The sovereign states are courageously asserting their constitutionally protected right to self-determination by standing up to the federal government and refusing to execute the most noxious provisions of the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA).

Evidence of this laudable resistance to federal tyranny was most recently found in the Old Dominion, where on February 14 an impressive majority (96 out of 100 members) of the Virginia House of Delegates passed HB 1160, a bill that prohibits agents of the state government from “assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the conduct of the investigation, prosecution, or detention of a citizen in violation of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia, or any Virginia law or regulation.”

The bill was sponsored by committed constitutionalist Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall. When asked by The New American what prompted him to author this legislation, Marshall referred to his “oath to uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions. “They say this law [the NDAA] is designed to fight terrorists. You don’t defeat terrorists by adopting their tactics.” “I will be faithful to my calling to stand against these predators who would sell their birthright for a mess of pottage,” he added.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” These words were written by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. Marshall certainly understands this principle as he is also the author of the Virginia Healthcare Freedom Act, which nullified ObamaCare in his state.

Virginia House Passes NDAA-Nullifying Bill; Other States Join Fight [continued]

Abstract: The seemingly unstoppable growth of the federal government has led to a revival, in some circles, of the discredited notion of nullification as a legitimate constitutional mechanism for states to reassert their sovereign powers. Proponents of this doctrine invoke the authority of James Madison to defend the claim that the Constitution empowers states to nullify laws passed by Congress. In this essay, Christian Fritz explains why Madison emphatically rejected the attempt by a single state to nullify national laws. Instead, Madison embraced something very different. The practice of interposition—public opinion, protests, petitions, and legitimate actions of state legislatures—focused attention on whether the government was acting in conformity with the Constitution. Recovering Madison’s understanding of interposition offers a useful corrective to the mischaracterization of his views and makes clear that he rejected any constitutional basis for nullification.

Political arguments frequently use history for justification. Invariably, such efforts are less about taking the past on its own terms than the desire to make symbolic historical references that resonate with modern audiences in order to achieve particular political objectives, whether liberal or conservative.

American politics today provides a good example of this practice, particularly in the invocation of the doctrine of nullification and secession as legitimate constitutional options supposedly sanctioned in the thought of such Founders as James Madison. But Madison emphatically rejected the attempt by a single state to nullify national laws. Instead, he embraced a doctrine of interposition—something very different from nullification but often mistakenly linked with it both at the time and in our own day. Recovering Madison’s understanding of interposition offers a useful corrective to the mischaracterization of his views.

The episodes examined in this essay—the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of the 1790s and the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s—clearly raised a central question of federalism: What are the respective powers of state governments and the national government? Importantly, however, those episodes were not exclusively about federalism. They also raised key questions of constitutionalism: Who were “the people” that underlay the national constitution, and how could that sovereign act and be recognized in action?

Questions of constitutionalism, it should be emphasized, did not involve matters of constitutionality or the conformity of given actions or decisions with a written constitution. Rather, the term constitutionalism as used in this essay pertains to the underlying authority of the Federal Constitution residing in the sovereign people and their relationship with government. A failure to recognize these questions of constitutionalism has obscured the doctrine of interposition and miscast the Nullification Crisis as simply involving a struggle over states’ rights.

Confusion over these issues is not surprising. As those who debated interposition and nullification noted, the language used to discuss these ideas was inherently ambiguous. Moreover, the politics of Madison’s day emphasized the practical consequences of a compact theory of the states. The political question of the relationship between the national and state governments was so dominant that it overshadowed the questions of constitutionalism that were part of Madison’s careful thought about the theoretical foundation of the Federal Constitution. Madison’s views about the constitutional implications of governments resting on a collective sovereign were easily overlooked then just as they are today.

Madison’s Theory of Interposition

The right to monitor the constitutional operation of government was a central issue of American constitutionalism after the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. The struggle over that right revealed a fundamental disagreement among Americans over the puzzle at the heart of the new federal system: What did rule by a collective sovereign mean under a national constitution when the people who held this sovereignty were also the sovereign of their individual state governments? Overlooked in most treatments of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions and the Nullification Crisis is how the American sovereign could—as the concept of the people’s sovereignty called for—oversee the workings of the national government.[1]

Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers [continued]

[mobile users] Thomas Woods: Nullification a Tool We All Have 

ATLANTA, Georgia, Feb 21, 2012 (IPS) – Budget constraints combined with exploding prison populations are prompting a number of U.S. states, including some of in the politically conservative south, to rethink their criminal codes.

About 15 states have already enacted changes, while others, such as Georgia, are considering them, Alison Lawrence, a policy specialist for the National Conference of State Legislatures, told IPS.

Changes include reduction or elimination of prison time for certain property crimes and drug crimes, and in some cases, emphasis on drug treatment instead of prison for drug addicts.

A recent report by the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR) outlines some of the changes already taken by some states.

For example, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have reduced or eliminated jail or prison time for parole and probation violations, opting instead for stricter supervision and alternative sentences like community service, according to SCHR.

U.S. States Grapple with Exploding Prison Populations [continued]

Are Washington DC politicians absolutely sure that they want to make the US Constitution null and void? If the US Constitution is null and void, then so is the union of states that it created, as that fragile union of sovereign states was very carefully ratified via a very specific and carefully crafted balance of power between the federal government and the states.

If the federal government continues to breech that compact without remedy, the union of states expires with the Constitution itself and it is every man for himself at that point. Are DC elitists ready for what comes with the decimation of the US Constitution and the union of states it created?

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This is the sole purpose of the US Constitution. No constitution, no union…

If there is NO Constitution, there is NO Fed [continued]

This piece was co-written with Forbes contributor  Peter Ferrara.

The Social Security Institute has joined with the American Civil Rights Union in filing anamicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing that ObamaCare’s expansion and transformation of the Medicaid program violates the Tenth Amendment under the Court’s Coercion Doctrine.  In overstepping the bounds between acceptable pressure and unacceptable compulsion, ObamaCare transgresses state sovereignty and violates the constitutional framework of federalism.  Peter J. Ferrara wrote the brief on our behalf.  The essence of that brief follows:

Medicaid was enacted in 1965 as a federal-matching, grant-in-aid program to the states with each state free to decide whether and when to participate. Historically, the federal government has paid for 50 percent to 83 percent of total program costs in each state, the exact federal matching share determined by a statutory formula calculating the federal contribution in each state.

Until the 2010 enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), Medicaid preserved state sovereignty and was consistent with the constitutional framework of federalism, despite numerous stringent federal mandates, because the states retained substantial discretion to decide Medicaid eligibility, determine the scope and duration of coverage, and they were free to discontinue participation in Medicaid if not satisfied with the terms and conditions imposed by the program.

ObamaCare Makes Medicaid An Offer States Can’t Refuse  [continued]

Attorney talks about Ron Paul and How States can Fight NDAA

Sheriffs Stand TALL for the Constitution

Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.

Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.

But now prosecutors are offering their first detailed explanation for why they charged Mr. Heicklen, arguing in a brief that his “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”

Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge [continued]

Suppose you are a sincere conservative advocate of “states’ rights.” What conclusion would you draw from Saturday night’s presidential forum on Fox News Channel’s Huckabee show?

As I once pointed out elsewhere, American attitudes toward the division of power between state and federal government track a famous line from Thomas Jefferson’s’ first inaugural address: “We are all republicans,” he said, holding out an olive branch to the other party, “we are all federalists.”

But as he himself demonstrated in office, when it comes to limits on federal power, we are all hypocrites. The basic view of “states’ rights” is that they extend to any policy that the speaker thinks will go his or her way at the state level. Policies become law at the federal level become, ipso facto, “national problems.” Certainly this mode of thinking seems to have affected some of the Republican presidential candidates.

Leading GOP Candidates Don’t Want to Return Power to the States [continued]