A large step toward ending the bloodshed...

(NOTE FROM TB: Originally I intended readers to see nullification as a strategic step toward returning the sovereign states of this union to their prior freedom to outlaw the slaughter of little babies. Two faithful counselors suggested I change the text to make that connection more explicit. Thus the text of this post has just been reworked, somewhat.)

“If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.”   - Thomas E. Woods

In opposition to the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 requiring northerners to return Underground Railway freedom riders to their southern bondage, northern anti-slavery activists practiced state nullification of federal lawlessness. For instance, in 1859 the Wisconsin legislature quoted Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 in support of nullification and here is a handbill then circulated in Milwaukee...

All the People of this State, who are opposed to being made SLAVES or SLAVE-CATCHERS, and to having the Free Soil of Wisconsin made the hunting-ground for Human Kidnappers, and all who are willing to unite in a STATE LEAGUE, to defend our State Sovereignty, our State Courts, and our State and National Constitutions, against the flagrant usurpations of U.S. Judges, Commissioners, and Marshals, and their Attorneys; and to maintain inviolate those great Constitutional Safeguards of Freedom — the WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS and the RIGHT OF TRIAL BY JURY — as old and sacred as Constitutional Liberty itself; and all who are willing to sustain the cause of those who are prosecuted, and to be prosecuted in Wisconsin, by the agents and executors of the Kidnapping Act of 1850, for the alleged crime of rescuing a human being from the hands of kidnappers, and restoring him to himself and to Freedom, are invited to meet at YOUNGS' HALL, IN THIS CITY, THURSDAY, APRIL 13TH, at 11 o'clock A.M., to counsel together, and take such action as the exigencies of the times, and the cause of imperiled Liberty demand.

Nullification is alive and well today and is being practiced by states in defense of their U.S. Constitutional rights. A number of states are working to nullify the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which violates our U.S. Constitution by claiming federal power to arrest without due process. Colorado, New York, Washington, and California have been joined by a number of other states in the nullification of federal drug laws. (And no, I'm not in favor of the legalization of pot.) Many, many states are working on nullifying the nationalized health care of President Obama that Chief Justice Roberts grew to appreciate. Washington, New Hampshire, and Texas are leading a number of states in nullifying the unconstitutional acts of our federal government's TSA. Wyoming is at the front of a movement by states to nullify the almost-certain laws about to be passed by our national magistrates seeking to undermine our Second Amendment. A host of states are nullifying federal laws on a host of issues.

Such state discipline of Washington D.C.'s voracious appetite for all-encompassing authority has so-called "constitutional" law professors all in a tizzy. When I think of how culpable they are in this lawlessness, accepting as given every lawless act of the United States Supreme Court that has violated the plain meaning and intent of our founding fathers in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I'm reminded of our Lord's conflict with the constitutional law professors of His time, the scribes and Pharisees. Here's an account of one of Jesus' condemnations of their hypocrisy:

[Jesus said to the Pharisees and teachers of the Law] "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men." And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, 'Honour your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:8-13)

For many decades, now, our constitutional law profs and the judges and justices they have produced have made a habit of setting aside the command and authority of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to usurp the authority of our United individual States. The way they accomplish this is by claiming their traditions (what they call "precedent") trump the authority of the Constitution. Thus they swear to uphold the Constitution and proceed to uphold their precedents—just as the scribes and Pharisees claimed to uphold the Mosaic Law when in reality they set that law aside.

Corban set aside the laws of all fifty states on abortion for the sake of Molech. In Roe v. Wade, not only did the High Court fail in its most basic obligation to protect the most vulnerable, it added to it this evil: forbidding state governments from protecting the life of the little ones. Corban set aside the Fifth Commandment for the sake of the Temple as NFIB v. Sebelius set aside the Tenth Ammendment for the sake of the White House. Hypocrites like Chief Justice John Roberts have made many unconstitutional decisions like that which constitutional law profs across the country turn around and pass on to the next generation's judges and justices as binding precedent. The profs pass the acts of Washington D.C. off as lawful when in fact they are unconstitutional, and therefore lawless.

Happily, on some issues it appears the citizens who know their Constitution are beginning to wise up to this chronic judicial rebellion, giving issue to the citizens and legislators of a host of states working together to nullify Washington D.C.'s usurpations.

Speaking of several nullification bills introduced to the present legislative session by Indiana legislators, one constitutional law prof complained that these bills do not show enough respect to "about 200 years worth of settled law." Said he: "the U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of federal constitutional law. The state cannot simply countermand that, and certainly not the state legislature. I mean, it's bizarre."

Really, the good prof is wrong. What's truly bizarre is the century-long compliance—indeed, the docility—of the sovereign states in the face of Washington D.C.'s relentless usurpation of states' authority explicitly guaranteed and protected by the Tenth Ammendment.

The right and duty of nullification starts with the Declaration of Independence, but the duty of nullification was also spoken of by founding fathers such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. As we saw above, nullification was the response of the northern states to the federal government's unconstitutional fugitive slave acts prior to the Civil War and today nullification is alive and well all over the country on a host of issues that are favored by libertarians, conservatives, and liberals alike.

But law school profs tell us we have no recourse against the betrayal of the rule of constitutional law which has metastasized on their watch. They tell us only the federal authorities who themselves have written the precedents nullifying the U.S. Constitution have the authority to reform their precedents nullifying the U.S. Constitution. Sound like a circular argument?

Take, for instance, the Second Amendment's declaration that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" because "a well regulated Militia (is) necessary to the security of a free State." Our legal rabbis tell us it's the perquisite of our national masters alone to tell us when our state is and is not free, and when the security of our free state has or has not been breached.

You see the conflict of interests, don't you? 

Here in Indiana, we've elected a conservative Republican governor and both state houses are heavily Republican. Former Governor Mitch Daniels got our fiscal house in order quite handily, thank him, and so it's the perfect time for nullification.

Now is the time for Governor Pence and both houses of the legislature to sit down and figure out how to reign in the lawless acts of the federal government which have ground the Tenth Amendment into dust over many decades now, culminating in that horror of nationalized health care whereby one fifth of our national economy was brought inside the Beltway and placed under the review and control of President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

If you don't know what the Tenth Amendment is, read it now:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Everything inside the the Beltway is politics—especially the petty, insecure, insularity of the Supreme Court. "The merits of the case in the light of the Constitution be hanged" is their motto. Waiting on national civil magistrates to reign in their lawlessness as national civil magistrates is a joke. Appointed to courts or sworn into office, their chests thump, their faces flush, their palms get moist, and right before your eyes they grow into New York Times-pleasers. Which is to say lawlessness starting with the Tenth Amendment is the nature of most every public servant working inside the Beltway today, starting with the Supreme Court of these United States.

And we should be reminded that lawlessness against the Constitution is rebellion against every citizen of these United States because every citizen of these United States owns the Constitution of these United States. We are not a monarchy. We are not the Ancient Roman Empire. Sec. Sebelius is under the authority of our president and our president and our senators and and our congressmen and our appellate judges and of course our Supreme Court justices are under the authority of our Constitution which belongs to "we, the people." The citizens of these United States pay these public servants and so these public servants are accountable to us for their submission to or rebellion against our Constitution.

Why is no one intent on holding them accountable to submit to our Constitutional authority? Where are the righteous men today who, like Scripture's Job, break the jaw of the wicked and snatch the innocent prey from his mouth? Why have our Reformed churches not produced men inspired by "righteous Job" to restore the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness which led to this "when in the course of human events" in the first place?

Let's start with those civil magistrates who work for us here in our wonderful state of Indiana. Again, they are under our Constitutional authority and they have an obligation to submit to the U.S. Constitution's Tenth Amendment by enforcing it here in Indiana. Maybe they don't understand this? Maybe they think all law originates inside the Beltway and only those things not yet brought inside the Beltway are still reserved to the states?

Maybe they think there's nothing a poor boy can do?

Nullification—that's what the civil magistrates of one of these United States should do when he becomes aware of Washington D.C.'s lawlessness. In terms of authority over those malignancies inside the Beltway, the state of Indiana is no poor boy who can do nothing. The men in D.C. only break the Tenth Amendment because no state has the manhood to enforce it. Nullification is a principle well-established in law and may well be the only way to discipline that malignancy of rebellion and lawlessness that possesses our nation.

If we refuse to defend the Tenth Amendment against Washington lawlessness and rebellion, by the time we need to defend our wives and children against their oppression, the Second Amendment will have been vitiated, also, and there will be no way to restore "when in the course of human events."

Every citizen of these United States is a civil magistrate entrusted with the authority to defend his form of government against precisely the sort of lawlessness that now possesses our national government. The courts have betrayed their trust and are entirely below deciding matters on the merits of the case.

So, good Hoosiers, read up on nullification and then try to educate your assemblyman and senator and judges and justices and governor that they have a duty to discipline the rebellion of the federal government.

By nullification.

We've had a constitutional crisis for about a century, now (although some would date it much earlier) and it's time to solve it by exercising our state authority in the discipline of our federal servants. The worst that can happen is King Barack Obama orders the National Guard to drive his tanks over to the State Capitol Building. So what?

If I remember correctly, Democrats know a small hotel across the border in Illinois where the business of the state could be carried on for a few weeks.

For many decades, now, our constitutional law profs and the judges and justices they have produced have made a habit of setting aside the command and authority of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to usurp the authority of our United individual States. The way they accomplish this is by claiming their traditions (what they call "precedent") trump the authority of the Constitution. Thus they swear to uphold the Constitution and proceed to uphold their precedents—just as the scribes and Pharisees claimed to uphold the Mosaic Law when in reality they set that law aside.

*Corban set aside the laws of all fifty states on abortion for the sake of Molech. In Roe v. Wade, not only did the High Court fail in its most basic obligation to protect the most vulnerable, it added to it this evil: forbidding state governments from protecting the life of the little ones.* Corban set aside the Fifth Commandment for the sake of the Temple as NFIB v. Sebelius set aside the Tenth Ammendment for the sake of the White House. Hypocrites like Chief Justice John Roberts have made many unconstitutional decisions like that which constitutional law profs across the country turn around and pass on to the next generation's judges and justices as binding precedent. The profs pass the acts of Washington D.C. off as lawful when in fact they are unconstitutional, and therefore lawless.

* * *

(The opinions expressed here are mine, alone, and do not reflect the opinions or convictions of my brother, David, nor the congregation or officers of the church I serve.)

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

I've been dreaming an idea of a new state law that some state should pass. It goes something like this:

"Being in the interest of the State of Indiana to defend its guaranteed rights and sovereignty from Federal usurpation, all Representatives and Senators of the State of Indiana to the Federal government will henceforth be required to initiate impeachment proceedings against any Federal public servant, elected, appointed or otherwise, who both houses of the State legislature, by simple majority, determines to be in violation or threat of violation to Indiana's sovereignty. Any Representatives or Senators of the State of Indiana to the Federal government who fail to initiate impeachment proceedings against a Federal public servant within 30 days of the recommendation of the State legislature shall be ineligible to stand for election to any position, Federal, State, local, or otherwise, in any subsequent public election held in the State of Indiana."

My laywer friend tells me that it would never fly, because you can't make laws that dictate how Federal Reps and Senators vote. But it DOESN'T tell them how to vote, it just tells them to begin impeachment proceedings; if it comes down to it, they don't have to actually vote to impeach. And beginning the proceedings doesn't mean someone will be impeached, necessarily; but the threat of impeachment might reign in some abuses.

I would send this idea to my state rep, but I've met him. I don't think he'd be interested in sponsoring it, and if he was, I don't think he's got the cajones to make it happen.

Tim,

I look for award to reading to reading this later.  For know, I hope you won't mind if I quickly note the findings of my little "investigation" into the Justice Conference that took place in Philadelphia this past weekend.  (My excuse is being snowbound yesterday - church was cancelled!)

As far as I can determine, the sessions run 4-to-1 in favor of doing justice to creatioversus justice for the unborn. Conference exhibitors run the same. They include 4 animal/creation focused groups (including FARM = farm animal rights movement) and just one pro-life group, a crisis pregnancy center.  Of the speakers there were NONE known for being prolife advocates - no Jill Staneks or Alveda Kings.  But there was one nonChristape speaker, a vocal supporter of abortion rights, Sheryl WuDunn (of Half the Sky).  Oh, and Mimi Haddad was ther speaking about the unspeakable injustice of patriarchy.

Yawn.

*for now. Blasted auto correct gets worse and worse. 

I wonder how many states will refuse to do this based on the unconstitutional "money laundering" scheme we live under, wherein states send tax dollars to Washington and then receive them back again in the form of Federal subsidies for things as diverse as Head Start, school lunch programs, the DOT, Medicaid, etec. 

Some states "win" by getting back more than they paid in, while others "lose" by getting back less than the sent in (in effect subsidizing other states).  And with each dollar a state accepts from the Federal government they give up our freedom and put us under increasingly onerous rules.  Just look at Obamacare.  It's tentacles reach into nearly everything and if no one can recind it soon we'll be stuck with it permanently (or until it bankrupts the country). 

In our county, a local sheriff has said that he won't enforce any Federal laws put into place that violate our second amendment rights.  You should read the attacks on him by local liberals saying we have a lawless sheriff if he refuses to enforce any Federal gun control laws that might be passed in the future.  They should try reading their constitution instead of their progressive pablum!

Blessings,

Nancy

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H. L. Mencken

I don't live in Indiana, but I'm quite confident that most Hoosiers will never favor real nullification or rollback of federal power. They grumble, but deep down they like the system the way it is. Power-hungry politicians in D.C. and an unaccountable Supreme Court exist because most Americans would rather have that than the alternative.

...but I've met him. I don't think he'd be interested in sponsoring it...

Abram, I don't think that adding state requirements to what a federal legislator must do is the right approach (better for the state to act itself), but when we do have an appeal to make there's no virtue in refusing to contact our legislators and assuming they won't listen. We don't know when God may grant us favor with them; and also if they honor us with arguments against our proposal it can help us sharpen our own arguments by developing an answer to theirs.

Love,

I have a couple of different thoughts about nullification.  

First, I wish Jeb Bush had the courage of his convictions when it came to saving Terri Schiavo.  He knew he should step in, but instead of simply acting, he broadcast what he wanted to do as if he was daring the courts to tell him "no".  And, of course, they did so he had his "out", no need to act with courage or daring, taking a chance with his political career in order to save a life.  No, the courts had spoken and he was relieved of responsibility to act.

The second way states can act in a nullifying manner is to enforce the same regulations and licensure requirements for abortuaries as for hospitals and outpatient surgery centers.  One of only four "doctos" who performs late term abortions in the country, Leroy Carhart has NO admitting privileges anywhere in the country.  His patient instructions tell his late term abortion victims to call an emergency number which number also serves his wife's horse business! Story after story has shown us that not only do these centers not dispose of biohazardous waste (makes me sick) in a safe manner, but they also fail to meet basic hygiene standards. 

We'd go a long way toward nullification if we simply made the butchers act more like doctors and keep their facilities to a standard closer to heakthcare facilities tha abattoirs.  

*healthcare facilities than abattoirs.

Kamilla:

You almost read my mind on this one. In my (very) humble opinion, it makes sense to:

(1) Require doctors who perform any abortions at all have admitting privileges at least one hospital within a reasonable distance of the facility where they perform abortions.

(2) Require abortion centers to meet the same health and safety standards that outpatient surgery centers do. 

Considering what happens during abortions (even medical ones), this should seem like a no-brainer even for someone who is pro-choice. 

These laws would probably also be much easier for most people to understand than nullification, which is a pretty drastic step, and ones that people may be more inclined to support.

Readers here might be interested in this article from the Indianapolis Star last week:

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130226/NEWS05/302260067/Ind-Senate-cal...

The Indiana Senate has passed a resolution calling for a Constitutional Convention, to add language to the US Constitution addressing the abuse of the commerce clause, and to explicitly specify the Federal government's taxing authority. Now only 33 more states need to sign on...

Add new comment