourse for States or the People if we end up, exactly where we are – multiple branches disregarding the Constitution. If the Court is off on some rabbit trail and basing decisions on their personal, political views; then unconstitutional legislation that fits the same politcial views would have to be accepted forever more, with no recourse – after all the Supreme Court has ruled!
            As pointed out, the document is not a contract between the People/States and the Federal Government, whereby the Fed gets to negociate their position and powers. The Fed is OUR employee and is bound by the rules set forth when hired (Oath of Office). WE are the only ones who can change the job description.

            Comment by Mike Foil | March 15, 2012

          • That’s right, Mike!

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012

          • PH doesn’t have any “interpretations” of The Federalist Papers! If she did, she would rap her knuckles with a ruler. If you were here, she would rap yours. The Federalist Papers have an OBJECTIVE MEANING.

            The primary error you have made is this: You have failed to read Federalist No. 78 in pari materia with everything else The Federalist Papers say. You are focusing on that one para and ignoring all the other provisions of The Federalist Papers which discuss the enumerated powers of the federal courts; federal judges who usurp powers and should be impeached; federal judges who collude with other branches of the federal government to usurp powers; what States should do when the federal government usurps powers; etc., etc.

            We were not taught Principles of Construction in school! So, I expect you never heard of in pari materia . Instead, you learned the “cafeteria method” of reading: You pick out a para here and a para there, and construct whatever doctrine suits your purposes or fits your own “understanding”. And I expect you don’t even know you are doing this.

            You do not understand the Principle of “Checks and Balances”: you consider only one of the many checks – that of the federal courts – and have overlooked all other checks. Yes, in the first instance, the federal Courts may judge the constitutionality of acts of Congress. But Congress may check federal judges by impeaching & removing them. Presidents may check them by ignoring unconstitutional rulings. Every branch of the federal government has a check on the other branches. The people have a direct check on the Legislative and Executive Branches, and an indirect check on the judicial branch, via elections

            You do not understand the significance of the Oath of office which all federal & State officials must take.

            You do not understand the basic principles of our Founding! Look at the comments at the end of the Model Nullification Resolutions. Look at all the papers on Nullification, particularly the “smackdown” one.

            I have written on all these (and other) matters, using The Federalist Papers as authority.

            It is impossible to understand any one of The Federalist Papers until you understand them all. Each one must be read in the light shed by all the others.

            It takes a LONG time – YEARS – before one is qualified to speak on these matters. And if you ever get to the point where you understand – really understand – them all, you will be humbled at how wise THEY were.

            And finally, they don’t teach LOGIC in the schools any more. So our People can’t think.

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012

          • Publius, We may be closer together than I thought we were. If all or some of the branches of the Federal Government are off on some rabbit trail as they are, there are measures in the Constitution to protect the liberties of the people. We can vote the offenders out and the judges can be impeached. Not very satisfactory but reading some intent in the Federalist Papers that is not in the Constitution has not worked in the past and will not work in the future. School desegregation comes to mind.

            But we the people since we are the ones that established the Constitution can develop means to enforce the intent of the document and the means so developed do not have to be written in the Constitution. We the people can not change the Constitution by means that are not in the document but we can enforce it by whatever means we decide upon.

            So we can give state legislatures the power to nullify Federal Law even though it is not presently granted to the states in the Constitution. What remains is the process for granting this power. You think it is already granted by a careful reading of the Federalist Papers and that should be sufficient to proceed with this power. I think a better approach that would be unchallengeable by the Federal Government would be to have the Governors of at least 26 states call for State Conventions like those that ratified the Constitution to decide upon a means to enforce our Constitution. Allowing a majority of states acting collectively to nullify Federal Law would be an excellent solution, but there are others. I know you don’t like the idea of requiring a majority but it gives a strong legal basis and possibly overwhelming public support for the granted power.

            Comment by Donald Mellon | March 15, 2012

          • Donald, you are so far away from understanding our Founding Principles that you are a danger to yourself and to others.

            You need to start at square 1. I’ve told you what you need to read to learn these Fundamental Principles.

            The hard left hates the Declaration of Independence with a hatred which exceeds their hatred of the Holy Bible. Apparently, you got manipulated by them into ignoring the Declaration of Independence altogether.

            You will NEVER understand our Constitution or The Federalist Papers until you fully understand the 2nd para of The Declaration of Independence. I explain the significance of this one para in the comments at the end of the Model Nullification Resolutions.

            You need to read what Hamilton & Jefferson say about the federal government’s being merely our Creature”.

            You also need to read my paper on Nullification Smackdown where I discuss these issues.

            Until you have read these things, you are wasting my time. And Yours. And to the extent you are holding forth publicly as some sort of “expert” on this subject, you are causing harm.

            You head is so filled with what you think you know, but just ain’t so; and you are so proud of your pretended knowledge, that you are blocking the Truth from getting in.

            It is immoral to speak of matters which one does not understand.

            So, lay aside your pride. Start from square 1. Read the Declaration of Independence. Diagram the 2nd para. And don’t come back here and waste our time until you have done that, plus the other stuff.

            I pray for patience, but I can do nothing with the belligerently stupid. I hope you are not one of those.

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012

          • Donald,
            Some thoughts on your comments:

            “We can vote the offenders out and the judges can be impeached. Not very satisfactory but reading some intent in the Federalist Papers that is not in the Constitution has not worked in the past and will not work in the future.”

            The only thing I see as not being “satisfactory” about kicking Representatives out of office and replacing them with those who will follow the Constitution, and impeaching run-away judges; is that we do not do either one. If we did do both, not only would we have cleaned out the garbage but those who were left in office would be much more careful if they liked their positions.

            “But we the people… can develop means to enforce the intent of the document and the means so developed do not have to be written in the Constitution. We the people can not change the Constitution by means that are not in the document but we can enforce it by whatever means we decide upon.”

            Maybe I misunderstand what you are getting at here. Where I question, what I take it to mean, is that we do not have to “develop” anything new. The People and the States already have, not only a right, but also a responsibility, to hold Washington in check. PH has laid out how we are to exercise those rights and responsibilities.

            “…we can enforce it by whatever means we decide upon.”

            Yes, we can enforce it, but the “whatever means we decide upon” leaves me a little worried because I see the chosen means Occupy Wall Street has chosen to try to get their way. When you open the door to “new” ideas and methods, you cannot control the outcome.

            “So we can give state legislatures the power to nullify Federal Law even though it is not presently granted to the states in the Constitution.”

            I am sure that you must realize that the Constitution is not about granting powers to the states. The states do not need us to give them power to nullify, they already have a responsibility to do so. They are neglecting their current duties by not fulfilling their current responsibility to nullify unconstitutional laws and regulations.

            “I think a better approach that would be unchallengeable by the Federal Government would be to have the Governors of at least 26 states call for State Conventions like those that ratified the Constitution to decide upon a means to enforce our Constitution.”

            Again, when you open the door you do not control what comes out the other end. We do not need conventions to grant the power to the states to do something they should already be doing. Conventions to deal with Constitutional issues would be something the Liberals would love to have take place. They would come in and attempt to overwhelm the process in order to get rid of the “outdated document” with “negative liberties”. PH wrote the above as an example to wake up state legislators as to a process that they can and should be taking to deal with the Fed’s attempt to completely make them of no relevance. This was not a suggested, new idea to consider among many others that can be proposed in conventions; it is the process we should already be following. As to getting a majority of states to do the same thing; first of all, good luck with that goal. Second of all, each state has a responsibility to nullify usurpations (is that a word?) regardless of what any other state is doing. Sometimes, other states need to follow and some state needs to lead. Oh, and I cannot imagine ANYTHING, in the current political atmosphere, the the Federal Government would find “unchallengeable”.

            Comment by Mike Foil | March 15, 2012

          • Most excellent, Mike. I just changed it to add my favorite things: (1) paragraphs and 2) indents for quotes.

            Alas, my eyes can not follow a long unbroken text. Nothing else is changed.

            Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 15, 2012

  21. I have read Bleadsoe’s book but i can’t remember about nullification but Jefferson Davis was never charged with a crime and after about 3 years in prison was released and moved t Canada where he lived out his life.

    Comment by Charles Spence | March 14, 2012 | Reply

    • Davis lived out his life in Mississippi and died in New Orleans. He was a frequent speaker at Southern events before he died. His grave in Hollywood Cemetery, Richmond, Va., is a primary Southern shrine and place of sacred pilgrimage.

      Comment by monumental | March 14, 2012 | Reply

  22. Is it true that Bledsoe’s “Is Davis a Traitor,” and his defense of the Constitutional Right of Secession therein, sprung President Jefferson Davis from jail and saved his necke from hanging?

    There seems to be a group of Nullifiers operating near the Monteagle area. Are you affiliated?

    Comment by monumental | March 14, 2012 | Reply

    • I have not read Bledsoe’s book.

      But it is important to understand that rights of secession & nullification do not “come from” The Constitution. The Constitution is merely the document wherein WE CREATED the federal government and WE told it what WE were giving it permission to do.

      OUR Rights do not come from the Constitution.

      OUR Rights pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution. Be sure to ponder the discussion of the 2nd para of the Declaration of Independence in the endnotes.

      No, I am not familiar with the Monteagle Folks.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 14, 2012 | Reply

      • Bledsoe would agree with you.

        Can you recommend any books on logic or others that give an extensive treatment to logical and rhetorical fallacies, how to detect them, explode them, as well as how fallacies are used to promote concealed biases?

        We stay away from anything new, because deconstructive postmodernism’s race, class, and gender infect everything written since 1990, so we don’t trust anything contemporary. Old logic texts are too brief on fallacies.

        Daily email updates from the Media Research Center are good for seeing media bias real time. But we’re looking for a definitive text.

        Comment by monumental | March 14, 2012 | Reply

  23. Not only is the solution simple, as you expressed; but, the fact that the Federal Government is not a party to the Constitution, but only it’s creature, is as profound as it is simple. As you pointed out, how can a creature that we created by our mutual consent, get to determine it’s own limits and powers over us the creators? That is absurd! But it is exactly what we have been allowing for decades and maybe centuries. We have been duped and it is past time that we wake up and regain control over the frankenstein.
    Thanks for the hard work and great lesson.

    Comment by Mike Foil | March 14, 2012 | Reply

  24. PH, The Governors of each states should receive a copy of this. Thank you so much as always.

    Comment by Sang | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  25. Needs to be read into the record of every state legislative body in the land. More importantly, needs to be read by all American citizens, and understood, in order to cause the political pressure for these state bodies to finally act to defend the people against the tyranny enveloping us all.

    We have an illegitimate federal government by their own actions– which has far surpassed any delegated authority long ago, and far too many believe it has been “grandfathered in” by the previous actors allowing it to be so– in the Age of Pretending otherwise.

    Thank you for your courage once again patriot Publius Huldah.

    Comment by RightingOurConsent | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  26. Wonderfully simple, isn’t it? No need for a Balanced Budget Amendment. No more commodity inflation caused by dollar printing. No need to stress and strain as to how the Supremes will rule on Obamacare. And certainly no free cell phones with 250 minutes per month.

    Spread the word, friends. This is how we take back America.

    Comment by The Sweaty Federalist | March 13, 2012 | Reply

    • It IS simple! I am bewildered at why so few understand this.

      But the establishment “conservative” pundits (the ones I refer to in my end notes) have convinced most people that nullification is not an option – or that we need the stupid nullification amendment some of them are pushing to do this – but even then, they claim that only a majority of States acting in concert can do it.

      So, Heritage Foundation, David Barton, Mark Levin & Randy Barnett, etc. have been spreading some serious misinformation about this issue. I wonder how it is possible for them to be so clueless about such a transparently simple matter.

      Comment by Publius/Huldah | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  27. [...]      http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/model-nullification-resolutions-for-state-legislatures…   [...]

    Pingback by Model Nullification Resolutions for State Legislatures. – Florida Tenth Amendment Center | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  28. This is the action we as citizens should take over the rejection of our Voter ID law in the great Republic State of Texas.

    Comment by Charles E. Spence | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  29. Great paper, Publius. I like the way you think.

    Comment by Juan del Sur | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  30. We are very fortunate at this time, in the history of our Republic, to have Publius Huldah to put into words the thoughts and beliefs of so many of our citizens who are so very concerned with the improper direction of our national government. Thanks God for such American Patriots!

    Comment by Jim Sykes | March 13, 2012 | Reply

  31. Another excellent article. I linked it to my facebook page, and will probably link to Christian Patriots USA page as well.

    Comment by Jerry McDaniel | March 13, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 803 other followers

%d bloggers like this: