Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Nullification: Its Authority Comes from Winning

June 9, 2011 by  

Nullification: Its Authority Comes from Winning

Is nullification authorized? The answer is “yes,” but not based on any argument I have seen so far from its proponents or opponents.

From what I have seen of both sides of the argument, both sides suffer a flagrant flaw in logic. My purpose is to clear it up.

Before I do, I want to express my personal point of view on the nullification issue. I think it is an imperfect concept, but that it can and should be used to further our efforts to clean up a system of government on the national level that has become utterly irresponsible, corrupt and inept at serving the needs of our respective societies as reflected in the diverse populations among our Nation’s 50 States. Nonetheless, I am going to take some shots at the logic of both its proponents and opponents. Proponents may not like my points; nevertheless, I think they are useful in putting our hands around the issues that are at stake and in avoiding the pitfalls of getting caught hostage in the trappings of the “other guy’s” logic.

What is nullification? While people can cite different acts which seem to fit the process, isn’t it obvious that nullification is really a process of engaging in civil disobedience?

People use rational processes to support their disobedience, and those processes can include a claimed reliance on God, natural law, fairness, reason… basically, anything which seems to speak to the hearts and reason of their audience.

In our case, we Tenthers support the nullification principle by pointing to language in the Constitution and pointing to writings of those considered to be authorities on the meaning of the Constitution. But let’s engage in an exercise to see how important those authorities really are.

What if the Constitution were written differently? What if all the Founders were in unison and there was no doubt that, as written, the Constitution authorizes the Federal government to do whatever it wants?

What would we do if that were the case? Obviously, we would all say, “Well, I guess the Feds are right.” And then, we would smile, sing “Kumbaya” and go home. I mean, really?

No, I don’t think so. So my point is proven. It doesn’t matter what words we find (or don’t find) on old paper. Disobedience is something we do when we think or feel that a certain authority is unjust.

So here we are today, going back to the Constitution, an admittedly yellowed parchment, as well as writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and on and on…  looking… looking… scouring for proof — but proof of what?

My guess (and I know it’s just a hunch) is that if you’re looking for writings that were written more than 200 years ago to show proof that our government is in a mess today, you most definitely concluded our government was in a mess before you began your search. So why do you need Jefferson to tell you the government is in a mess? Certainly, you figured that out on your own.

Oh, that’s right. You don’t need Jefferson or Madison for that. You need them to tell you it’s right to disobey an unjust Federal government. After all, they did say that. So you want to mimic their logic to support your argument. And with those words in your arsenal, you can lead the world to the inescapable conclusion that nullification is the rightful remedy.

Jefferson might provide some good support. Same with Madison. But what you will not find in their reasoning is anything particularly transcendental or revealing. They simply did what they did and articulated their reasons for it, and that was that. Their reasoning is absolutely arbitrary and cannot be properly considered outside of the context in which they stated it.

In their cases, it had to do with the Alien and Sedition acts. As heinous as these acts were, it is easy to conclude that nullification is, indeed, the proper remedy. After all, who among us thinks it just and right to criminalize speech that criticizes the government? I would say that’s a pretty easy call. However, it is an exercise in futility to take from this any conclusion that nullification is always proper. Madison addressed it when he stated in the Virginia Resolution: “… in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose…”

In the Virginia Report of 1799, discussing its resolution, the same type of language made clear that it was not the intent of the legislators to declare that the States had unfettered rights to engage in nullification. There, it was written: “It must be a case, not of a light and transient nature, but of a nature dangerous to the great purposes for which the Constitution was established. It must be a case, moreover, not obscure or doubtful in its construction, but plain and palpable. Lastly, it must be a case not resulting from a partial consideration, or hasty determination; but a case stamped with a final consideration and deliberate adherence.”

Notice the adjectives which are italicized. Some were italicized in the original (“dangerous,” “palpable” and “deliberate”); I italicized the others to make a point.

What is a “light” case of usurpation? What is a “transient” case? Apparently, such “light” and “transient” cases do not justify nullification, according to Madison. But why not? Why shouldn’t every case call for it? If every case does not justify nullification, and if the Virginia Legislature was right to say so, then who is supposed to be the arbiter on what is a “light” or “transient” excess? Hmmm… Would that be the States? Certainly, it must be, because we know for a fact the Federal government is unlikely to admit it engaged in a usurpation in the first place.

So, OK, it’s the States. So if a State engages in nullification, here’s what we expect it to say in its defense: “It was really no big deal. We could have lived with the light and transient excess, but what the heck… We just simply felt like we had to go find something to nullify.” Of course, that would never happen. If a State nullifies, it is going to justify its action because the transgression was “simply not bearable.” So, by definition, no act of nullification will ever be wrong because no State, acting as its own arbiter, would ever do so wrongly (you will just have to trust us here).

To highlight further the flaw in the reasoning, how do these fine folks reach their final consideration on the basis of a partial or hasty consideration? How many times have we seen legislators proclaim they came to the right conclusion in a partial or hasty manner? I can just see them: “We decided to nullify after a five-minute debate. There was a lot to do on the agenda, including a resolution to wish Mabel Sinclair’s aunt a happy birthday. She’s such a nice lady, you know.”

We also see some similar language in the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 (which revisited and re-commented on its 1798 Resolution): “That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister States in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal.”

Here we go with the adjectives again. More assurance that: “We don’t care to protest minor usurpations, but this one was a biggie! We know we’re our own judge on this matter because, after all, our State must be the final arbiter. What’s that you say? Oh? You would like to have a little input. No, thanks. You will just have to trust us. After all, our State’s judges are really, really good. But your judges? Myehhhh…”

I don’t mean to be overly critical of one side of the argument here. This same flawed approach comes from the other side. Those who think the U.S. Supreme Court is properly vested with authority to decide whether the Federal government has exceeded the scope of its authority are equally wrong. Simply put, you can’t vest one party to a contract with the sole authority to determine whether a breach occurred, who breached and what the rightful remedy should be.

So, basically, what we have is a theory of civil government that just does not seem to work from a purely logical perspective. Neither side can be trusted, and both are subject to error.

For those of you who are enamored by the concept of natural law, here’s a natural law for you: To the victors go the spoils (Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1).

In all the debate over nullification, the real question is: Is the process of nullification, itself, null? Well, it so happens this question was addressed in the 1868 Supreme Court opinion of Texas v. White. In that case, the Court addressed the validity of Texas’ secession from the Union.

Relying on Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1, the Court wrote: “When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

“Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her Legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.

(Emphasis added.)

The Court essentially held that an act of a State that contravenes the Constitution is null and void. This same principle would hold that an improper act of nullification is, itself, null and void. This makes perfect sense. After all, if a person thinks something is Constitutional, then in his mind it must be Constitutional. That’s how arbitrating and judging work.

More important, the Court held that Texas’ act of secession could have been sustained only if Texas won the Civil War. This is simple and undeniable. Again, Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1 states, “To the victors go the spoils.” War has an uncanny way of providing answers. There is nothing more powerful than subjugation when it comes to prevailing in a dispute.

So this is why we have this Heritage Foundation guy, Matthew Spalding, who says nullification is not authorized. In trying to support his conclusion, Spalding says: “Jefferson did use the term ‘nullification’ in his draft of the Kentucky Resolution, but he makes it clear he is speaking in terms of an assertion of a natural right to revolution — admittedly and of necessity outside the constitutional structure.”

(Emphasis added.)

Whoa! Hold on a minute there, Spalding. Let me see if I can get this straight. There is this natural right to revolution. OK. Got it. And in the course of these revolutions, we can blow up things, kill people and subjugate the survivors among our enemy. Got it. But there couldn’t possibly be… there’s no way… not under any form of logic… not in a million years, a right to put a sentence together which says, “Your laws are not enforceable and will not be enforced here.” Instead, we have to skip that step and go straight for our guns. Errrr… Got it! “Plus one” for Spalding.

Spalding’s error, which coincidentally seems to be a similar error made by nullification proponents, is in looking at the problem through a microscope. How does a person possibly look at life through two sets of laws? One set, the natural law series, says that people have a right to rebel and engage in revolution to fix injustice. The other set, Constitutional and statutory law, does not authorize people to do that when its own procedures prove futile. At least, that’s the way they look at it.

The fact is that people, in the end, do not really care what words are written on paper and what reasoning process was used to derive them. What they care about is their general feeling of “is this right?” On that basis, they will do as everyone else does — Madison and Jefferson included. They will decide how important the issue is to them, and they will choose their responses based on how strong their feelings are that a change needs to be made or that they should at least not suffer the consequence of an injustice. I can assure you that Spalding most certainly must have, at some point, decided he was going to refuse to obey a particular law or rule because he thought it to be unjust. But now that he’s all happy again, nobody else can have the same privilege.

People who are relatively comfortable with the status quo will tend to rely much more often on the current statutory and case law. People who are less comfortable will look for other sources: natural law, religious law, original intent, etc. These are thought of as distinct principles, but they are not. They are nothing more than concepts which are readily available for the plucking when a point needs to be made. However, when you carefully listen to both sides and you watch the debate techniques they use, it is easy to see what is happening. It is all art of persuasion. There is no truth in either approach. And most important, none of it really matters all that much. No matter how much you might try, you can’t make me like broccoli. But if you’re strong enough, you can make me eat it. That’s the moral.

In summary, it ought to be obvious that neither side can really prove or disprove the propriety of nullification theory. The essence of the debate is invariably based on the argument that “my side gets to decide.” But clearly, we can see that no party to a compact can be the sole judge as to its own authority. A State no more ought to be the judge of its conduct under the Constitutional paradigm than the Federal government ought to be the judge of its own. The whole idea that either side of the argument thinks it can win on this issue is, for lack of a better word, not exactly deep.

It is what it is. It is a no-man’s-land. Nothing the Constitution says, and nothing any Founder or anyone else says or has said, will change that. I think the U. S. Supreme Court got it right in Texas vs. White. Might makes right. To the victors go the spoils. Nullification gets its authority from winning. The loser can just take a hike.

–Jeff Matthews

Jeffrey Tucker

is the editor of and author of It's a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes and Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Nullification: Its Authority Comes from Winning”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • claris

    The Human beings of The Republic of The United States of America vs. The Federal Reserve Bank, Holding company of the United States of America Inc.
    SUIT of Unlawful Enumeration
    Claim of Common Law
    This Claim is made for the sole purpose of establishing that I never wilfully
    And with completely informed and total knowledge entered into any contract with
    The Corporation of United States of America,
    Nor with its holding company
    The Federal Reserve Bank (A Private bank)

    • Al Sieber

      Very well put.

      • LindyMaeUSA

        Claris: You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT and plainly stated; even a Fifth grader can grasp the truth (and reality!) of your statements. Thank you.

    • Vigilant

      Mr. Matthews says, “For those of you who are enamored by the concept of natural law, here’s a natural law for you: To the victors go the spoils (Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1).”

      Is that intended to be a facetious comment? What the hell is “Natural Law, Article 1, Section 1?” You rely on it as if it’s an authoritative work, and then go on to conclude at the end of your (much too long) article that “Might makes right. To the victors go the spoils. Nullification gets its authority from winning. The loser can just take a hike.:

      Absolutely ridiculous!

      • eddie47d

        Matthews theories were a good read and it is true that the spoils belong to the victor. I don’t agree with the losers “can take a hike”remark. The losers can regroup come up with a better plan and fight again another day and they could then become the victors. Is Matthews saying that in order to have victory you have to have a total dismiss of the opponent? Humankind has been doing that since the beginning of time so shouldn’t there be a better way.We usually have a good system here in America with give and take on both sides without one side conquering the other or a total take over. Some will argue that the left has already taken over and some will say the right still has too much control. We do have some tense moments in America but it sure beats open warfare…. for now.

        • patrick H.T. paine

          “To conquer, first divide.”

          I for one have no problem granting Mr. Livingston his point, and even his
          exaggerated notion of natural law, in referring to it as Article One, Section One,
          because philisophically he has expressed without knowing, the only “unalienable
          right” that can be logically deduced that is universal and irrefutable.

          Now to dismantle it, we shall first need to remind him that, if winning is his
          chosen criteria, WE WON! The principles of our victory, as well as our reasons
          for rebellion, and the principles of government can be found in:

          IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
          The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

          where it further states:

          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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

          We then, proceed to form a government under The Articles of Confederation, which was
          primarilly constructed to prevent a strong and overpowering central authority, and to
          do this, it required “unanimous consent” to do anything…….and because this FEAR was
          so great, that’s exactly what happened. The central government was essentially paralysed.

          So, secret convention…..slightly illegal, and dare I say a rather limited and narrow
          rebellion to solve this problem, but why quibble….and we get, voila, The Constitution.

          Now with all due reverence to the founding daddies, this document needed to be ratified,
          by the “several states” and the FEAR is still primary……and this document was submitted
          as an all or nothing deal, as written, take it or leave it……which immediately
          prompted opposition, by the anti-federalists and subjected to debate by the people,
          in the various state conventions. This was no sure thing and not without a little hanky panky
          in the process. This history has been coveniently missing as the “winners” write history,
          Mr. Livingston, but as fate would have it, it can be found here.

          Ratification : the people debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 / Pauline Maier.

          Hopefully with more work to follow.

          The document is not all that hard to understand, and because of the FEAR, that is has
          limited powers and scope, is hardly a stretch…….unfortunately given enough time, power
          tends to corrupt, and four score and five years later the second major rebellion occurred,
          which was a bit overdue to Jefferson’s way of thinking.

          Before getting to the main point regarding nullification, let us dispose of Texas v, White.
          In order for states to be admitted to the union, they were required to submit their own
          constitutions to the Federal government. Some of these constitutions claimed the right of
          secession, and if they were accepted into the union with these clauses in tact and without
          objection, then this decision is in error. ( Whether Texas reserved this right is unknown to
          me but the Declaration is clear and I submit to you sir, that what has been done to the
          Constitution over time is no “light or transient matter. )

          I shall also point out that Marshall noted that an “unconstitutional law is void, grants no
          authority, etc.” and didn’t require a “court” to declare it so. It was void on it’s face.

          Now while state nullification is an interesting debate, the importance of it as an established
          principle is far more powerfully supported and far more important, than a state’s right to
          resist federal tyranny, corruption and abuse. you will of course need to remember that
          Article III establishes the jurisdictions of “law and equity” as the as the congressional
          jurisdition’s of “admiralty and maritime.”

          To establish the fundamental nature of “nullification” we need only go to Georgia v. Brailsford and the right of the jury to judge “both fact and law”…….so bad laws
          can be “nullified” by juries, simply by failing to convict (one juror) or by out
          right acquital, making attempted enforcement of stupid laws, both stupid and expensive.

          Strangely, common law and equity courts, don’t seem to exist anywhere in the united States,
          but there doesn’t seem to be an ammendment to that effect? This also seems to be the case
          with many other parts of the Constitution……and again I submit to you, THIS IS NO

          Still your opinion doesn’t seem to offer any alternative, if might makes right,
          and goverernment is force…….it could be interpreted that the only solution
          you can see is a violent over throw of the government? tsk, tsk Mr. Livingston.

          “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……….”

          • patrick H.T. paine

            Damn. it would seem I was addressing the wrong person… apologies to Mr Livingston…..Mr. Matthews, feel free to rebut if

          • libertytrain

            writing first; checking later as to the correct author is a problem….

          • patrick H.T. paine

            True, could have just avoided the name altogether….since it’s kinda hard to miss the intended target…..Mr Mathews response is unlikely, although maybe he can use the oversight as a distraction.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            patrick H.T. paine,
            Please tell me one time either Nobummer or his minions have EVER held FAST to the constitution??? When, for that matter, has the supreme court in the last twenty years, other than about guns???

        • John Woodbury

          Wow Eddie I am so sick and tired of liberals saying oh, there is a better way. No where do they give a better way, they just say oh there is a better way. Oh, paddleing of students, there is a better way. Now 40 years later, liberals still are looking for ”a better way” while our schools turn into cespools of education. We must not kill criminals say you, there must be a better way. Yet, none has been found and Americans are killed at a alalarming pace by retreaded criminals. So PLEASE, do not tell me there is a better way, tell me the better way as the one we have now sucks.

        • patrick H.T. paine

          “To conquer, first divide.”

          hhhhmmmmmm…..well Joe, I’m a little puzzled by your question, since
          my post shouldn’t be giving that impression……I apologise for the
          appearance, as this forum doesn’t provide an edit function before final submission and when I think a topic is worthy of comment, I tend
          to compose a response in notepad or word and then transfer it. The precise dimensions have eluded me thus far, so sometimes it is difficult to read, but it would seem that in your case what I was
          attempting to communicate, missed completely.

          To clarify, everyone who works for government in any capacity swears
          an oath to the Constitution of the U.S., and possibly a state or
          commonwealth. The instant they have uttered these words, they violate that oath and do so continually each and every day they are employed by government in any capacity.

          But here is the problem, while the previous statement is true, if one
          reads the Constitution as written……the Constitution as written is
          no longer in effect…….and the transformation occured in the thirties, with the adoption of postal codes, social security, and ending with codification of law and the passage of the UCC, which for
          all intents and purposes is NOW….the supreme law of the land.

          This is essentially fraud on a massive scale which most have unwittingly volunteered for in ignorance and are now subjected to
          in continuing ignorance. The mythology began simply enough with that
          tale that one needed a social security number to work….and in the early days, 16 year olds dutifully signed up, in order to work during
          summers…..and of course, employers also were complicit in this perpretation, also in ignorance because they relied on “experts”,
          accountants and tax attorneys and the relevant IRS statute, 26 USC
          3402, which is long, nasty and filled with all kinds of implications
          and compulsory language. Of course, there are always some who will
          investigate and resist, so instead of attempting to continue the myth,
          government changed it’s strategy, by issuing SS# at birth under the fraudulent inducement that, if this was not done, children could not
          be claimed as dependants. Here they engaged hospitals, and I believe
          it is practically impossible to remose a newborn without the SS# attached.

          What makes this worse is that statutes are essentially meaningless
          and require “implementing regulations” to determine who is required
          to do what……in this case 26 CFR 3402 (p) which four paragraphs
          an effectively contradicts the “fraud” of mandatory…
          being titled “Voluntary Withholding Agreements” w-4 and begins
          “An employer and employee MAY enter an agreement to withhold.”

          But try finding an employer who knows this and/or is being advised
          by a “certified attorney or accountant” who knows this, and/or
          upon being advised of the actual regulation would be willing to
          investigate the truth of the matter? ( this is not impossible and
          not particularly difficult but chances are they will not bother and
          simply refuse to hire you, or find a reason to terminate you
          ( illegal)… a careful approach is required. )

          BTW Mr Matthews is an “attorney”, an either ignorant of this or complicit ( not taught in law school and because of the bar requirements effectively castrated from raising these arguments in court…..jury nullification can only be alluded to….direct references are subject to contempt citations and possible disbarment.
          So the legal profession is largely ignorant and self serving, without
          out a whole lot of integrity. )

          It is also not uncommon for juries to be forced to take an oath to follow the judges instructions as to the law, so a juror that was
          actually aware of the commonlaw principle of Georgia v Brailsford,
          would have to be very careful not to reveal it, and simply refuse to
          vote guilty……..because if this fact became known, the juror would be dismissed and replaced by an alternate.

          In any case, the argument here is both foolish and a distraction….
          might makes right……doesn’t help much and as I suggested, since
          government is FORCE and has the GUNS, what is the solution?

          Hopefully, some accurate history will stick here, but the fact remains
          that because of the fraud it is essentially irrelevant because in order to rely on the Constitution for remedy, it must be restored,
          and since is NOT BEING TALKED ABOUT BY ANYONE who has the media’s ear
          in any meaningful way…..

          “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……..”

      • Vigilant

        As a matter of clarification, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were clearly “state’s rights” documents, but not to the point of seccession, only nullification. Both documents pledged their loyaly to the Union:

        Kentucky Resolution of 1799

        RESOLVED, That this commonwealth considers the federal union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact, agreeable to its obvious and real intention, and will be among the last to seek its dissolution:

        Virginia Resolution of 1798

        That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness…

      • Dan az

        Vig and Ediee
        I think you both missed the point of the article.
        A State no more ought to be the judge of its conduct under the Constitutional paradigm than the Federal government ought to be the judge of its own.
        That being said means that there is no winner either way its null and void.
        There is another option and that being the third box.

        • DaveH

          I think the conservative states (the givers) should just secede and leave the liberal states (the takers) to be on their own. What are they going to do, fight a war and lose their lives to force us to be their slaves? I doubt it. They won’t even get off their butts to make an effort to find work.
          And if they did try to force us to be part of their Unholy Union, we need to give them back what they give us. In the Civil War, the South tried to be nice and abide by the rules of war while the North ruthlessly involved women and children in their military action.

          • vicki

            We need not worry. Liberals hate and fear guns. Conservatives will have one behind each and every blade of grass.

          • DaveH

            They have one huge advantage — lack of morality. While we may hesitate to ponder whether we are behaving correctly, they would just pull the trigger. Kind of like those SWAT teams that break into the wrong homes and shoot innocent people. And even if they weren’t innocent, what’s the reason behind the dramatic break-ins and police brutality? — The suspects might flush the evidence. Oh yeah, that’s a good reason to break down doors and shoot people. Like, instead of taking a life, they would have to hire a sewer worker to retrieve the flushed contraband. Heaven forbid, it’s much easier to just kill them.

          • Dan az

            We could set up traps just put free food and money and then close the gate.BAAAAAH

    • FreedomFighter

      Good men must fight and defeat evil.

      End the Fed, evil incarnate.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

    • Cliffystones

      I wholeheartedly agree. When news articles state the US families owe x-amount of money due to the government debt my response is, show me where I signed the loan agreement!

      Anyone who holds US government/Federal reserve debt had better come to the realization that the average American has no intention of co-signing that debt.

      • Jazzabelle

        You’ve not only co-signed it…you’ve primary-signed it if you’ve ever earned money or bought an asset with the use of a social security number.

    • Hayden
  • claris


    • http://?? Joe H.

      this is a computer, not a phone! DON’T TEXT! Write complete words. people here will just pass over your post if you don’t!!

      • jibbs

        Well said, I skip these and all caps!

  • http://donthaveone Beberoni

    There is coming a time, no doubt, when the federal government will push a little too much, and invade our private lives a little too much, and the people will tired of it, and we will raise our arms against those who exhibit their tyranny upon us. And we will rid ourselves of these government officials who are supposed to represent us, but instead are only representing as to how much money they can stuff into their own pockets. And that time is coming.

    • DaveH

      If the spoiled citizens aren’t even willing to spend enough time to learn about True Freedom (the kind Libertarians embrace) and shake off the chains of the propaganda under which we were all raised, how do you expect that they would be willing to give up their lives?
      If we can’t win the war of ideas, why would anybody suppose we could win a physical war? We had our chance 150 years ago to hold purer ideals and we lazily (mentally) let it go to a despotic tyrant (Lincoln).
      Read this:

      • DaveH

        And now we are taught to worship Lincoln and FDR, and many (if not most) buy into the propaganda (witness the recent FDR memorial dedicated in 1997):

      • Al Sieber

        You got that right Dave.

        • Al Sieber

          But, part of me agrees with Beberoni.

          • http://libertyalerts Punchy

            I think it should be pointed out that the original revolution had less than 20% of the population on the rebel’s side.

          • DaveH

            This article puts it at about 40 to 45 percent, but who knows? Since they didn’t have accurate polling in those days it’s probably just a guess. I doubt the job could have gotten done with only 20% support:

          • Vigilant

            The figures I saw some time ago estimated that 1/3 were patriots, 1/3 were loyalists and 1/3 didn’t give a damn one way or another.

          • texastwin827

            The 1/3 that didn’t ‘give a damn’ were likely like the frontiersmen who were threatened by the British if they joined the fight. So those mountain men marched OVER the mountain and helped defeat the British at Kings Mountain. From that time on, it was personal!

          • Vigilant


            Read a few sentences further at and you’ll find the following: “The Tories believed they outnumbered Revolutionaries, but it is estimated that one-third were Tories, one-third were Patriots and one-third were people who didn’t feel one way or the other.[2]“

      • Bud Tugly

        the purity of slavery???!!!

    • Gary

      Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and Federal Statutes as “the supreme law of the land.” The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.

      In other words, the Federal Government has the last say on all issues foreign and domestic. In reality, at any given time, there is no such thing as the 10th Amendment.

      The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

      Any of you who wants to talk about nullification, armed insurrection or secession is an enemy of the state. You are engaging in an act of sedition. Your modern day version of a Southern States attempt to destroy our nation has no more validity today then during our Civil War.

      Any of you advocating taking up arms against our nation will meet the same fate those Southern traitors met years ago. Millions of “Union Blue” Americans will rise up and put you down.

      • Al Sieber

        Hey Gary, what makes you think the north was right?

        • Gary

          I’m not trying to start a fight with you but I do question some peoples understanding of our history and the significance of our Civil War.

          The South, at one time, decided our Constitution and a United States of America was not for them. Get the romance out of what they did, take their reasoning out of the picture and what you get is an attempt to destroy America. From a historical point of view, it’s a good thing Union forces prevailed.

          The geographical map of North America would look very different today. Different outcomes on world wide events (“WWII) may have been very different without a unified America. Robert E. Lee did not fight for the South. He fought for his beloved Virginia. Troops from Georgia and Alabama were shooting at each other over border disputes before the Civil War ended.

          The Confederate States of America, if they had won the Civil War, would have engaged in their own internal Civil War, fighting each other over every minor detail. Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, South Carolina would all be independent nations today. Each independent Nation/State defining for themselves what their Civil Liberty’s meant.

          There is no guarantee these Nation/States would have participated in the war against Germany. Without the combined strength of America, WWII may well have had a different outcome. It is a good thing the Union won that war.

          The 10th Amendment is a cute idea, but if taken too far, it will destroy a nation. The old Soviet Union is a good example. Instead of a Unified nation they now have a bunch of independent nations in that area of the world. Each with their own laws. Each with thier own definition of civil libertys, each with their own foreign policy. Some are good, some are bad but the bottom line is that combined, they are but a shadow of their unity in the past.

          The same thing can happern here in America. It is fortunate for us and the world that the Soviet Union failed but I’m not so sure dividing and destroying American Unity is very wise in the world we live in today. We are the World’s last great hope. All of us in America and the world will suffer greatly if America breaks up. Abraham Lincoln and the Union was right. The south was wrong. History has proven that.

          • http://Idon'tknowwhatiswantedhere? Tom

            If, as you say, the 10th amendment is merely cute as one of the 10 the founding fathers found important, I wonder how much value you would place on the other 9? I suspect not much.

          • Vigilant

            “The 10th Amendment is a cute idea, but if taken too far, it will destroy a nation.”

            NOT SO! The 10th Amendment was as necessary and binding as the rest of the Constitution, as is should be. The destruction of the nation will most likely come about because of the crass disregard for the 10th Amendment, not the opposite.

            Checks on Federal power are an absolute necessity, and the Constitution was written specifically to grant only very limited and enumerated powers to it. Armed insurrection, as you put it, is much more likely under a scenario of continued Federal encroachment than as a result of judicious exercise of state’s rights.

          • Dan az

            Very well put!

          • Gary

            There are a lot of very good, thoughtful comments regarding my postings. That’s what I like. I can agree with many of your concepts regarding the 10th Amendment. It’s refreshing not being called a bunch of names.

            The reason I say the 10th Amendment is cute but moot is that in order to invoke the 10th Amendment on many issues today, new law must be established by states. Many times, these new laws are in violation of already established laws.

            As stated in one of my previous posts, The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.

            This is important for the establishment of “Union”. When it comes to our civil liberties, this is very important. You cannot have individual states determine what “Freedom of Religion” is. You cannot allow individual states, invoking the 10th Amendment, to violate the law of the land. Allowing the violation of Federal Law is the first step taken in an effort to destroy our country.

            Example; Article 6, Clause 2 states that treaties entered into by the United States is the law of the land. When a sitting President negotiates a treaty, the U.S. Senate ratifies that treaty, and the President signs that treaty into law, that treaty becomes the law of the land. It is absolute and no state can violate that treaty invoking the 10th Amendment.

            In 1992, the United States entered into an International Treaty forbidding racial profiling. It became the law of the land. Like it or not. When Arizona passed a law allowing Sheriff Joe to racially profile American citizens, Arizona was in violation of Federal Law. Yes, it was expedient to violate Federal Law and yes, Arizona’s solution may make sense. However, violating Federal law and violating American citizen rights is not justified under Article 6 of our constitution. That’s what happened you know. The majority of people rounded up by sheriff Joe were US citizens.

            The reason I say I am a true Conservative is that I believe we are a nation ruled by law. That is a conservative principal cast in stone.

            People who advocate blatant disregard for the law are not conservative. They are something else and they are not good for this nation. I would ask those Tea Baggers, so bent on violating US law, so determined to secede from the Union, so convinced that taking arms against our elected officials, stop hiding behind the skirts of the Republican Party. Stop driving the Republican party into the mud.

          • karolyn

            Ever seen the movie “Confederate States of America?” I saw it on IFC twice. A very witty satire by Spike Lee of what this country would be like today had the south won the war.

          • vicki

            Gary says:
            “The 10th Amendment is a cute idea, but if taken too far, ”

            You tell us that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Then you tell us that one part of the Constitution is “a cute idea”. So why if it is the supreme law of the land is it merely cute? Is the first “cute”? How about the other 8?

            It is not cute. It is the LAW. By your own admission it is the Supreme Law.

            You say “if taken too far”. Just how far would that be? As far as the Commerce clause has been taken?

            If the Constitution is the Supreme Law then honor it and repeal ALL the unconstitutional creations of the governments. State and Federal.

          • texastwin827

            Well thank God Texas had already been a NATION for 10 yrs…Had the South won, I guess that would have given us an advantage to becoming a Nation, once again!

          • texastwin827

            Karolyn…and is Spike Lee suppose to impress us? If so, you are in serious need of a good “role model”!

          • texastwin827

            Millions of “Union Blue” Americans will rise up and put you down. I hate to break it to you Gary, but a MAJORITY of thos Union Blue are as fed up as the rest of us!

            You obviously are NOT a student of the civil war…product of a liberal education, perhaps. Are you even aware that the US fielded over 2.5 MILLION men to fight 6 to 7 hundred thousand? Did you know that even though he did it with Lincoln’s blessings, Sherman is NOT considered an “honorable” soldier? Because he made war on women, children and the elderly and that, sir, is what brought the war to an end after over 4 yrs of fighting the outgunned and undermanned Confederate Army. That should tell you about the tenacity of the CSA soldiers, but I’m sure it would go right over your head and your brainwashed mind isn’t able to compute.

          • Cliffystones

            One big difference between us and the Soviets is that we have a “melting pot” (or did have), where many of the Soviet satellites were forced together militarily, but their ethnic clans remained intact.

            It’s coincidence that I just started reading a book a friend gave me. “Terror at Beslan” by John Giduck chronicles the terrorist takeover of the Beslan Middle School No. 1 on Sept. 3, 2004. I’m less than 100 pages into the book, but between the Chechens, Ingushians, Ossetians, Russians, and on and on….. Not to menton all of the Muslim sects. What a mess! These people were kept relatively unified by Soviet Military force, nothing else.

            If you decide to read it, pay close attention to pages 63 and 64. A quick quote;

            “I (the speaker) have personally seen captured videotape from the (Russian-Chechen) war proving that Chechen children are exposed to the torture and beheading of captives from an early age, and are compelled to take part in celebrations of this horror such as dancing with the severed heads of their victims.”

            I pray that our nation never comes remotely close to this kind of scenario. Of course the overwhelming majority of Americans, even many Liberals, values’ are rooted in Christianity. This give me hope for my children.

          • Void1972

            Thank you for showing us what you really stand for. You call Tea party members “tea baggers” yet you dislike name calling.
            You are a true Progressive. Many of our current laws were written by Communist and progressives, pretending to be Democrats and Republicans. We as a nation have been under Communist attack since the late 19th century. These so called Communist, I call them the “anti-Christ”, because they have tried to destroy all Religion and God for the past hundred years. These few control all of America’s wealth, banking, the Federal Reserve, media, newspapers and Hollywood.
            With the far reaching powers these evil men control, they have brought to American office, many evil followers of their sinister plan. World domination.
            For many decades now, most elected officials have been part of or bought by these demented evil men. You see it every year, yet the media has a way of bringing a new crisis in time to hide the “old news”. Clinton, Spitzer, Wiener, Arnold and all the rest of the Progressives that sway from the rules. Others just lose their lives. Every member of Congress, except Ron Paul, is a member of the CFR. These are the people that make your “laws”, and the CFR is an anti-American organization created by one of the worst progressive communist in America.
            Should we follow “laws” that were created by evil men?
            Do your homework on who created Communism, central banks and all other evils in the world, and it all comes back to these “Anti-Christ” that control your thought.
            God Bless America, and those who fight for her!!!!

          • Vigilant


            Many don’t know that Sherman was following the lead of U.S. Grant, whose Vicksburg and Shiloh actions were the first of the “total war” moves against civilian populations.

            By the time Sherman made his famous “Atlanta to the sea” scorched earth forays, Grant was Commander of the Armies and had no problems with it.

            Oddly, Grant was the most popular president of the 19th century by all accounts.

          • Vigilant


            You said, “This is important for the establishment of “Union”. When it comes to our civil liberties, this is very important. You cannot have individual states determine what “Freedom of Religion” is. You cannot allow individual states, invoking the 10th Amendment, to violate the law of the land. Allowing the violation of Federal Law is the first step taken in an effort to destroy our country.”

            I’m afraid you may have misunderstood the Constitution in this respect: states may very well determine what “freedom of religion” is, as the Constitution does not address the affairs of individual state in this area. The Constitution addresses the limits of the FEDERAL government. Thus, while CONGRESS shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Federal law), the states are free to do so. And they actually did.

            A look at history will show you, for example, that in the early days of the Republic, a number of states had religious tests for holding political office, and it was perfectly legal under the Constitution. As time went on, state constitutions were amended to do away with these tests, but not because there was any violation of Federal law.

            Please understand that the Constitution is first and foremost a check on the legal limits of the Federal government. It by no means gives the power to Federal government to make laws for the states with the sole exceptions outlined in the document itself.

          • Vigilant


            Another of your comments deserves a reply: “People who advocate blatant disregard for the law are not conservative. They are something else and they are not good for this nation. I would ask those Tea Baggers, so bent on violating US law, so determined to secede from the Union, so convinced that taking arms against our elected officials, stop hiding behind the skirts of the Republican Party. Stop driving the Republican party into the mud.”

            I’m afraid you’ve gone wildly wrong in your assessment of the Tea Party. Quite contrary to your assertion, the Tea Party is “bent” on restoring the Constitution as the Law of the Land, i.e., ADHERING to the law, and repealing or annuling unconstitutional laws that have been passed by BOTH Republicans and Democrats, have been forced upon us by illegal executive orders, or wrongly interpreted by liberal activist judges on the bench.

            And where have you ever heard of the Tea Party advocating secession or taking up arms against elected officials? Those on this or other sites who urge violence do NOT speak for the Tea Party.

          • JC

            Gary says:
            June 9, 2011 at 9:29 am
            I’m not trying to start a fight with you but I do question some peoples understanding of our history and the significance of our Civil War.

            The South, at one time, decided our Constitution and a United States of America was not for them. Get the romance out of what they did, take their reasoning out of the picture and what you get is an attempt to destroy America. From a historical point of view, it’s a good thing Union forces prevailed.

            Disagree. The South found that the Government then (and now) was flawed by the fact that the Government was owned and coerced by foreign banking interests.
            Through the use of such as the Commerce Clause and growing taxation
            Americans were being subjugated very quickly and en masse.

            The south decided to leave peacably and they wrote a nearly identical Constitution that had no “commerce clause”.

            The Bankers didn’t like that. They wanted the resources of the south, and they got them along with damned near everything else on the planet by now…

            The fact that the north won has a great deal to do with the police state we’ve ended up with.

          • Al Sieber

            Jeez, what did I start here Gary? read the book the “South was Right”.

          • jibbs

            You need to wake up.

      • Carlucci

        OMG – Gary!! What the french, toast? Who planted you on this blog? Was it Was it ACORN? The NSA? Come on, be honest. We all know why you are here.

        • Carlucci

          P.S. Can we call you “Gestapo Gary”?

          • Al Sieber

            Good one Carlucci.

          • Carlucci

            Besides, how can we take anyone seriously who can’t even spell correctly? Here’s a small snippet of what Gary the Gestapo wrote:

            “Each independent Nation/State defining for themselves what their Civil Liberty’s meant.”

            I do believe he means “civil liberties”. Gary the dunce must have gone to school just to eat his lunch. It is obvious he was MIA in English class as he does not even know the meaning or concept of plural…

          • Dan az

            His name might be Jesse Lee that I reported on awhile back.

          • eddie47d

            Carlucci the spelling Nazi! LOL

          • Kate8

            Carlucci – Do they still teach English? Last time I checked, the new “English” is phonics. The true English language has been pretty well decimated.

            Even those in journalistic and literary careers can no longer spell, and have no real concept of grammar.

            We’ve lost our striving for excellence in America. When my kids were in school, you were only cool if you weren’t too smart. It seems to have gone downhill from there.

          • libertytrain

            I don’t understand – phonics is the method we were taught back in the 60′s. Our reading, spelling, everything was higher – whomever is currently teaching the phonics style must be skipping a few key parts.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Actually phonics is NOT the method being used lately. It is a memory system! They think rote memory is better than being able to sound out a word and being right 85% of the time is not as good as memorising a word and spelling it wrong about 40% of the time. My youngest was having trouble learning to read under this system till I started to teach her using phonics. I had my oldest reading, writing, adding and subtracting before she started kindergarden. Both did well reading and spelling under the phonics system. My youngest is now going for her Bachelors and will be done next year! I doubt she would have gone to college at the rate she was going!!

          • jibbs

            High Five!, nice jab at Gary the Troll

        • Gary

          Hey Carlucci. Don’t take offense. I am neither modern day conservative or liberal. I am an old fashioned conservative. You know, the kind of Conservative Republican that once existed in America. Eisenhower (sp?), Goldwater, Nixon are my Republican Hero’s. There was a time when being a Republican meant something. I don’t recognize the Republican party today which puts me in a difficult position. I don’t know where to turn.

          Sitting around telling lies about everything, calling everyone you don’t agree with some vulgar name, and making threats against my nation does not make you a Conservative Republican. Behavior like that makes pretenders to Conservative values an enemy of the state.

          I don’t like calling our President names and that applies to Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama. Those people have been and are now my President. They are the elected leaders of my beloved country. It is incumbant upon me to support my president and our nation at all times. Yes, make change, but do it within the system. That is a conservative point of view.

          If you want to make change through force of arms and secession, then you are not a conservative American. You are something else. You are an enemy of the state.

          • Carlucci

            Hey Gestapo Gary – I’m not a “conservative republican” as you are claiming to be. I’m a Libertarian, as are many on this board. And your rants sure sound like they are coming from the looney left.

            FYI – Obama is not my president. Bush was not my president. The last so called conservative I voted for was Ronald Reagan, whom I believe was a good man who wanted to do good things, but his hands were tied by the elite bankers who are really in control and intend to destroy life as we know it in America and the world.

            As far as your ridiculous comments: “If you want to make change through force of arms and secession, then you are not a conservative American. You are something else. You are an enemy of the state.”

            Where have I ever said that? Gary – not only are you a looney libt*** in disguise, you are a liar. From your insipid comments on this blog, I had you pegged as a loser, but you are far worse than that. You are a coward who makes up bullsh** – just like your libt*** cronies.

          • eddie47d

            Carlucci sure is testy today and must have had a double shot of Starbucks. Few true Liberals or Conservative want revolution and want an orderly process. I believe that is what Gary was trying to convey.That doesn’t mean it can’t happen and we should all hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

          • http://Idon'tknowwhatiswantedhere? Tom

            “It is incumbant upon me to support my president and our nation at all times. Yes, make change, but do it within the system. That is a conservative point of view.” Gary

            That was not the view of the founding fathers who overthrew the govt. of their nation. I hope you can understand that blind loyalty to the state “at all times” is what is demanded by a different kind of society than the one the founding fathers hoped we would be. I think sometimes principals might take precedence over “the state” or loyalty “at all times.”

          • Carlucci

            Eddie47d – I cannot believe I am saying this, but I agree with your post (except for the coffee part).

            I didn’t have Starbucks or any other type of coffee today. Even though I love coffee, I rarely drink it now – doctor’s orders.

          • vicki

            When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

            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 to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

            Not the Constitution. Just a reminder to tyrants who would abuse
            the Supreme Law of the land for their own selfish reasons.

          • Cliffystones

            “Sitting around telling lies about everything, calling everyone you don’t agree with some vulgar name, and making threats against my nation does not make you a Conservative Republican.”

            I agree!!! Unless you’re politically dyslexic, you would be describing a Democrat!

          • http://?? Joe H.

            Nixon was a bald faced LIAR!!! When he was saying we had no troops in Cambodia, I was flying them in every day!!! check out the truth! When he talked about the 500,000 troops he was bringing home, he said nothing about the 500,000 troops he was sending IN!!! Him and Westmoreland were responsible for a lot of good men dying in Nam by cutting the REPORTED troop strengtths of the enemy to make it look like we were doing more than we were and in the end a lot of troops walked into AOs that had far more enemy troops concentrated in it than reported!!! Nixons own daughter said her father should be KING of the US, not president!!! Neither of these men(?) will ever get any respect from me!!

          • Al Sieber

            Well Gary, I guess I’m the “Enemy of The State” also, where do you come up with this “$hit” history? I’m a Libertarian also, and you sound like another plant, are you “Yo Anus” trying to make a come back? where did you get learn your history?

          • John Woodbury

            ”I do not like calling people names” ”Teabaggers” for Tea Party members RTFFLMFAO

          • jibbs

            Ilegals can’t be president, as far as calling me enemy of the state, drop dead!

      • Nate


        You almost make sense, however, the 10th Amendment is and was put in place by the same folks that wrote the Constitution and the “Supremecy Clause” who decided to clarify to misguided people of the future(such as yourself) that the federal gov’t doesn’t have unlimted powers and that of those powers they do have they are given to the federal gov’t by the individual states. The powers of the federal gov’t are very clearly defined and LIMITED in the Constitution, so they are not “supreme” over the States, the federal government was never intended to be that way…remember these people just got rid of a tyrannical gov’t and did not wish to put a tyrannical gov’t in place of the last one. Article 1 Section 8,9,10 covers the legislative powers granted to the Congress. Also, because of Article 1 section 9 the Southern states who were being told by the federal gov’t who they could and could not sell their cotton to, and the taxes being levied against their exports was unconstitional and according to the words written in Paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Independence (written by the same people who wrote the Constitution) that says, “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”(US Declaration of Independence) gives them and us now the go ahead to rise up against any gov’t that harms our, “…unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, ad the pursuit of Happiness.”(Us Declaration of Independence. So you are dead wrong, and need to go back and re-read the Constitution because if you really know what the document says you would know that the federal gov’t is limited, not limitless.

        • Vigilant


          “Also, because of Article 1 section 9 the Southern states who were being told by the federal gov’t who they could and could not sell their cotton to, and the taxes being levied against their exports was unconstitional [sic]…”

          Read the documents I refer to below, not the pipe dreams of some revisionist historians, for the truth about the causes of the Civil War. You then have a choice: either you take the word of the movers and shakers who published those execrable documents as national positions (Democrat Paltforms of 1856 and 1860, secession ordinances of Texas, Alabama and Virginia, and the constitution of the CSA), or you can taked the half-baked, third hand ramblings of pseudohistorians as your guide. It’s up to you.

          • Vigilant

            Just as a point of reference, here are the operative excerpts from the secession ordinances of Texas, Virginia and Alabama:

            “And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,…”

            “..and, whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her Sister slaveholding states, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression…”

            “…and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States…”

            Nothing in these documents about those terrible tariffs the slavery apologists would have you believe were the cause of the war.

          • texastwin827

            Vigilant, the ironic part is that the Civil War was never truly about slavery…it was the “excuse”. If it really had offended Lincoln, he would have freed ALL slaves, not just those in the South. Most ‘northern’ slaves were not freed until after the Civil War and it was done by the individual States, not the Federal Govt’s demand.

          • Vigilant


            Seven of the states had seceded when the Corwin Amendment was passed but never ratified:

            From :

            “In 1861, an amendment prohibiting the Congress from making any law interfering with the domestic institutions of any State (slavery being specifically mentioned) was proposed and sent to the states. This amendment is still outstanding. Congressional research shows that the amendment was ratified by two states, the last being in 1862. This amendment is also known as the Corwin Amendment, as it was proposed by Ohio Representative Thomas Corwin.

            The text:

            No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

            Lincoln supported that amendment, even though presidents have no say in whether or not they are passed/ratified. This shows that Lincoln and the Republicans were so focused on preserving the Union that they were willing to accede to the South’s wishes regarding slavery.

            Those same seven states had seceded even before Lincoln took office. Lincoln was very clear regarding his mission to preserve the Union. It was so important to him that he would have done almost anything to accommodate it, whether it be freeing the slaves or keeping them in bondage.

            So, if you read the primary sources I alluded to above, plus understand that measures had been taken to mollify the South, you’d see that it was the South who stubbornly used slavery as the excuse, not the North. It also shows that Lincoln was willing to appease the South, but to no avail. And, most importantly, it belies any contentions that Lincoln was a despot, or had any intentions of becoming so.

          • Al Sieber

            Texastwin, what I learned from history is Lincoln wanted to send the slaves back to Africa to Liberia if I remember it right, I thought the Civil War was about states rights, and the the states gave the Fed. Govt. power, and we can take it away, I don’t know what Gary is talking about.

          • texastwin827

            You are correct…it was about States rights. The Southern states did not feel the Northern states had the right to dictate to them whether they should or should not have slaves, however, to deprive them of slaves would have deprived them of their industry…which was farming, especially cotton & tobacco. No wealth, no power…and no longer a threat to the power that the North had.

        • texastwin827

          Vigilant….I don’t care too much for “exerpts”. While I can not address any of the other states, I can Texas’ so read the entire Declaration from the State of Texas. Please note, slavery is addressed all through it because it was expected that the Southern states would be forced to free their slaves ,thereby violating their own states rights to govern as they saw fit…and the sole purpose of abolishing slavery was for no other reason than to diminish the power the Southern states were gaining.

          February 2, 1861

          …Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery– the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

          The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States….

          The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

          …The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions– a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

          In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

          For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

          By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

          They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

          They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

          They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

          They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

          They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

          They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

          They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

          And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

          In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

          We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

          That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states….

          • Vigilant

            Thank you for proving my point. Texas was as guilty as the rest of the criminal states that seceded. Hiding behind a “states rights” justification to pursue a practice both barbarian and against all the dictates of Natural Law was typical of the hypocrisy of the South.

            It essentially said, “we want to protest your encroachments on our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in order that we may continue to deprive millions of human beings of their God-given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. It remains as asinine an argument today as it was then.

          • texastwin827

            The Corwin Amendment was like shutting the barn door, after the horses were out.

            The Emancipation Proclamation

            And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

            And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

            To keep the support of political conservatives, the Proclamation did not apply to the border slave states: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia.

            So why was is so important to Lincoln to free the Southern slaves but not the others in the states that bordered the slave states? Because slavery per se was never the issue. The South had become too prosperous, as a result of their sucessful agricultural endeavors and was becoming more powerful, in politics of the nation and the Northern states didn’t want that. Heck, they didn’t even like the Southern states during the Revolution..but they needed them.

            Sorry Vigilant…to me, it’s the “other history” that is revisionist history.

          • texastwin827

            Vigilant…I didn’t say slavery was good and not objectionable…only that, to the South, that was their way of life and they were being dictated to, by Northern states what they could & could not do. The North would have felt the same way had the South told them they could no longer have their sweat shops, in which children were worked like adults. As a result of their treatment of inequality and “slave labor” of children, we now have labor laws to prohibit it. That said, the adults were worked in the same manner thus the eventual creation of labor unions. So you see, the South was no different than the North except it benefitted the North for the South not to have slaves.

          • Vigilant

            “So you see, the South was no different than the North except it benefitted the North for the South not to have slaves.”

            Quite the contrary! “King Cotton” accounted for almost 60% of the total exports of the US, and that production required the use of slave labor. Northern merchants and bankers were making fortunes off of this institution, and therefore, from their perspective, it was in their interest to keep slavery alive and well.

            The classic conservatives, in the sense that they desired to maintain the status quo, were the industrialists, merchants and bankers. The liberals, in the finest sense of the word, were the newly-formed Republican Party.

            The Republican philosophy grew out of differences within the Whig Party over extension of slavery into the new states/territories. From the Compromise of 1850, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act in free states/territories came the Lincoln-Douglas Debates and all the pro/anti-slavery agitation that culminated in the Civil War.

            Given the imperfections in the original Constitution (3/5 compromise, classification of slaves as property), it’s a near-miracle that the Civil War didn’t occur sooner than it did.

      • Vigilant


        You say “The “supremacy clause” is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts.”

        Please understand that the supremacy clause doesn’t mean the Feds can make a law or treaty that is in violation of the Constitution. Under our Federal Republic, the Federal laws take precedence ONLY if the other guarantees of the Law of the Land are not abrogated.

        Your second statement: “Any of you who wants to talk about nullification, armed insurrection or secession is an enemy of the state. You are engaging in an act of sedition. Your modern day version of a Southern States attempt to destroy our nation has no more validity today then during our Civil War.”

        You are talking about three very different things. Nullification in no way is sedition; it’s been used on several occasions in the past, and primarily by the Northern states, as I understand it. Enjoining others to armed insurrection is indeed sedition.

        Secession is sometimes lumped in with nullification, which it should not be. There are, of course, two schools of thought on that action. It bears saying, however, that secession of the Southern states was clearly on the basis of the slavery issue, which does not speak well of their motives. The secession ordinances of Virginia, Alabama and Texas clearly mention slavery by name, and none of the other secession ordinances mention the economic factors (tariffs, etc.) that the revisionist historians and slavery apologists would have you believe.

        Moreover, the Constitution of the CSA specifically commits to a perpetuation of slavery in all states under their control, then or ever. When you combine this with a reading of the Democrat and Republican National Party platforms of 1856 and 1860, including the Democrat’s strong defense of the Fugitive Slave Act, the only conclusion possible is that slavery was the immediate and proximate cause of the Civil War.

        • Gary

          Real good comment. I may have learned something. keep up the good work. have read your posts twice.

      • DaveH

        You couldn’t be more wrong, Gary. The Constitution gives the Federal Government only certain enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8). Those laws would supersede state laws, but most of the Federal Laws go way outside those enumerated powers. The Federal Government in effect is breaking the Contract with their lawless behavior. When a party in a contract breaks the rules, the contract can be voided.

      • Ron DuBois

        I’ve read an awful lot of comments here and feel an important point is being overlooked. What was the reason for allowing for nullification in the first place? It was because the compact made BETWEEN THE STATES to create a Federal Government still left them feeling uneasy, because they feared the Federal Government would usurp power rightfully belonging to the states. What I have not read in the comments, so far, is a reminder that the Federal Government was given ENUMERATED POWERS, with everything else going to the states and the people. To allay the fears of the states, the ability to nullify laws made by the Federal Government which were NOT created under the authority of the FINITE, ENUMERATED POWERS given to the Government in the Constitution, was created. The comment was made that nullification was meaningless, because if the Government made a law, to defy it, or simply to ignore it, was not proper or legal. This is not true. Any law the Government makes which is not in the area of the enumerated powers granted to it, in the Constitution, by the states who ratified the Constitution, is therefore illegal and unconstitutional, and can be nullified by any of the three branches of a state government – The Executive (Governor), the Legislative, or the Judiciary. For too many years, we have been led to believe that we have no recourse if the Federal Government makes a law that it has no constitutional authority to make. Instead, we have relied on the Courts to decide if the law is constitutional or not. This not only removes the right for redress from the states, where it belongs, but gives the Judiciary power it was never meant to have, by allowing it to Legislate from the Bench. Nullification has actually been used many times by states, going back to the 1800s. Recently, more and more citizens have been studying the Constitution, and learning what our schools no longer teach. At this moment, several states are proceding with legislation to nullify unconstitutional laws. Because the Federal Government does not want to give up the power it usurped, it will be a tough fight for the states to reclaim what is theirs, but the Constitution is on our side and we will eventually win.

      • Chas Jones

        The only powers granted to the federal government by the States are delegated and enumerated. The supremacy clause only applies where both the feds and State have lawful jurisdiction. Every federal law not enacted in furtherance of an enumerated, delegated power is Null and Void and unconstitutional. Gary, you are either ignorant of the truth or knowingly denying the truth.

    • Carlucci
      • Dan az

        All it took was to get their foot in the door.Hail Hitler!

      • eddie47d

        I’m with you on that cruise ship incident. Passengers only have 8-9 hours to enjoy their stay and to be held up 7 hours is down right despicable. How many tour operators,theme parks, shops etc. lost money that day.

      • Void1972

        It’s sad, but the British are a minority in their own land, and terrorist are now the majority. Socialism at it’s finest. Sinking the ship would have been a better alternative.

    • james karalis

      I hope in my life time .

  • Wayne Fritzsche

    What are your qualifications to make these assertions. We all know that there is the law, and what is just. Many times they aren’t the same. I’m not a Constitutional Lawyer, but one who knows the difficulty in interpretation of these issues, especially with the Supreme court we are saddled with.

  • Will

    Jeff, you did a great job of ‘reasoning’ out of the argument.HOWEVER, the constitution, which you so diffidently use, was itself created by ‘nullifiing’ British law.QED

    • JC

      Maybe I’m mincing words, but I wouldn’t say we “nullified” British law.

      I’d say we shot them dead for being barbarians and threw them into the sea. But only after asking for a redress of grievances.
      They tried to take the guns, we showed them a revolution.
      (hint to Congress) ;)

      Nullification would probably be seen as much more polite than what actually happened.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        A resounding AMEN!!!

        • Al Sieber

          I’LL GO FOR that.

  • RPS

    While I can see the logic in Mr. Matthews essay on Nullification, I am one of those who believe it to be a natural and proper way of resolving grievances with the government. Having said that, he was correct in his assertion in Texas v. White. Being an attorney, he addressed the issue like a good attorney. But I am afraid from what I have seen of most attorneys, I have come to despise them with every fiber of my soul! These attorneys who make up the ACLU; the so-called Attorney General who is so blatantly partisan that he reeks of marxist stench; these attorneys who chase ambulances; these attorneys who run for Congress and make laws using words only they can understand and interpret; these attorneys who become corrupt judges and endeavor to establish a judicial dictatorship; these attorneys who charge usurious fees for their services and drain their client dry; these attorneys who represent the worst that society had to offer and pleads to let them be free and do their dirty deeds again! I could go on, but I think you get the picture! Mr. Matthews got it right in his summary and that is the problem! But to the victor go the spoils and history has proven that time and time again! As George Santayana once observed, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it!” Well, I am afraid many Americans have forgotten their past and will find themselves in a marxist dictatorship if they do not wake up! Today we have a President (in name only) who, in my opinion, is nothing more than a stooge for the Soros Gang that includes many members of congress and they are all obsessed with power! I am reminded of Lord Acton’s prophetic words, “Power corrupts, absolute power, absolutely!” And that is what all of this is about ladies and gentlemen…P O W E R!

    • DaveH

      We are already in a Dictatorship, and have been for some time. How else could things like this happen?

      • DaveH

        For that story and many more:

        • Dan az

          Imagine at 6am you look out your window to see at least 15 SWAT members moving up your yard toward your door. Before you have a chance to open it, they break it down. After you’re drug out into your yard, handcuffed, and put into the back of a police car, you find out the Department of Education has come to collect on your defaulted student loans.

          That’s exactly what happened to one California man, except it wasn’t even his loans they had come to collect on; they were after his estranged wife to collect on student loans she defaulted on.
          That’s the future we hold now.

          • Dan az

            n October 5th, 2010, a Phoenix police officer responding to a report of domestic violence shot and killed Phoenix resident Danny Frank Rodriguez.

            Entering the home of Elvira Rodriguez, Officer Richard Chrisman and Officer Sergio Virgillo encountered Mr. Rodriguez, who told them that they needed a warrant in order to enter the home. According to local news coverage, Chrisman put his weapon to Rodriguez’ head, declared that “We don’t need no warrant, [expletive],” and then proceeded to stun him with a taser gun and then shoot his dog.

            When Rodriguez attempted to leave the property on his bicycle, Chrisman fatally shot him from several feet away. The other officer on scene, Sergio Virgillo, has stated that he did not believe Rodriguez was a threat, and that he was not holding a weapon at the time he was shot. Indeed, Officer Virgillo has stated the experience was “the worst day of his life.”Really!!!!what about Rodriguez day?
            Every day something new.Take a look at what Dave posted and check out your state,I think you’ll be surprised at what is going on NOW!This system is in dier need of a well deserved flush.

          • Dan az

            Sorry everyone but I just couldn’t let this one go.I promise no more!
            Police conduct a massively armed raid on a home they suspect contains illegal assault weapons and ammunition. In a densely-populated, upscale neighborhood, a SWAT team from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, complete with an armored personnel carrier, uses grenade launchers to fire at least four rounds of tear gas into the windows of the home. The quarter-million dollar home catches fire shortly after officers enter.

            As the homeowners evacuate, police officers chase the family’s 10-month-old pit bull puppy back into the burning house with puffs from a fire extinguisher. The dog perishes in the flames. Police allegedly laugh at Andrea Baker, the dog’s owner, as she cries at their cruelty.

            Later, the brakes fail on the SWAT team’s armored personnel carrier, causing it to lurch down the street and smash into a parked car. The car’s owner, Julie Madrigal, had fled the car just moments earlier with her nine-year-old daughter after the two grew frightened by the firing of tear gas canisters by SWAT officers.

            The home is completely destroyed. Nearby homes are also put at risk. Police find no assault weapons, only an antique shotgun and a nine-millimeter pistol, both of which are legally owned. Nevertheless, police arrest 26-year-old Erik Kush on outstanding traffic violations.

          • JC

            Barbarians “within” the gates.

          • Al Sieber

            Dan az, JC, JeffH, Carlucci, etc., keep the info coming, and DaveH I never meet a real Christian, a Christian is a person who follows the teachings of Christ. I’ll probably get some flack on this, but so be it.

      • RPS

        David, I can see your point of view on this. At least we can still voice our opinions on mediums like this but I do not know how much longer that will last! Obama is already trying to “nullify” the Second Amendment and we all know that one of the first things a dictator does once in power is to confiscate weapons from the citizenry on the pretense they are secure and do not need weapons! Let me also express this: There are, in my considered opinion, several reasons why we have the mess we have today! One is the Civil Rights Act of 1964; another, the Voting Rights Act of 1965; (both of these acts have severely restricted liberty in the name of some abstract notion of “rights.”) another more recent is the innocent sounding Patriot Act that understandably resulted from 9/11 but has some alarming features! There are numerous other laws passed by Congress that have brought us to where we are today! For years we have had a Congress that looked after its own interests and not that of the American! Now we have certain members exposing themsevles on the internet which makes me wonder just how depraved is this august body of solons?

        • DaveH

          Yeah. I wrote an email to the RINO John McCain about the Patriot Act, and he sent me his typical weasel-word response explaining why it was necessary to get those bad guys. I guess their drug-war excuses for trampling our Constitutional rights were wearing thin with the voters, so they had to invent some other reason to replace our Freedom with Security. And as many of us know, we will get neither.

          • Dan az

            Kalifornicator justice at its best.

          • vicki

            I do not want to belittle the death (murder) of Mr. Scott by the Royal Guard but really. How dare the “free” American people grow a plant without the permission of the King.

          • http://?? Joe H.

            what you said earlier is the reason that all should do their best to obtain a CCW permit. There are still some arenas of sales that won’t do a check if you have a CCW! If they don’t know you have it, they can’t confiscate it!!

  • Pilgrim

    Jeff, perhaps you’re looking at the wrong set of documents. The right to nullification rests in this document, the Declaration of Independence.

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    This document superseded the US Constitution by quite a number of years……13 years or so. Before the US Constitution there was the Articles of Confederation. It is not the actual form of government so much as the government’s transgressions against the governed. No government is moral once it loses the support of the governed. Please be so kind to check out the polling numbers for support of the US Legislative Houses.

  • Kimberly Boldt

    Yep, Jeff, your a lawyer alright! I’m glad you support the 10th Amendment movement, HOWEVER, you are making things more complicated than they need to be. You lawyers love to do that. That way you can justify that overly expensive education and your jobs. ;-)

    Why do you ignore the “moral authority” like most every judge and lawyer does today? For 500, years the Bible was the moral authority in all western governments, courts, etc. The Founding Fathers based our government on that “moral authority”. Yes, God is not mentioned in the Constitution. But HE IS in The Federalist (where we find the original intent of the Constitution) written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. In other words, we DO have a guide. And that guide which is the BIble, was agreed to be followed. As God gives mankind free will, which is the ultimate true liberty, the Founding Fathers decided it right for men to have free will and liberty. The Founders such as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Madison, Jay, and Hamilton, understood that God set up a “government” at Mt. Sinai, NOT a religion, and those laws, statutes and judgments were simple, yet allowed the people more liberty than can possibly be understood or imagined.

    Judges were meant to be “referees”. They were to read and apply the law, only. And gee, that’s where we get our nice legal word, “referendum” from.

    Today, our presidents, congressman, SCOTUS judges, and every government official and judge in each state is sworn in the Holy Bible. They actually give oath to God to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yes, some take that as pure tradition, true. And I agree, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. You also cannot force people to do things that they deem immoral or unjust. But the problems we have in this country today are due to “arbitrary law”. “Every man does that which is right in his own eyes.” Case law is unconstitutional. Why? Because you can’t make or change laws through court cases. Only our legislators can make or change law within the confines of the Constitution. The Constitution IS the “precedent”, not court cases or SCOTUS for that matter.

    The Constitution was written to PROTECT our natural rights.

    The Founding Fathers defended natural rights so boldy, that they were willing to lose their fortunes, their reputations, even their lives for that cause.

    Natural rights—those rights which come from God and nature. The idea being that if God gives your rights, no “man” can take them away. Which would you rather have? Rights that come from the state, so corrupt men can take them away? Or rights from God and nature, that no matter what, cannot be taken away?

    These are fundamental principles. The Constitution is still the “supreme law of the land”. The states are still individual sovereignties which entered into a contract with the federal government for the sole purpose of having a strong national defense, a common currency, and to prevent the states from warring against each other over trade and tariffs. At any time, when a state deems the federal government is not living up to that contract, they can choose to pull out of that contract. That was the agreement…. and yes, it is that simple.

    The natural law principles are also “simple”. So simple as laid out in The Federalist, that the modern person can no longer rationalize them. “Things can’t possibly be that simple”, as many say. We’ve all been taught that most things are hard to understand.

    Respectfully, Mr. Matthews, you’ve been brainwashed into believing that things need to be complicated and hard to understand just like the rest of the population of this country. I’m still learning to purge all of the garbage I’ve been taught through the years in school, on television, movies, news, books, etc.

    I decided to go back to “first principles”. The one truth that most everyone will agree with is that what our current government is doing is failing miserably. “When a righteous man rules, the people rejoice. When a wicked man rules, the people mourn.”

    So let’s go back to what works. It’s that simple. The THINKING or the mindset of the Founding Fathers is what we need today, and as I look around, very few have that. And when a new generation rises with this thinking, you’ll see a great change in this land not seen since the American Revolution.

    • Dagney

      Great response! I’ve always preferred using the “KISS” (keep it simple, stupid) principle when looking at a problem or an argument. Your response says it all!

      • Kimberly Boldt

        Thanks, Dagney, LindyMae, and Paraon! You are all very kind! And may God bless you, too!

    • LindyMaeUSA

      Kimberly: Well, GOD BLESS YOU for having the courage to “say it like it is!” no matter what!!

      I’m adding you to my prayer-list for “safety and to continue BOLDLY speaking the truth” on behalf of the One and only TRUE God who gets ALL the credit for America’s (original) moral structure though a great deal of our God-given moral integrity has been systematically chipped away by atheists, agnostics, cult religions in our Country and the plain old ignorant. “You go, Girl!” :-)

      • DaveH

        Don’t blame me for the lack of morality in this country. It seems that since about 80% of the population professes to be Christian, a large portion of them would have to be complicit for the direction our society has taken.
        I adhere to a stricter moral code than any of the Christians I have ever known. For instance, how often do you hear Christians objecting to the Government’s military actions (killing) around the world against countries that haven’t attacked us? As ordinary citizens we can’t kill people except in self-defense. Why can people in Government do that?

        • JC

          Hear Hear!

          • Al Sieber

            Go for it Dave.

    • pararon

      Amen !!!!!!!!!!!

    • Gardner Behrends

      Very well put, thanks.

    • vicki

      First Principle.

      Your Creator gave you 2 gifts. Life and free will. How you treat those gifts in yourself and how you treat those gifts in others will be how your Creator will judge you and how their Creator will judge them.

    • Ron DuBois

      Kimberly,this is an excellent, well-thought-out message, containing both common sense and clarity. Your phrase, “The Constitution is the precedent” is something too many people forget, and while not a lawyer, I’ve always thought that “case Law”, Which I understand is what aspiring lawyers learn, is the most stupid concept of learning law I ever heard of. Instead of learning the basis of our laws via the Constitution, they learn to take bad decisions and perpetuate them.

  • Chris

    The Constitution was drafted to protect the aristocracy at the time. The statists were not satisfied with the Articles of Confederation (our first constitution) because it did not give enough power to the federal government. The aristocrats of the era wanted a stong federal government to protect them from the lower classes. Compare the Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution and it will become clear why it was changed. Don’t forget the Bill of Rights was later added to the original drafted Constitution.

    • RPS

      Chris, what you say is partially true. Remember however, it was a Federalist dominated Congress which passed the Bill of Rights and assured its inclusion in the Constitution. And I would like to remind you that George Washington, a Federalist himself who despised political factions, could have chosen to be King or whatever, but declined these trappings of power. We owe this man so much just as we owe Jefferson and Madison! They were true patriots in my considered opinion.

      • Chris

        Nice comment, RPS. Yes, Washington could have been king, but I think he was smart enough to realize that his peers were not happy with kings. The Bill of Rights was added later as an appeasement to Jefferson and others, but don’t forget that the Bill of Rights is supposed to protect all, even the aristocrats.

        Even Caesar refused the crown three times. Have a good day.

      • DaveH

        That word Federalist grates on me. I know, the Federalists wanted small Federal Government, and the anti-Federalists wanted Big Federal Government. But it seems counter-intuitive and I think without clarification it only serves to confuse people.

        • Vigilant

          With all due respect, you got it backwards Dave.

          • DaveH

            You’re right. I got it backwards. Did that feel good, Vigilant?

          • http://?? Joe H.

            come on, the man said “with all due respect”! don’t go thin skinned on us NOW. You’re a better man than that!!

    • Kimberly Boldt

      “….to protect the aristocracy”? Statists? That’s complete garbage! I can see you never read The Federalist. You understand nothing about the thinking of Madison, Jay, or Hamilton regarding the Constitution or any other of the Founders that that matter.

      • vicki

        Just reading article 1 section 8 makes it clear that the Constitution was being set up to protect everyone by keeping the Federal Government small and focused.

        None the less I am very glad that others insisted on the 10 amendments to explicitly remind themselves and future generations that there are some powers that “We, The People” are forbidden to delegate to our state or federal governments.

        Had they envisioned their creation lasting more than 20 years they might have given us more documents into the why of each and every element of the Constitution.

        The Federalist papers were a good start but we see today how far the people have strayed from understanding those simple short paragraphs in the Supreme Law of the Land. Our Constitution.

    • Archangel

      However, the addition or inclusion of the “BILL of RIGHTS” was agreed upon between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists prior to the signing of the “Constitution” or that document may never have been ratified!
      I couldn’t agree more; the concept of “NULLIFICATION” begins with and is the right of of every Individual Sovereign American and it is the responsibility of every Individual Sovereign American to not allow ones self to fall prey to the passions of the moment and to prudently and cautiously, exercise that right with great care!

      • patrick H.T. paine

        ” To conquer, first divide. ”

        Slight corrections and clarifications to a bunch of previous comments.

        1.) The Federalists should be understood as those who supported the
        ratification of the Constitution, which as explained near the top of this thread, was submitted to the states as a take it or leave it proposition, as written. The unanimous consent provisions of the Articles of Confederation, effectively castrated the Federal Government, especially with foreign policy and treaty obligations.
        ( Treaty of Paris ) Anti-federalists objected to the all or nothing approach ( no changes by state ratifying conventions ) and were afraid that without “rights”, federal tyranny was a potential problem.

        2.) The Federalist argument to this was, because the document strictly
        defined and limited federal power, no such additions were necessary.

        3.) Madison and Hamilton wrote the majority of the Federalist Papers.

        4.) The Constitution was officially ratified by the 9 required states
        on Sept 13, 1788.

        5.) The 12 Articles of the Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress
        by Madison, and sent to the states on Sept 25, 1789. 10 were ratified
        by the required 3/4 majority on Dec 15, 1791.

        6.) Madison had come to understand the dangers of inherent in this
        document without further checks in the form of rights……and it
        was Alexander Hamilton who convinced him.

        7.) Ironically then, we owe the Bill of Rights to a Federalist and
        what we have become to Mr Hamilton. Which makes Aaron Burr, a very
        colorful character, worthy of a second look. ( Gore Vidal did an
        interesting job here. )

        As a final note, in the duel that ended Hamilton’s life, it has been
        related that he did not raise his pistol to defend himself, and died
        of his wound the following day.

        “Do not ask for whom the bell tolls……..”

  • James Coppock

    I believe that a case in point of natural law,in which the government is attempting to nullify, is the right to self-defense and domain defense by any means, be it biting, clawing, crushing, venom,running or any other weapon or means available; i.e. the law which is demonstrated by ALL living beings from the lowest insect to we humans.

    Unfortunately, natural law and constitutional law are being abrogated by the federal and governments by their repeated attempts to deprive the weak of their means of defense against the strong, and by these governments failure to defend the weakest and most defenseless against the whims of a distressingly large group – namely, the unborn human fetus!

  • Stephen Ray Hale

    Concerning the moral justification for nullification, I have at least one hard concept that cannot be gotten around unless one completely dismisses the authority that states it. Pretty much like one tends to ignore the Constitution now a days.

    1 Corinthians 7:20-24(KJV)

    20Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

    21Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

    22For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

    23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

    24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

    Basically, according to the law of two or three witnesses that establishes a matter, a free man MUST maintain his freedom and if being made free, he cannot ever become a servant or slave of another man.

    1 Samuel 8:15-17(KJV)

    15And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

    16And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

    17He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

    Basically speaking, God’s threshold concerning slavery concerning one’s private property is if someone, even God, demands ten percent of one’s increase. We pay a tithe, not because it is commanded, but that is how we demonstrate we are God’s servant. But since we cannot be slaves to men, then it must be insisted upon that the combined Federal, State, and local entities liability for taxes must not exceed 9.99 percent or we will be slaves to government. If anything, the three taxing entities must fight it out among themselves as to what is their share in that up to 9.99% of that which is called an increase of the citizen’s possessions.

    For me, this is a hard limit, that to maintain myself as a free man according to the Bible, I would consider resisting (thinking in terms of our original distress leading up to the founding of a new nation). In that this will appear to be a novel concept, I would first try to go the route of persuasion, but there will be a point when many to a majority will recognize that the government is in rebellion against the people according to a John Locke understanding, by seeking to be our master, and at this point, government loses the authority of being a God ordained institution, when they disregard the Romans 13:3 caveot that “rulers are not a terror to good works.”

  • Conservative at Birth

    This is a perfect example of why we need to rid ourselves of lawyers. We need to elect people whithout law degrees to the House and Senate. All lawyers do is obfuscate.

  • Former Walmart person

    The founders believed we own our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, until any actions we commit intrude on another’s right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. I beleive then, that premeptive violence is always wrong, and only when someone tries to kill you, is killing or injuring justified. Similarily, you have no right to interfere with someone else’s pursuit of happiness, unless they impede on your pursuit of happiness, etc. So, nullification, in my mind, is authorized when the law clearly violates life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness outside of the contract agreed to by the people (constitution). We agree, for example, to give up our right to life and to be forced and drafted into war by a barking seargant, general, admiral, etc. provided congress declares war, we are first attacked, etc., etc., etc. as clearly writen in the constitution. We also agree to give up our liberty through personal property confistaction(taxation) so we can have public roads and a public post office that all can use, as that is clearly written. We agree to give up our personal property for eminent domain, only in so far as authorized by the constitution.

    • Maddie

      Former Walmart person wrote: “We agree, for example, to give up our right to life and to be forced and drafted into war by a barking seargant, general, admiral, etc. provided congress declares war, we are first attacked, etc., etc., etc. as clearly writen in the constitution.”

      Where is that in the Constitution?

    • http://?? Joe H.

      Where the hell did I sign to AGREE to have my property confiscated at below market price, have it enforced by jail penalty??? One guy here had property taken at below market value that had been in his family for over 120 years. It was prime nursery land!!!

      • Jazzabelle


        That eminent domain seizure could have been prevented if the landowner had properly filed a land patent and knew how to defend it in court. (Exception: Doesn’t always work in Texas.)

        See for more info.

  • Jim

    The Constitution says that what powers are not specifically given to the Federal Government the states have. The Revolutionary War was to detach from the British crown that did not care what the colonists said or wanted or what was happening to them. They had few rights even though they were subjects. Sounds like something we know today?

  • jiminla

    I think you’re right on. The only thing I’d like to see adopted is an amendment to the Constitution that says by a two thirds majority of the House and the Senate and by the President signing, any ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court of a law being unconstitutional, can be over ridden. I would also add that Presidential veto can be overridden by a 3/4 vote of the Senate.

    That would be a form of legal nullification that would help protect the States from an overreaching Federal Court system.

  • James

    Mr. Matthews suggests nullification can be used “to clean up a system of government on the national level that has become utterly…inept at serving the needs of our respective societies.” However, it was never the intent of the U.S. Constitution for Congress to service our needs. If it were, Congress might some day decide everybody needs health insurance and attempt to make us buy it.
    The powers that were delegated to Congress, in Article I, Section 8, were never intended to overlap the powers retained by the States or the people (10th Amendment). But since then, Congress has increasingly used its power, to regulate interstate commerce, to decide what may or may not be shipped in commerce, and even decide what services commerce must include and and make citizens buy and sell things (e.g., health insurance) just because they think it would be good for Americans and the economy. It was never intended that Congress have such power, and another federal court, in Florida, has so held.
    I see our problem here as widespread ignorance of the separation of powers. Most Americans, from comments I’ve read here over the past two years, don’t know that Congress has limited powers. They don’t thus know when Congress has overstepped its authority. If they like what Congress does, they see it as constitutional, and if they dislike it, they see it as unconstitutional. In the past two years I have never seen any comments whatsoever, except my own, about one’s own state constitution and state laws enacted pursuant thereto.

    • DaveH

      I think that is inherent in the Libertarian philosophy — smaller Government on both Federal and State levels, so I see no reason, usually, to talk about what my state is doing wrong, when we have so many Federal misadventures to deal with.

      • James

        DaveH, I think you’ve made my point. What misadventures of the federal government do you believe overstepped their authority? How about The Gun Control Act of 1968, did that violate the constitution?

      • James

        DaveH, Your silence here is deafening.

  • Aniko

    “Natural law” and “pursuit of happiness” don’t seem to “jive”.

    A homosexual person WILL claim that not having the right to marry a person of the same gender is “unconstitutional”

    What does supersede the “pursuing of happiness”? Natural law I’d say. But then those people are not allowed to live up to that constitutional law(pursuit of happiness), consider themselves “slaves” to the majority of natural law abiding citizens.

    So what’s with that? How can we defend that marriage is between one man and one woman? I’ll assure you that a “clever monkey” of a lawyer WILL win the case of gay marriage since we have strayed so far from the God of nature and nature’s laws.

    • Jazzabelle

      Aniko -

      Your comment presupposes that two people need the government’s permission to marry.

      They don’t.

      Marriage is a private contract. If you CHOOSE to apply for a state-issued marriage license, the state becomes a party to your marriage contract. This is what gives the state the authority to tell you how to raise, educate, and discipline your children (and to seize them from you if you don’t follow their rules). So when homosexuals clamor for marriage “rights,” what they’re really demanding is the “right” to have the government tell them how to parent.

      And we Christians are so keen to keep them out of this situation …. we seem more vigilant about protecting homosexuals’ basic liberties, than our own….

      • Carlucci

        Jazzabelle – you rock -! I thought I was one of the few people out there who really knew about and understood the “marriage license”. Thank you for educating the board.

      • JC

        The license also lumps two people together as a “tax unit”.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        Don’t apply for a licence, get married in a church, if you can find one that will marry you without it, have children, and treat them wrong and find out what happens. Your marriage will not be recognized for a minimum of five years till the state recognizes it under “common law”, you will pay taxes for those years as two separate entities, your rights of recievership will not be recognized, and your children WILL be subject to removal if you are found to mistreat them, same as if you have a licence!!! your stated concept is nice, but a little too rosey!!!

        • http://?? Joe H.

          Oh, and don’t forget that you won’t be put on your husbands health insurance, either!!

          • Jazzabelle

            You sure haven’t done your homework on this one, JoeH.

            First, there are only a few states left that have common law marriage. There were 7 states left, last time I checked.

            Second, you are talking as though “marriage” was simply two people living together. It isn’t. As I said in my post above, marriage is a private contract. You enter the contract the same way you enter any other contract, by writing the agreement down and then signing it in the presence of witnesses. Afterward, that document proves you are married; you don’t need any license from the state. Furthermore, the state is required to recognize your marriage if you choose to file the document with the state (but you don’t have to).

            Insurance companies, etc., are also required to recognize any contractual marriage as a marriage, whether or not you have a state license, in accordance with the company’s contract with you. (E.g., if your employment contract says that you can buy insurance for your spouse through the company, then the company has to recognize your spouse as a spouse if you have a marriage contract, even if you don’t have a state-issued license.)

          • http://?? Joe H.

            I can show you two families that went through EXACTLY what I said within the last ten years!

  • Bert Cundle

    GOVERNMENT: The Controling factor! ( Offensive / Defensive.) Offensive to Citizens… Defensive to self! The Laws are ( SHOULD BE)FOR The “Citizens”, Proction, NOT SUBJECTION. “NOT for the People, that have invaded, & snuck in here.” The Constitution was a GREAT Show of WISDOM of its time! Have we surcume to the overpowering of wisdom? The States DON’T Show any Concern for the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STASES. The Penal Code is IN OPPOSITION To the Constitution, & CIVIL CODE! THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM IS IN CONTROL, By Government!

  • Lance Smith

    First- The Constitution – Heart of America:
    The reason we look to the Constitution is because it is far more than a “Old Piece of Yellow Paper”. It is the heart & soul of America!! It is SACRED!! The Founding Fathers pledged their lives, liberty, property, gave up family, gave up health…All to create a nation dedicated to the proposition that FREE INDIVITUALS WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE GOOD OF ALL could rule themselves WITHOUT AUTOCRATS, WITHOUT SUPREME RELIGOUS LEADERS, WITHOUT KINGS, CZARS, QUEENS, POTENTATES over us!! The reason we keep returning to it for guidance is because OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN BLATANTLY IGNORING IT!! They follow the forms, the protocols…but they SEEK TO ABOLISH IT!! The current administration…working to create the socialist/communist ABAMA-NATION…is working from the EXACT OPPISITE PREMISE to our Constituion…They believe that MAN SHOULD BE ENSLAVED UNDER THE AUTOCRAT & ELITISTS…That ALL PROPERTY SHOULD GO TO THE GOVERNMENT and be apportioned out AS THEY SEE FIT! Individual freedom, property, choice…ALL TO BE DONE AWAY WITH!! This is why we look at the Constituion…as our last hope to reclaim what has been stolen from us. And by the way…that’s ALL OF US!!

    Second – Nullification: This concept has been with us for our entire history. Jackson struggled with it in his administration. We almost had the Civil War during his administration because of it. The federal government, founded on principals of personal liberty, struggled with the compromise it had made with the slave holding states. It was fighting slavery. The southern states threatened Nullification…Threatened to ignore laws passed toward ending slavery. It almost came to Civil War. Thirty years later…It DID lead to Civil War. That war, in addition to abolishing slavery, was also fought to PRESERVE THE CONSTITUION!!

    Third – History: In a nation led by a President who can say publicly without any media outcry “America wasn’t great until after 1967″ – NULLIFYING ALL AMERICAN HISTORY PRIOR TO THAT DATE – Yes…We NEED to go back to our history & find the true source & definition of our liberty. Those that run to Socialism & Communism are IGNORANT of that history…IGNORANT of our Constituion…IGNORANT of the promise held out to ALL OF US by that “Yellow piece of paper”…PERSONAL FREEDOM. SHAME ON YOU!!

  • LiarsMustBeDefeated

    This sounds like a “might makes right” type of argument. There are no morals in that. If I’m a bigger bully than you I get to make the laws? Where do I have to move to get away from this evil system? We used to respect other peoples rights to their opinions and property. Things have, or at least seem to have, changed. Is this Obama’s change? It makes me angry to think about it.

  • Rex Nichols

    To RPS: Well said. All except for your oxymoron, “good attorney”.

  • TIME


    A very fine Blog, well laid out, thanks for the great read.

  • Shane

    Your logic on nullification fails due to a very important point: The Founders gave the Federal Government a strict, narrow set of rights and reserved ALL OTHER RIGHTS (as innumerable as those may be) to the states and the people. The STATES and the PEOPLE. This means that not only do the States (through the people) have a right to decide if a Federal action is just and constitutional, they have an obligation to do so and to resist it as Jefferson so wisely said through the process of nullification. The states never surrendered their sovereign rights in the compact known as the Constitution. I will repeat, the states never surrendered their sovereign rights. They merely consented to a centeralized government to make it easier for the states to communicate and trade both internally and with foreigners.

    Everything I’ve written here is supported by reading the many documents written during the ratifications of the Consitution. Wiser men than we considered the very issues plaguing this nation today and brought up the same arguments only to be assured that their States would still retain, in the final analysis, the ability to decide for themselves if the Federal Government is upholding the Constitution or violating it. The perceived ‘loopholes’ in the Constitution, such as the commerce clause, were also argued AT LENGTH during the ratification period and any honest historian will tell you that the matter was settled that the commerce clause (and many of the other areas the supreme court or congress have since butchered) had a very specific meaning and application and were not subject to anything approaching loose interpretation.

    It’s interesting that you list Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s book Nullification because Dr. Woods actually illustrates quite eloquently and with ample supporting evidence why nullification is a very real and legitimate method for countering Federal tyranny.

  • Robert Hauser

    Jeffery Matthews has a rather glib tone like the bulk of today’s pseudojournalists and when he kicked it off with “what if” and started playing Devil’s Advocate—-and not all that well—-and I didn’t even bother to waste time reading the rest of what he said. “What if”….what if your ass hole were large and square, Judas Priest, just think, you could lay bricks and make a fortune. I have no interest at this time in “what if” only in what IS…and Henry David Thoreau set forth the case for Civil Disobedience long ago and vastly more eloquently than any flippant and sing-song columnist like this Matthews could ever hope of doing. The concept of “nullification” does not extend merely to States but to the members of what are known as CommonLaw juries as well and the words of Lysander Spooner resound throughout the corridor of time on that issue as well whether penned on “yellowed parchment” or not….and I would flatly challenge Jeffery to so nonchalantly try to pick his logic apart and find supposed “flaws” in it.

    Jeffery Matthews writes like a shill.

    • JC

      How would you know?
      You said you didn’t read the article.

      Thanks for the arrogant and presumtuous judgement though.
      Must be good to be King? LOL

  • MNIce

    Mr. Matthews left out a key phrase of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, and this phrase undermines much of his argument. “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land …” He also neglected to consider that an amendment of necessity overrides any contrary text or usage thereof in the original. Therefore, any purported federal statute which permits federal action or requires individual or state action contrary to an amendment, e. g., the Fourth or the Tenth Amendment, does NOT qualify as part of the body of “supreme Law of the Land” since it was not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution. In such a case, state law is to be regarded as superior.

    It is obvious that a nullification statute is not to be enacted lightly since frivolous usage of the practice would undermine the very Constitution it is intended to protect. This was recognized in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions mentioned by Matthews. Rather, it is to be regarded as a “dire circumstances” measure to be used to enforce the Constitution when it is clear that the Federal government intends to disregard it, either openly or by misconstruction, to the detriment of the liberty of the people.

  • Joseph

    Analyzing the Constitution, court decisions, and statutes is a complete waste of time and brain power. The Constitution is paper and ink which provides absolutely NO CONTRACT and has little or no authority today. A valid and binding contract must be agreed upon by both parties. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been given the opportunity to agree or disagree. As a document which supposedly founded the US, its two main objectives were to limit government’s authority and protect the rights of individuals. On those two counts it is an utter failure.

    The only thing that makes sense is that common sense dictates that “civil disobedience” is called for when government becomes intolerably abusive. That alone answers the question of “nullification”. And, searching the minds of the founders to validate common sense is absurd. The (slave owning and in some cases slave raping) founders provided the document which has culminated in the mess we have today. Their opinions are totally worthless.

    It’s time for Americans to become self reliant, salient adults.

  • DavidL

    For Mr. Matthews,

    A few points to help clarify your point of view:

    1. The Constitution does NOT say that whatever the Federal Government wants, it gets. This is a gross, perhaps intentional, misstatement of fact. Article VI of our Federal Constitution, the Supremacy Clause, explicitly establishes the fact that Federal Law is superior to all other law. What is the context of the word superior (actually supreme in the language)? Its context is in relation to a conflict. Therefore, when a specific state law, say legalizing discrimination against racial minorities, is in direct conflict with federal Law, say anti-discrimination laws, Federal law wins. This legal view has been established for generations by our Constitutional case law. This view is an historical fact. To deny it, for self-serving political or other reasons, is to deny reality.

    2. The Civil War was fought to answer the fundamental question of whether a state may leave the union. That question has been answered. A state may NOT leave the union.

    3. Let us not forget our history. Interposition and nullification has been used in our history by citizens who were bigots. Their “legal argument” was that a state may interpose its state authority and nullify ANY federal law with which it disagreed. This argument has been identified for what it is, and properly dismissed as invalid. No state may unilaterally nullify a federal law which is in conflict with a specific state law.

    4. Nullification, in the sense that Mr. Matthews attempts to use it, is invalid. No state may turn around and say to the federal government that its law will not be obeyed in this state. And it is most certainly not civil disobedience. Far from it!

    5. Despite what Mr. Matthews argues, there is an alternative to “going to war” to get from under as federal law the state does not want to follow. It’s called a federal law suit. At a minimum, the obligation, of us all really, is to comply with the law first, and then challenge it later. In a most recent case, the state of Arizona just defeated the Federal Government’s arguments with respect to a state immigration issue, right? State legal challenges to the Federal Government can be successful. Revolution and war are not the answer, Mr. Matthews.

    6. Despite the cynicism of Mr. Matthews, our democratic governments, local, state, and federal, are more competent and successful than he would have us believe. Just because you say it, Mr. Matthews, doesn’t make it so. Saying it doesn’t add legitimacy to your desire to have the power to ignore (nullify) any federal law with which you disagree. Our system doesn’t work that way. You have to do your homework, put in the time, and follow the rules of our system.

    7. Nullification is invalid, and no state has the power to impose it unilaterally.

    • Stephen Ray Hale

      Government exists for the purposes of protecting the innocent, and in God’s eye, as long as it is not a terror to good works (Romans 13:3). Until it fails in that caveat, the citizen, the Christian ones at least, need to submit to the laws of that authority. But when governments become a terror to good works, the people are not bereft of laws, they continue to follow the law of God…in other words…continue to do good even if punished for it. This is what Peter meant, after having told us through his letters in amen to the writings of Paul (Romans 13), to submit to every ordinance of men as governors etc.. That is why when the magistrate forbad the disciples to preach in the name of Jesus,Peter said with the others, “we ought to obey God rather than men.”

    • James

      DavidL, It has been said No one is obligated to obey an unconstitutional law. However, the federal courts don’t see it that way. For example, if one disagrees with a particular federal tax, the proper procedure is to pay the tax, then file a claim in the U.S. Tax Court for reimbursement while, of course, explaining why such tax law is unconstitutional. I know, I’ve done that.

  • Libertywatchman


  • white tiger

    Some of us believe that we must not obey the civil government when it directs us to disobey the commandments of God in the New Testament. Certainly, if there is a civil process we may follow in order to nullify hateful governmental regulations we should utilize it. When there is no specified process then, we believe, we may devise our own; but that process must not violate any NT commandment.

    The justification for nullification stems from Divine proclamation, Acts 5.29, eg. Our rights are bestowed by God; not by government.

    We have too many lawyers who know all about the umpteenth amendment but nothing about the Great Commandment, Luke 10.25-28; “…you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, strength and soul…and you shall love your neighbor as yourself”. IJn.5.3 defines the love of God as obedience to God, obliging us to total obedience to Him. ITim.3.16-17 affirms that scripture makes complete provision for our spiritual direction.

    So we know Who to obey, and how to do it. Our direction comes from Heaven; not from Washington. As we go about living our lives, any governmental directives which transgress Gods commands must be defied and ignored; they are nullified.

  • James

    In a way, Matthews is right…When opposing forces come together to “authorize” anything of importance that will affect everybody, the only difference is the arena itself & the form of conflict. Whether it be the “theatre of war” or the “auditorium of debate,” the winners & losers are chosen after the battle.

    Hitler won in his rise to power because he had a natural charisma that swayed the emotions of his audiences & he also had his own support structure acting (through deception & violence) to lend credence to his words. Thus, he convinced the German people into supporting him, but it was support based upon deception (deception also including “fear-mongering”) & violence. For every “power structure” that an individual person builds, it relies entirely upon the support of other people to sustain it…When the power structure itself is based upon lies, deception & treachery, then it attracts other individuals who in turn act with lies, deception & treachery. Ironic that the very basis of the power structure is what causes it to collapse, since every deceiver WITHIN the structure only supports it while it’s convenient to THAT INDIVIDUAL, who then betrays that structure in favor of his own structure…Which is, in turn, built upon its own lies, deceit & treachery. Personally, I not only consider it to be ironic, but DISGUSTINGLY so.

    However, on some sort of instinctual gut-level, people (not only in the Allied Nations, but within the German population also) thought long & hard on Hitler’s agenda for world domination…And decided he was in the wrong. It only took the ending of WW2 to prove it. Essentially, all that was proven was that Hitler was wrong in using deception, treachery, violence & threat of violence to force his own vision of “uptopia” on everyone else. Essentially, his own vision of uptopia included himself having power of command over everyone else.

    At least Stalin had a slightly better understanding on the inheirent fallacy of the self-destructive power structure…Stalin understood that the people who supported his own power structure would eventually turn towards betrayal & that drove him into murderous paranoia, aimed at those very people who were supporting him! Of course, he failed to acknowledge that he was actually betraying his own power structure when he killed his own supporters.

    So what does that say about Obama? The fact that every single time he provided his “credentials” for Presidential elegibility, they turned out to be falsified/deliberately edited (let’s not mince words: forged). He’s ignored the Supreme Court & Congress by exercising “Executive Fiat” with his regulatory agencies. He’s started a war based on nothing but his own “power of command” which does not exist in the Law. The fact (freely available to the open public) is that Obama lies, cheats, steals & attacks everybody in the public at large that so much as questions him or challenges him with the written law. In the course of the history of human civilization, those who rise to power through deception will fall…The course of history has shown that nations fall & empires crumble, when it’s learned by the People how far they’ve been deceived.

    As for the Constitution, what does it basically establish? That by the Laws of Nature, We the People are the ultimate deciders on how we want to live our lives…And only the Laws of Nature & the Laws of Society that the People acknowledge can have any effect upon our “pursuit of happiness.” Also that the Constitution itself stands as a Contract of Employment in the selection & conduct of our Government Officers. The basic truth is that an ever-increasing number of people are upset by KNOWING that there’s far too many deceivers violating the contract.

    It’s far past time for redress, by whatever means it can be achieved. However, our “means” have thus far been using the Constitutionally-approved methods of exercising our Rights, petitioning the government for redress, etc…That is to say, using the PEACEFUL ways outlined by that self-same contract. Of all of the histories, religions & philosophies around the world that I’ve studied, “Natural Law” seems particularly in line with the Laws of Physics. That is to say, Physics is simply the study & learning of how Natural Universe works.

    Also consider that, by the Natural Law/Laws of Physics & given evidence by the course of human history, what goes around, comes around. Those who gain power over their fellow human beings through deception, treachery, threat of violence and actual violence will see that “power structure” collapse. True power comes from the Nature of the Universe itself…It is the Truth of Existence that, without the Laws of Nature, we could not exist either. Any “power structure” not built upon Truth & the Laws of Nature will (eventually) collapse under the truth; Nature is self-correcting & self-sustaining, but anything built by humans subject to Natural Law. Even in the realm of non-living matter, this is also true…Do not the stars themselves collapse (or explode) when they run out of fuel to burn?

    The self-styled “elite” who selfishly grasp for power live under the lie of “divine right to rule” philosophies…The only true ruler is Nature, therefore no human being under Nature has any “right” to rule; whether or not you believe in God (or any other deity as the Creator) is irrelevant; The Natural Law, whether by design or accident, is evident & has effect on everything we know. To deny the Natural Law is to also deny everything that exists. These self-styled “elites” think of themselves as superior to Nature, but are self-deceiving & can only project more deception upon other people; If deception is all one knows, then deception is all one can display. By living on a lie, they fall with the lie when the truth collapses it.

    The Constitutional Contract of Employment was written with Nature in mind & deliberately designed to limit government power & size…Those who seek to increase government size also are those same people who deceive themselves on their own role under (& within) Nature. These people simply cannot conceive that they can hold no power over other people except that which the others GIVE to them…That’s the truth behind “We the People” as it appears in the Pramble. Just as We the People grant certain, limited powers to certain individual government officers, then We the People can also take that power away from them. Even our own human history proves it time & again, violently through countless assassinations, coups, revolutions & uprisings against over-bearing governments/officials, down to the peaceful means of the Articles of Impeachment & other “legal” terms that allow for removal of individuals from Office. Those people who build their “support structure” upon lies & deception are deceiving themselves of this basic truth as well: As said by John F. Kennedy, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” It is the very same self-deceptive greed & power-lust that makes them refuse to let go of “unauthorized” power by peaceful means.

    The Laws of Nature have been in effect since the beginning of this Universe (in whatever manner that beginning actually happened), perhaps even before this Universe (who really can know anything about BEFORE the universe?). We came from Nature & are a PART of Nature, but Nature does not need humans to perpetuate itself. Those who try to selfishly gain falsified power over other people completely miss the whole point…They fail to understand what limits them as individuals & humanity as a species. They strive to place themselves ABOVE Nature & always fail in the end; This is the lie that forms the basis of their lives & actions. As said by Mohamas Gandhi, “Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self-sustained.”

    I’ve heard of “politics” as being described as the “Art of Compromise.” As we see from the career-politicians throughout history, the only thing they really “compromise” is their their own inheirent connection as a fellow human being in their quest for power. As far as it goes for America & the Constitution, they further compromise our Supreme Law of the Land, even though the Founders took careful consideration in the Laws of Nature & Human Nature in mind when they designed it with limited Power for our Officers. Thus, for the past 100 years (or more) of American History, they’ve been trying to “compromise” against the Natural Law itself…Well, that’s not working so well in their favor, if you take into account that the tide of human history opposses them. Thomas Jefferson was more succinct then I am when he said, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”

    This recent political trend of “internationalism” or “New World Order (yes, even today’s “world leaders” have publically used this specific term)” is being forced down our throats…Never mind that the majority of the human population isn’t quite ready to accept it. Perhaps, someday in the future, all people will learn to accept it & unite as the Human Species on the whole, but it’s a change that must come from WITHIN human society, not forced upon it.

    Yet, these “power-grabbers” still use the “Old World Order” methods of force & threat of force to push at the rest of humanity…Make no mistake that these are the same old methods that they’ve been using throughout history (hence, I call it the “OLD World Order”) to push their delusions. From deception (which includes stifling knowledge, even within the “education system” which indoctrinates instead of teaches) to actual use of force (look up Ruby Ridge & the slaughter at Waco, TX for examples in just America alone) to the consequences disarming the population & making self-defense impossible (what part of “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd amendment do they have trouble understanding?), they continue the same path that has always failed to acknowledge the truth of Nature, people, nations & empires alike. Their complete refusal of the truth is why they cannot even conceive that enlightenment comes only with truth & that humanity as a whole cannot be enlightened without truth…Thus, they perpetuate lies & act to STIFLE the social evolution of humanity.

    But people are figuring out the truth IN SPITE OF their efforts to stifle it. Just like physical evolution allows for increasing the complexity of the most simple of lifeforms in the course of time, they’ve deceived themselves into believing that they can stagnate our SOCIAL evolution as well. As we can see, even in the news publications all over the world even today, the tide of Natural Truth is cycling back around upon them, even now beginning to swell. The only difference between now & any other time in our history is the SCALE of this conflict…Before, it was consigned to local & national scale, but now it’s happening world-wide.

    As the old Chinese Curse would have it, we are “living in interesting times.”

    • Void1972

      God is in the irony. There is no law of man greater then the law of God.

    • James

      While I certainly don’t disagree with this, I am not the ‘James’ who wrote it. I applauded Hitler for invading Russia and fighting communism and I do not believe he intended to rule the world. His initial purposewas to recapture the area in Poland that was stripped from them in WW I. The only reason he warred with France and England is because they declared war against Germany when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. It took FDR over a year to provoke Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, before Americans would enter into another European war.

  • Elijah Henry

    You speak of the Constitution as a compact (which it is) between the States and the Federal Government (which it is not). The Constitution is a compact between the States. The Federal Government was created by the Constitution, and therefore could not have been a party to the compact.
    Each State has entered into the compact.

    • James

      Elijah Henry, You seem to be ignoring the 50 state constitutions. The U.S. Constitution, as you said, created the federal governmet, but the states did not enter into it.

  • DaveH
    • Void1972

      This is how corrupt America has become, when only the media can get a person elected. We all know who controls the media in America.
      We need to start a movement boycotting everything that has lead us to this miserable state. Starting with the banks, Hollywood, television, GE and any charity that supports anything other then American interest.
      You have the brains to start this movement, lets get movin!

  • rusty steel

    for those who would make little of the so called bill of rights: all ten of them. The first ten amendments had a preamble. It gives the purpose and intent of them. They feared abuse of the powers granted by the constitution. “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added” These restrictive clauses we call the bill of rights.
    In other words each amendment , is a restrictive statement on the powers of the Federal government. Most school books do not include the preamble I wonder why.

  • Scott

    Now this is getting to the point. we live in an age where aggressive people push the limits of the system themselves and insist all others be restrained. ultimately arguments about intent and history are meaningless unless grounded in power or popular support

  • Charles

    When Federal law becomes so agressive and stops doing the job it was
    designed to do, someone has to step in and that someone has to be the states.As with immigration, if the Federal Goverment would do their job
    and enforce the laws on the books,the states would not have to or be required to interveen. When laws are not enforced,somewhere there is a breadown in the system. With the strong immigration laws on our books,there is no reason for over 14 million illigals being in this country if the Federal goverment where doing their job.There would not be the racial profiling that the states have had to put into place that
    help keep our country or in the case of Arizona, safe. The states are not the bad guy here, it is the feds. The Fedreal Goverment has let our states down time and time again and in doing so, it`s the American citizen that gets hurt, not the illigal immigrant. If the feds can`t do their job, then it`s up to the states with the help from our courts
    to make sure our President and his merry lawmakers obey these laws.
    What is it not the Feds don`t understand. The last time I checked we weren`t a Dictatorship, but a Republic, ran by the people and for the people and we are a nation of laws set up by the great people who
    formed this great Republic, The United States of America. So you elected people who we have trusted this great country of ours, do the job that you were intrusted to do. Quit trying to Transform America into something it`s not. If we are a good cat, we sure don`t want to be transformed into a mouse, just because you People in Washington
    don`t like cats.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady


    Wiselady says:

    The Constitution, sad to say, has been gradually sidestepped for those who beleive they are doing good by helping, “the poor” while all along; the the real intent was to deceive with liberal gibberish those who thought knew the Constituion; and for vote getting, too. Now we are waking up to the fact that by nullification we are stirred into one disire,learn more about our country’s direction or we are doomed to staring at our beautiful Constitutional Documents with dismay but have come to mean very little to the liberal mentality.

    Case in point: What were the U.S. Supreme Court Judges thinking in the 1973-4 decision that illegals had the right to get an education? They had a very short sighted vision of what America would become. We are paying a high price for that one major decision. I remember very well how quickly our laws were no longer to protect our borders, but to make accomadations without calculating the consequences of our social and economic infrastructure. Imagine what America would be like if they,( The U.S.Supreme Court Judges) had ruled against forcing public schools to educate illegals! Now in some states they are privilege to pay less tuition than the American citizen, born here. All in the name of doing good. Really?

    Suggestion: A constituional Amendment to rectify this very serious problem. My state can’t afford this cost, it is broke!. Foundations need to stop giving hefty scholarships to illegals. It is one less child not receiving any benefits despite the parents’ long years of paying taxes for education in their state.

    • James

      Wiselady, Since there is no constitutional provision that extends rights to illegal aliens, the judges had no authority to so rule. In view of that, I fail to see how an amendment would rectify that.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady



    James,you are correct that there is not a, “constitutional provsion for an Amendment” that extends rights to illegal aliens. The U.S. Supreme Court established the right for illegals to get an education which superceded the states rights to determine whether they,(illegals)should have that right or not. The state of Texas lost and had to educate all ilegal children in the public school districts.
    Their State Constitution did not protect them so the Supreme Court’s decision now extends to all states. What states would have thought that such an influx of people would come here illegally, and declare that this is their land? That is being taught in many Calif. School districts. We have been invaded! Ratification might work.

    If each state had established their Constitutional right with an Amendment to deny education to all illegals, as droves were coming into the state, there might have been a chance that it would have ascribed to States Rights to protect themselves from the onslaught of poulation growth which affects national security, creates economic chaos,and perhaps what we now have, over crowded jails, hospitals, schools, expansion of drugs from Mexico and more border protection. It is an endless growth to becoming a third world country.

    An Amendment to the Calif.Constitution might help and it was in much discussion long ago, but the opportunist liberals made sure nothing was going to hinder their chances to getting population growth so that elections would only go their way. And they did for more than fifty years. It’s a National digrace that our Congress can’t seem to fix anything properly.

    • James

      Wiselady, Do you have the Supreme Court case-law cite for that decision, I’m not familiar with it.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady


    Wiselady asks:

    James, which Supreme Court’s Case-law do you refer to? The California or Texas?. The Calif. Legilature had intensive discussions in not allowing illegals to remain here if they did not have their green cards to work. They were forced to return to their native country, but some who married American citizens began to demand that they had the right to remain if they had children born here. There is where it all started to create an influx of illegals. The State Legislator did not pass any laws in the late fortys and early fifites when there was much argument on the issue of rights for illegals.

    In Texas, the Courts ruled that all children of illegals had a right to get an education. A school distric brought the law suit in 1973-74 against the parents who were here illegally. They were forced to educate the children. As to the Case-law Cite, you would have to check that with the State Department of Education in Texas and I believe that took place in San Antonio’s School Dist.

    Currently, all of my gathered material, which dates as far back as 1929, is in storage. I found it quite interesting that some of the booklets contain extensive information about a man, named Tejerina, was promoting a revolution against the U.S. by encouraging illegals to come to the U.S. I collected quite a bit of information on the aliens coming into the this country illegally, not only from Mexico but as far away as South America. Similar activities were happening in New Mexico where the town Sheriff was killed because they were going to take over the town.

  • http://PersonalLibertyDigest Wiselady


    Wiselady says:

    The illegals, who declare they will take this land by, “having lots of babies”, are on schedule. The Hispanics have surpassed the black population. Tejerina and his cohorts said in the late fifties, “We will be taking over by the numbers in fifty years!. The sixties were utter turmoil with numerous demonstrations in the Universities in Calif., New Mexico, Arizona and Texas, and in the seventies, we were overcrowded with children from Vietnam,Cambodia, and othe Aisian countries. Do you get the picture, James? The states need to protect themselves by establishing laws in protecting their borders. We had avery liberal U.S. Supreme Court, known as the Warren, Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, made some drastic decisions without foresight of the consequences.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.