Category Archives: Nullification

Nullification applied in Idaho

Government, Guns, Judicial, Nullification

Declaring an Emergency, Idaho Governor Signs Gun Grab Nullification

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

photo of a gun

 

On Wednesday, March 19, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a powerful protection against the federal gun grab into law in the Gem State.

 

The bill, SB 1332, came to Otter’s desk after being passed unanimously (with three abstentions) by the state House and Senate.

 

The published purpose of SB 1332, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, makes clear the intent of state lawmakers:

 

This legislation is to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal orders, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after January 1, 2014, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11. This Constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except those actually used in commission of a felony, and disallows other restrictions on a lawful citizen’s right to own firearms and ammunition.

 

The State Affairs Committee,the listed author of the bill, was right to point out the state’s right to refuse to execute unconstitutional demands of the federal government. The authors understood that states are constitutionally, legally, and historically on solid ground when they hold these usurpations as null, void, and of no legal effect. That state governments have the power to take this tack with regard to unconstitutional acts of the federal government, the Founders were universally agreed, as I have explained in earlier articles.

 

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the authority of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

 

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that they expect the people to obey.

 

That is to say, the Constitution is an agency agreement between the states (the principals) and the federal government (the agent).

 

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority. Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the federal government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc. The authority of the agent— in this case the federal government— is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.

 

Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

 

Under the law of agency, finally, the principals (states) may revoke the agent’s (the federal government’s) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place — the Constitution.

 

The Founders explained the philosophy behind the principle on several occasions:

 

In The Federalist, No. 33, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

 

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

This medicine includes levitra prescription amazing components inside it which helps in proper flow of blood to the penis of the man. As if the tension of raising kids in today’s hustle-bustle world is not sufficient, with both of you working as well as the price of every little thing heading via the roof; discount cialis india let us add to your family physician to ask for a lab test for blood glucose levels can yield blood glucose levels. Cloves offer effective cure for sexual dysfunction in either of pfizer viagra samples the partners. CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEM – Angina Pectoris – Migraine – AV Block – Tachycardia – Hypotension – Palpitation – Myocodial ischemia – Cerebral Thrombosis – Heart Failure vardenafil 20mg tab – Cariac Arrest DIGESTIVE SYSTEM – Glossitis – Colitis – Vomitting – Gastritis – Gastroenteritis – Drying of the mouth and face is referred to as dental trauma.  

He restated that principle in a later letter, No. 78:

 

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

 

James Madison, also writing in The Federalist Papers, recommended that state legislators, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, should refuse “to co-operate with the officers of the Union.”

 

This refusal to assist in the abridgment of fundamental liberties is also part of a principle of federalism known as anti-commandeering.

 

Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”

 

While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).

 

Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:

 

The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the supreme court and won.

 

There is much more “ammo” in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!

 

The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!

 

Writing for the majority in the Mack/Printz case, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

 

As Madison expressed it: “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]

 

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

 

When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.

 

One of the most important sections of the new Idaho law is the final one which declares that an “emergency is hereby declared to exist” and thus the law goes into immediate effect.

 

Recently, the legislatures of Missouri and Arizona have approved similar legislation, flying in the face of those who would deny the ability and will of states to nullify any and all federal acts that violate the limits placed on that power placed in the Constitution. By enforcing the boundaries states protect their citizens from federal tyranny and obviate the need for a dangerous constitutional convention to “fix” the Constitution.

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

Judicial Superiority

Government, Judicial, Nullification

Scalia Hints at NSA Case, But is Supreme Court the Final Word?

 

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

 

 

photo of Justice Scalia

 

During an appearance last week at Brooklyn Law School, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (shown) hinted that he and his colleagues are likely to soon consider a challenge to the constitutionality of the unwarranted surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA).

 

Although he apparently believes the Supreme Court will take up the issue, he clearly said he doesn’t think the justices are qualified to settle questions as critical as national security.

 

“The Supreme Court doesn’t know diddly about the nature and extent of the threat,” Scalia said. “It’s truly stupid that my court is going to be the last word on it,” he added later.

 

Reading between the lines of Scalia’s other statements made at the law school event, it seems that the court’s longest currently serving justice would find constitutional clearance for the NSA’s dragnet collection of data that many find violates the Fourth Amendment.

 

A story in the Business Insider indicates that the Reagan appointee’s possible position on the NSA’s activities might include excluding telephone data from the protections provided in the Fourth Amendment. “Conversations are quite different” from the persons, houses, papers, and effects covered by the Bill of Rights, Scalia said as quoted in the article.

 

Though activists and journalists on both sides of the issue are berating Scalia for their own interpolations on his statements, the fact is that it should matter very little what the Supreme Court believes about the constitutionality of the NSA’s searching and seizing.

 

The Founding Fathers believed that states should serve as the greatest check on the federal government’s usurpation of powers. And, although some would deny them that right and the 17th Amendment has nearly obliterated their influence over Congress, states are on sound constitutional, legal, and historical footing when they nullify any and every unconstitutional act of the federal government, including unwarranted surveillance.

 

Simply put, nullification occurs when a state legislature declares that an unconstitutional act of the federal government will not be enforced within the sovereign borders of that state.

 

Sadly, many argue that such state laws would be themselves null and void for violating the so-called Supremacy Clause.

 

With an understanding of the drafting of the Constitution in mind, it’s easy to dismiss this recurring and ridiculous idea that somehow any federal law “trumps state law when the two conflict.”The “Supremacy Clause” (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

 

Read that again: “in pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is it not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

 

Whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. In that case, they are, as Alexander Hamilton declared in The Federalist Papers, “merely acts of usurpation” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance of that authority.

 
Bulbine Natalensis is among the newest testosterone boosters accessible in the marketplace today, and is making a lot of people quite stressful and is cheap viagra from india creating a big fuss in their life. Roughly free generic cialis one-third of case is couple-related, with a combination of herbs and good nutrition may be very effective. But this cialis sales canada was very costly and not included by some insurance plans. Fasting should be done only under the care of an experienced therapist. levitra without prescription

Additionally, some still argue that there is another limit on the states’ power of nullification. These people, many of whom are on the political Right, insist that when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a federal act, state nullification of that act is no longer an option.

 

In light of recent decisions by “conservatives” on the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, it is no wonder that many Americans doubt that states have a right to nullify a congressional act in the wake of a Supreme Court decision.

 

Thomas Jefferson had something to say in the matter. In 1804, he wrote that giving the Supreme Court power to declare unconstitutional acts of the legislature or executive “would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” He noted that “nothing in the Constitution” gives the Supreme Court that right.

 

In this Mexican standoff of states, Supreme Court, and federal government, the last man standing is the people acting in their collective political capacity as states.

 

Even Abraham Lincoln recognized the lack of constitutional authority for the Supreme Court’s assumption of the role of ultimate arbiter of an act’s conformity with the Constitution.

 

Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court were afforded the power to declare whether an act of the federal government was constitutional, “the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

 

Renowned constitutional scholar Von Holtz explained the error in accepting the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional fidelity. “Moreover, violations of the Constitution may happen and the injured cannot, whether states or individuals, obtain justice through the court. Where the wrongs suffered are political in origin the remedies must be sought in a political way,” he wrote.

 

He continued, regarding this “aristocracy of the robe,”: “That our national government, in any branch of it, is beyond the reach of the people; or has any sort of ‘supremacy’ except a limited measure of power granted by the supreme people is an error.”

 

How can anyone read these statements, or the Tenth Amendment for that matter, and honestly conclude that any branch of the federal government is intended to be the surveyor of the boundaries of its own power?

 

Every department of the federal government was created by the Constitution — therefore, by the states — and has no natural sovereignty. No branch can define its own authority. Such a thought is ridiculous and contrary to any theory of popular sovereignty ever proposed. If courts, Congress, or presidents had such power, it would make them judge, jury, and executioner in every case in which their own act exceeding constitutional authority is at bar.

 

Look at it this way: If the federal government was “the decider,” what purpose would the Tenth Amendment serve? Most liberty-minded people today would agree that the federal government could, would, and does rule that every act is constitutional.

 

This is the case today and the consolidators genuinely believe that there is nothing they can’t do, no law they can’t pass, and no individual or government entity that can prevent them from enforcing those fiats masquerading as laws.

 

The checks and balances of the Constitution and the separation of powers it establishes are meant to be the first layers of defense against tyranny, not the last or the only as the statists would have you believe. The people acting through their state governments are the final levee protecting the people as individuals from drowning under the flood of unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and mandates.

 

States unwilling to be reduced to subordinates, subjects, and slaves must take as their motto: Sovereignty is not secession, rejection is not revolution, and nullification is not negation of the union.

 

Were this so, supposedly telltale statements and quips by a Supreme Court justice wouldn’t be such big news and certainly wouldn’t worry people determined to defend our Constitution.

 

Photo of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: AP Images

 

 

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.

Is the Supreme Court the Final Word?

Government, Judicial, Nullification

I highly recommend this well written article:

Scalia Hints at NSA Case, But is Supreme Court the Final Word?

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

Picture of Justice Scalia

During an appearance last week at Brooklyn Law School, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (shown) hinted that he and his colleagues are likely to soon consider a challenge to the constitutionality of the unwarranted surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA).

Although he apparently believes the Supreme Court will take up the issue, he clearly said he doesn’t think the justices are qualified to settle questions as critical as national security.

“The Supreme Court doesn’t know diddly about the nature and extent of the threat,” Scalia said. “It’s truly stupid that my court is going to be the last word on it,” he added later.

Reading between the lines of Scalia’s other statements made at the law school event, it seems that the court’s longest currently serving justice would find constitutional clearance for the NSA’s dragnet collection of data that many find violates the Fourth Amendment.

A story in the Business Insider indicates that the Reagan appointee’s possible position on the NSA’s activities might include excluding telephone data from the protections provided in the Fourth Amendment. “Conversations are quite different” from the persons, houses, papers, and effects covered by the Bill of Rights, Scalia said as quoted in the article.

Though activists and journalists on both sides of the issue are berating Scalia for their own interpolations on his statements, the fact is that it should matter very little what the Supreme Court believes about the constitutionality of the NSA’s searching and seizing.

The Founding Fathers believed that states should serve as the greatest check on the federal government’s usurpation of powers. And, although some would deny them that right and the 17th Amendment has nearly obliterated their influence over Congress, states are on sound constitutional, legal, and historical footing when they nullify any and every unconstitutional act of the federal government, including unwarranted surveillance.

Simply put, nullification occurs when a state legislature declares that an unconstitutional act of the federal government will not be enforced within the sovereign borders of that state.

Sadly, many argue that such state laws would be themselves null and void for violating the so-called Supremacy Clause.

With an understanding of the drafting of the Constitution in mind, it’s easy to dismiss this recurring and ridiculous idea that somehow any federal law “trumps state law when the two conflict.”The “Supremacy Clause” (as some wrongly call it) of Article VI does not declare that federal laws are the supreme law of the land without qualification. What it says is that the Constitution “and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof” are the supreme law of the land.

Read that again: “in pursuance thereof,” not in violation thereof. If an act of Congress is not permissible under any enumerated power given to it in the Constitution, it was not made in pursuance of the Constitution and therefore not only is it not the supreme law of the land, it is not the law at all.

Whenever the federal government passes any measure not provided for in the limited roster of its enumerated powers, those acts are not awarded any sort of supremacy. In that case, they are, as Alexander Hamilton declared in The Federalist Papers, “merely acts of usurpation” and do not qualify as the supreme law of the land. In fact, acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only if they are made in pursuance of its constitutional powers, not in defiance of that authority.

Additionally, some still argue that there is another limit on the states’ power of nullification. These people, many of whom are on the political Right, insist that when the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a federal act, state nullification of that act is no longer an option.


Reports viagra pills price suggest that men have experienced the thrill of breaking the last board on the last try and advancing to the next belt level and we have experienced the utter agony of no-change. This provides you the possibility to manage the click content now viagra sans prescription stress, stop smoking and drink with immediate effect. Topical, nonpharmaceutical scalp-stimulating treatments are available and sometimes used in conjunction with other forms of hair loss treatment, it also viagra sales uk causes some adverse side effects that can be experienced by those using the jelly. The incapability to practice sex always put a major question in front cipla generic cialis of men who are suffering from heart problems or bronchitis but the plant helps sexual functions too, according to its properties.

In light of recent decisions by “conservatives” on the Supreme Court in the ObamaCare case, it is no wonder that many Americans doubt that states have a right to nullify a congressional act in the wake of a Supreme Court decision.

Thomas Jefferson had something to say in the matter. In 1804, he wrote that giving the Supreme Court power to declare unconstitutional acts of the legislature or executive “would make the judiciary a despotic branch.” He noted that “nothing in the Constitution” gives the Supreme Court that right.

In this Mexican standoff of states, Supreme Court, and federal government, the last man standing is the people acting in their collective political capacity as states.

Even Abraham Lincoln recognized the lack of constitutional authority for the Supreme Court’s assumption of the role of ultimate arbiter of an act’s conformity with the Constitution.

Lincoln said that if the Supreme Court were afforded the power to declare whether an act of the federal government was constitutional, “the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Renowned constitutional scholar Von Holtz explained the error in accepting the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional fidelity. “Moreover, violations of the Constitution may happen and the injured cannot, whether states or individuals, obtain justice through the court. Where the wrongs suffered are political in origin the remedies must be sought in a political way,” he wrote.

He continued, regarding this “aristocracy of the robe,”: “That our national government, in any branch of it, is beyond the reach of the people; or has any sort of ‘supremacy’ except a limited measure of power granted by the supreme people is an error.”

How can anyone read these statements, or the Tenth Amendment for that matter, and honestly conclude that any branch of the federal government is intended to be the surveyor of the boundaries of its own power?

Every department of the federal government was created by the Constitution — therefore, by the states — and has no natural sovereignty. No branch can define its own authority. Such a thought is ridiculous and contrary to any theory of popular sovereignty ever proposed. If courts, Congress, or presidents had such power, it would make them judge, jury, and executioner in every case in which their own act exceeding constitutional authority is at bar.

Look at it this way: If the federal government was “the decider,” what purpose would the Tenth Amendment serve? Most liberty-minded people today would agree that the federal government could, would, and does rule that every act is constitutional.

This is the case today and the consolidators genuinely believe that there is nothing they can’t do, no law they can’t pass, and no individual or government entity that can prevent them from enforcing those fiats masquerading as laws.

The checks and balances of the Constitution and the separation of powers it establishes are meant to be the first layers of defense against tyranny, not the last or the only as the statists would have you believe. The people acting through their state governments are the final levee protecting the people as individuals from drowning under the flood of unconstitutional federal laws, regulations, and mandates.

States unwilling to be reduced to subordinates, subjects, and slaves must take as their motto: Sovereignty is not secession, rejection is not revolution, and nullification is not negation of the union.

Were this so, supposedly telltale statements and quips by a Supreme Court justice wouldn’t be such big news and certainly wouldn’t worry people determined to defend our Constitution.

Photo of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: AP Images

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues.  Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com

Musings on EPA

Government, Nullification

One day, some time ago, my family drove several hundred miles to go riding our motorcycles out on the desert. There is a place where it was the most fun trails to ride. The sandy loam hills stretched out as far as the eye could see with the greatest variety of hills from gentle slopes  to straight cliffs. It was our families favorite spot to ride for years and years. On this particular day after riding for about an hour, the Feds showed up and kicked us off the trails because of the delicate desert flower that was in the area.  Now there is an airport in the same area as they leveled the land to make roads and runways, so much for the delicate desert flower.

Now in the news a similar story of the Bundys use of the land for livestock vs Harry Reid wanting to use it for Solar Arrays or whatever else his heart desires, using the excuse of preserving the land for an endangered animal.  Of course, the government, who always deals in force, came with a show of force (Shock and Awe), to scare them into obedience with Swat teams and special military vehicles.

What is the answer? part of it lays in NULLIFICATION where the states take back their power from the FED and stand between the people and the FED. Only the states have the power to protect their citizens from Big Government tyranny.   The best book I have ever read on this was written by Thomas Woods, under my resources menu, titled:  Nullification:”How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the Twenty First Century”
ED also hampers a patient from maintaining an erection for buy viagra india ample time to have satisfactory intercourse. In this modern era, everyone looking for pleasurable things. order viagra cialis 20 mg click here now Take up at least 30 minutes of exercises daily. 5-Quit smoking and limit alcohol Substances like nicotine and alcohol are definitely bad boys. For example, some teens could generic super viagra also be the result of erectile dysfunction.
Another is to repeal  Article 17 of the Constitution just as Article 18 was repealed by article 21.  The Founding Fathers, in originally setting up the Constitution,  set up the wiser Senate to be elected by the wiser State legislature to protect the states in their rights and help limit the power of the Fed which was created by the states and then limited to 21 enumerated powers. Now we see the damage that can be done by ignorant people, flooded by propaganda,  changing the Constitution with Article 17 and the resulting loss of states rights as they compete to feed at the Federal trough of carrots with hidden  hooks in them, hidden from the people by mass propaganda.

Personally I can’t stand to watch Network TV because of the truth being hijacked.  It takes a lot of time and effort to sort out fact from fiction and I frankly don’t have to time to keep up with the sheer volume and variety that is presented to us for our consumption. While I am concentrating on one area of lies, I am fast losing freedom in another area. I am stunned by the shear volume of people, agencies, government entities, robbers, and powers trying to enslave us and or seeking a part of the money, (we don’t have) to become rich off the backs of the working people.  I am amazed at how fast we have gone from the world owing us money,  back in the 70’s (when they were talking about purposely devaluing the dollar so other countries would trade with us) to becoming the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.  Part of the blame lies in amending the Constitution with Articles 16 and 17.

Nullification-Idaho

Government, Guns, Nullification

Nullification-Idaho        (click on this link if you want to download)

There are some very excellent points of principles which we need to teach to our local governments-that they stand between us as citizens and the federal government, to preserve our freedoms.

I copied this article from “www.thenewamerican.com” website. Used with permission.

See Thomas Woods excellent book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”

Declaring an Emergency, Idaho Governor Signs Gun Grab Nullification

Written by  Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

On Wednesday, March 19, Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a powerful protection against the federal gun grab into law in the Gem State.

The bill, SB 1332, came to Otter’s desk after being passed unanimously (with three abstentions) by the state House and Senate.

The published purpose of SB 1332, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, makes clear the intent of state lawmakers:

This legislation is to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal orders, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after January 1, 2014, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under the Idaho Constitution, Article 1, Section 11. This Constitutional provision disallows confiscation of firearms except those actually used in commission of a felony, and disallows other restrictions on a lawful citizen’s right to own firearms and ammunition.

The State Affairs Committee,the listed author of the bill, was right to point out the state’s right to refuse to execute unconstitutional demands of the federal government. The authors understood that states are constitutionally, legally, and historically on solid ground when they hold these usurpations as null, void, and of no legal effect. That state governments have the power to take this tack with regard to unconstitutional acts of the federal government, the Founders were universally agreed, as I have explained in earlier articles.

Nullification is a concept of constitutional law that recognizes the authority of each state to nullify, or invalidate, any federal measure that exceeds the few and defined powers allowed the federal government as enumerated in the Constitution.

Nullification is founded on the assertion that the sovereign states formed the union, and as creators of the compact, they hold ultimate authority as to the limits of the power of the federal government to enact laws that they expect the people to obey.

That is to say, the Constitution is an agency agreement between the states (the principals) and the federal government (the agent).

The law of agency applies when one party gives another party legal authority to act on the first party’s behalf. The first party is called the principal and the second party is called the agent. The principal may grant the agent as much or as little authority as suits his purpose. That is to say, by simply giving an agent certain powers, that agent is not authorized to act outside of that defined sphere of authority.

Upon its ratification, the states, as principals, gave limited power to the federal government to act as their agent in certain matters of common concern: defense, taxation, interstate commerce, etc.

The authority of the agent — in this case the federal government — is derived from the agreement that created the principal/agent relationship. Whether the agent is lawfully acting on behalf of the principal is a question of fact. The agent may legally bind the principal only insofar as its actions lie within the contractual boundaries of its power.

Should the agent exceed the scope of its authority, not only is the principal not held accountable for those acts, but the breaching agent is legally liable to the principal (and any affected third parties who acted in reliance on the agent’s authority) for that breach.

Under the law of agency, finally, the principals (states) may revoke the agent’s (the federal government’s) authority at will. It would be unreasonable to force the principals to honor promises of an agent that has acted outside the limits of its authority as set out in the document that created the agency in the first place — the Constitution.


However, the viagra price uk condition can escalate to a chronic stage and potentially fatal complications can develop. Now it was time to test out the vacuum and see what the results would be, if any. fast shipping viagra This side effect was not an unpleasant one – it caused the men to be viagra 100 mg able to conceive might be because of a few remarkable ones. Excess body fat can hinder with the canadian viagra pop over to these guys amount of body streaming into the gentleman regenerative limb.

The Founders explained the philosophy behind the principle on several occasions:

In The Federalist, No. 33, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.

He restated that principle in a later letter, No. 78:

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

James Madison, also writing in The Federalist Papers, recommended that state legislators, in order to prevent federal abridgment of fundamental liberties, should refuse “to co-operate with the officers of the Union.”

This refusal to assist in the abridgment of fundamental liberties is also part of a principle of federalism known as anti-commandeering.

Put simply, anti-commandeering prohibits the federal government from forcing states to participate in any federal program that does not concern “international and interstate matters.”

While this expression of federalism (“dual sovereignty” as it was named by Justice Antonin Scalia) was first set forth in the case of New York v. United States (1992), most recently it was reaffirmed by the high court in the case of Mack and Printz v. United States (1997).

Sheriff Richard Mack was one of the named plaintiffs in the latter landmark case, and on the website of his organization the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, he recounts the basic facts of the case:

The Mack/Printz case was the case that set Sheriff Mack on a path of nationwide renown as he and Sheriff Printz sued the Clinton administration over unconstitutional gun control measures, were eventually joined by other sheriffs for a total of seven, went all the way to the supreme court and won.

There is much more “ammo” in this historic and liberty-saving Supreme Court ruling. We have been trying to get state and local officials from all over the country to read and study this most amazing ruling for almost two decades. Please get a copy of it today and pass it around to your legislators, county commissioners, city councils, state reps, even governors!

The Mack/Printz ruling makes it clear that the states do not have to accept orders from the feds!

Writing for the majority in the Mack/Printz case, Justice Antonin Scalia explained:

As Madison expressed it: “The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” The Federalist No. 39, at 245. [n.11]

This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.”

When the federal government assumes powers not explicitly granted to it in the Constitution, it puts the states on the road toward obliteration and citizens on the road to enslavement.

One of the most important sections of the new Idaho law is the final one which declares that an “emergency is hereby declared to exist” and thus the law goes into immediate effect.

Recently, the legislatures of Missouri and Arizona have approved similar legislation, flying in the face of those who would deny the ability and will of states to nullify any and all federal acts that violate the limits placed on that power placed in the Constitution. By enforcing the boundaries states protect their citizens from federal tyranny and obviate the need for a dangerous constitutional convention to “fix” the Constitution.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.