Declaration of Nullification

0 votes

We the People of the great state of OKLAHOMA hold these truths to be evident from our constitutional contract with the United States of America that the states of that union are as sovereign as foreign states and that they give up only so much of their sovereignty so as to allow for the execution of those powers enumerated and assigned to the federal government in the Constitution. Further, we hold that the United States Constitution represents our people's consent to be governed in any measure beyond that which is contained in our own constitution and the consent of the several states to allow the United States to act for them on the issues of national defense, foreign policy, foreign trade and interstate commerce. Moreover, we hold that when these consents are breached, as they have been by all three branches of the federal government, that each breach is an act of tyranny upon We the People and breach of contract upon the several states. These abuses stretch back to the beginning of the previous century and are evidence of the federal government's long-standing design to reduce the federalist system, consented to in the Constitution, to one of despotic central government rule. Such a government was not envisioned by the founders or by the states that ratified the Constitution or by the states that joined the union since, and such a government is wholly detrimental to the people's liberty and to the sovereignty of states.
 
To prove these assertions of the federal government's intent towards despotism, let the following facts be submitted to a candid world.
 
It has often refused to allow the states to govern themselves as necessary for the local public good.
 
It has passed legislation designed specifically to bribe, blackmail, and coerce the states into compliance with its unfunded mandates.
 
It has refused to pass legislation to provide for the common defense along the borders of the Republic while forbidding the border state governors from defending their states from a flood of illegal immigration, and it has required those states to bear a disproportionate burden of the financial expenses which inevitably accompany the migration of an entire population.
 
It has refused to pass reasonable and proportionate immigration legislation to accommodate both those wishing to migrate to the United States and the states that need that productive immigration to sustain their population.
 
It has called for legislation to be debated and voted upon during inconvenient times so as to require the perpetual stationing of the states representatives to the national capital and to limit the public's awareness of its activities.
 
It has obstructed the administration of justice by allowing its judiciary to grant itself the extra-constitutional power to judicially construct that which was clearly and unequivocally left to the states under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
 
It has erected a multitude of new offices and bureaucracies to which legislative authority has been delegated, in direct violation of Article I Section 1 of the Constitution, the effect of which has been the harassment of the people, the depletion of the public monies and the wholesale infringement upon individual liberty and state sovereignty as the people and the states attempt to comply with more rules and regulations that can be known by the common person.
 
It has given monies from the treasury, intended for the general Welfare of the Federal Government, not for the individual welfare of its citizens or foreign states, both to foreign governments--to curry favor and engage in entangling alliances--and to individual citizens and special interests groups to buy votes as well as ill-gotten political influence.
 
It has kept at our expense, and to the detriment of full provision of our own National Guard, in times when war was not declared, standing armies, and delegated to the executive the power to declare war through aggressive foreign policy actions committed in direct violation of Article I Section 8.
 
It has combined with foreign states to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
 
For placing our armed forces under the command of foreign officers; subject to foreign military jurisdictions not in accordance with the Constitution or the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
 
For quartering and training large bodies of foreign troops in our states and territories at the expense of our treasury under the guise of foreign aid.
 
For granting law enforcement jurisdiction to foreign police authorities for the purpose of arrest and detention of our citizens, thereby making the people subject to the judicial powers of foreign states and entities rather than of their own states and of their own constitutions and the Constitution of the United States.
 
For cutting off our trade, under its sole discretion, to all parts of the world.
 
For preventing the free market growth of commerce, trade or industry, to the detriment of our state's economy under the guise of radical environmentalism, and for the purpose of controlling our prosperity and production rather than merely making it regular among the several states.
 
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.
 
For declaring in themselves the power to legislate for us in direct contrivance to the 10th Amendment.
 
It has waged a de facto war upon our prosperity and that of our posterity by levying direct taxation upon the labor of our citizens and empowering its bureaucracies to harass and imprison those unwilling to comply with the legalized theft levied against them or to incriminate themselves in direct violation of the 5th Amendment.
 
It has stolen the wealth of the entire population by seizing our gold and silver and replacing the same with a worthless paper currency that is manipulated at the whim of private bankers not accountable to the people in the manner that Congress alone is accountable under Article I Section 8.
 
In so doing, It has turned our states into criminal enterprises by making them unable to comply with the directives of Article I Section 10, which require that all state transactions be conducted in only gold or silver currency and that states make only gold and silver a legal tender in payment of debts.
 
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress through the political process, only to have those petitions answered by the repeated injury of the tyranny of the majority inconsistent with the republican government promised to all states in Article IV section 4 of the Constitution. A central government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyranny, is unfit to govern a free republic.
 
We, therefore, the duly elected legislators of the State of Oklahoma, sitting in general assembly and on behalf of the people of Oklahoma under the eyes of God, declare our sovereign right to nullify any and all federal legislation which breaches our contract with the United States. This authority to act in defense of our citizens and our sovereignty extends to the Governor of Oklahoma and to the Sheriffs of each county to use any and all appropriate means to protect our citizens from the legislative enforcement efforts of the federal government henceforth deemed by this body to be in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States.
 
 
"The above is provided for your use to debate and discuss the issue of nullification and hopefully institute some form thereof in our/your state. This declaration was modeled on the Declaration of Independence and the author of this declaration, RJ Harris, acknowledges credit to the authors of the Declaration of Independence and that so much of what they had to say permeates this declaration that individual citations would be tiresome and redundant to the readers. The preceding titled Declaration of Nullification is a sample Declaration of Nullification. This is not an actual piece of legislation from ANY state...yet. The point of this declaration is to spark discussion on this issue in all of the state legislatures around the country. The idea is also to issue declarations like these directly to the federal government and not merely be offered as state wide legislation that never leaves the state. Due process requires notice and this declaration provides exactly the due process necessary to move forward on more aggressive statewide legislation. If all this article does is inspire those in position to act then it has achieved its purpose.”
 
About RJ Harris:

RJ Harris is a currently serving nineteen-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer, two-time Iraq War Veteran and U.S. Congressional Candidate for Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District. He is a University of Oklahoma graduate in Philosophy and a second year law student at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. RJ is a Constitutional Conservative Republican and Liberty Candidate. He has appeared on Fox News' Freedom Watch twice with Judge Andrew Napolitano and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio programs across the country. www.rjharris2010.com

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well said

Very well said
We just have to all keep the faith that one day there will be real justice done. Its coming, its inevitable.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

Remarkable

work imo! As I was reading it I thought of states holding constitutional conventions where a document along the lines of this would be submitted.

No oath necessary, let your yea mean yea.

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.

THE Declaration of Independance &

THE personal rights not forwarded within the Bill of Rights are still in effect ..These article documents are still law..You need to assert your Right.
Don't give up Jurisdiction ..They have NO case for forcing anything.

Precisely!

That is why all of us need to learn about Articles of Freedom and sign the pledge.

It is our last chance to reclaim our republic and sovereignty!

Wouldn't it just be simpler...

to modify the Oathkeepers pledge and refuse to obey ANY law that violates the US Constitution, by passive resistance, but not rule out self-defense? Get ten or 20 million signatures on such an oath and ANY government would take pause to act.

Agreed, this deserves a bump...

by its own merit!

But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers

There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer

Sure does, and I wish more

Sure does, and I wish more states could see the benefit for its people here, instead of acceptance of federal funds..

I like it

Ron Paul says we could just ignore the feds. Maybe that would be better than taking them head on.

This seems to me our best

This seems to me our best course of action. Don't sue them. Don't fight them. Don't argue with them. Don't petition them. Don't beg them. Don't threaten them. Don't run against them. Just... don't obey them.

Freelance copywriter/editor who gets the "freedom message"!
Visit: http://www.DavidBardallis.com

Bump

for discussion

What if...

What if there is even just ONE person who lives in Oklahoma who doesn't agree with you and the lengthy statement above?

Will you force your rules upon them and govern them as you wish, or will they have their liberty?

I fail to see

where the tome above imposes any restrictions or obligations on any person in Oklahoma. As I read it, it strictly limits the authority of the US government. How would that violate the liberty of a person?

Without reading the entirety

Without reading the entirety above I can understand your question and also offer a response.

Our entire system of government was designed in order to assure individuals their liberty. This is done in part via State rights and the rights of the individual to choose the State in which they reside.

The whole point was to make States compete with each other for the support of The People. Let the best States win. Preferably, the result would be States with many differences where people can pick and choose what works best for themselves.

...

The problem arises when that one person's liberty isn't assured

When any government violates the liberty of even one person that government is not serving the purpose which claims to exist for.

In order to believe that government can protect liberty one must either ignore what liberty is or be ignorant to what liberty is.

Liberty is freedom. Any entity which claims for itself the moral 'right' to deny anyone their liberty for any reason stands in the way of liberty.

You Write:

"When any government violates the liberty of even one person that government is not serving the purpose which claims to exist for."

Setting aside the fact that not all governments have claimed (or currently do claim) to exist for that expressed purpose, we would pretty much agree... other than one other difference expressed below.

You continue: "In order to believe that government can protect liberty one must either ignore what liberty is or be ignorant to what liberty is."

That is the problem I'm having understanding where you are going with this. Do you and I have a different definition of 'Liberty'? In my understanding (and obviously in yours as well), a person's liberty cannot only be violated by established governments, but also by non-governmental entities and other individuals. And the rightful role of established government is to guard against the infringements of Liberty by these other forces. Furthermore, the Constitution was intended as a means to obligate the government to the people in regards to liberty, and set roadblocks in the way to prevent usurpation by the central government. Which leads me to this...

You write: "Liberty is freedom. Any entity which claims for itself the moral 'right' to deny anyone their liberty for any reason stands in the way of liberty."

For ANY reason?? But Liberty is not complete unbridled freedom in my book. It has its limitations that I'm quite certain you and I would agree upon. Simply and specifically, my Liberty ends where another person's liberty begins. Or, to put it another way, I am free to do anything that does not directly infringe upon the freedom of others. And in an ideal system, the government would exercises its authority to deny liberty (to a reasonable extent) to those entities and individuals who violate the liberty of others. Pie in the sky perhaps... but an ideal that we can strive for, closer and closer. A sort of 'two steps forward and one step back' over time thing, I suppose.

So the question becomes: How is liberty, so defined, protected? I'm sure it is as evident to you as it is to me that Liberty requires defenses.... it is being violated all the time. And the idea that government's role in all this needs to kept in check by the governed is the whole point of the 'R3volution', in my opinion. It is a movement to bring government back to its proper role, rather than a violator of the very thing it ought to be defending. But if that idea (that government ought to protect liberty) requires me to ignore or misunderstand liberty, then I must be missing something in this 'R3volution'.. and I'd very much like to know what that something is.

I hope I have treated your post fairly. If not, then it was an unintended misunderstanding, I can assure you.

An interesting post deserves an interesting response.

Tell me, do these words ring a bell with you?
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.

I'm sure they do. And you, based on your post it would seem, seem to mostly understand what liberty really is. That said...

I do, in fact, have the liberty to violate any of what you believe your rights to be. Now before you get too upset, allow me to further explain my position. While I do possess the liberty of being able to violate your rights, you enjoy the liberty to defend those rights. In our current paradigm there happens to be a third party that interjects itself by force into that relationship between us. That third party is government. That third party dictates what punitive action it will take against me should I violate any of your or its declared rights. Also, and almost more importantly, that same government declares what it will do to you punitively for defending yourself if you do so not in accordance with it's dictates.

For example...lets assume I'm a mugger and you're my victim. I stop you, demand your valuables and threaten you with a gun. You, being the 'law abiding' citizen that you are, have no weapon with which to defend yourself. Your choices are a)give me your valuables willingly or b)get shot, and I take your valuables anyway. Not much of a choice there, is there? Government, assuming that they're competent enough to determine my identity and capture me, subsuquently punishes me for what I've done. How has government defended you or your rights? They haven't. Furthermore, how has government made you whole for the violation of your rights that I subjected you to? They can't. And what's worse is that you have been forced to pay for this lack of defense, forced to pay for the system that is not designed to either require or make restitution to you, and finally and most importantly, you're forced to pay for the very system that left you defenseless in the first place. Remember, government tells you how you, when, where, and with what you can defend yourself.

And that's just one example, one point of obvious failure in the statist paradigm that happens time and time and time again the world over on a daily basis. If government can't protect the very people it claims to exist to protect from even to most simple of crimes and actually victimizes everyone in the process of attempting to do so, how can it do anything but fail?

I'll leave you with that, as well as a parting quote and thought.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
When Ben Franklin said that, do you think he was glowing with admiration for those who decided it'd be best to leave the dirty work of defending one's liberty to government?

As an aside, that quote is from the book 'A Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania' published in 1759

none is messing with you, R_Michael

He’s trying to be “interesting” by couching his argument in ambiguous terms (i.e. “liberty” has several possible meanings, and he uses it in two different senses.) His initial point is really as simple as “Men have free will to do good or ill.” He means that he has the CAPABILITY of violating your rights. He should NOT have implied that he has a moral RIGHT to do so.

The rest of his argument is quite good. I’m fond of moral arguments against government myself, but what none has presented here is a pragmatic argument, pointing out that government does a truly crappy job at the ONE task that even libertarians and minarchists agree constitutes a justification for the existence of a government: the protection of individual life, liberty and property. In fact, most of the things that government does in the name of “protection” are actually acts of aggression directed at the very people it claims to protect.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.larkenrose.com/store/34-books/2019-the-most-dange...

I'm back, and thanks

I've just been working 12-14hr days recently and haven't had a lot of time to post here. But this has and continues to be a very interesting post.

You're quite right in your assertion regarding my use of the word 'liberty' in my example above. Indeed, I would have absolutely NO moral right to violate the rights of anyone else, nor as I stated, would I wish to. I merely used the term to convey that I had the freedom to do so if I should choose such a poor course of action.

And thanks for pointing that out.

That figures

Oh well, it's not the first time I went jousting at windmills on here.
For what it's worth, I agree, government does a crappy job. But I am striving for an ideal in it. Perhaps a disclaimer like "Past performance is not an accurate predictor of future results" would be a comforting one for me to meditate on.

You're not jousting at windmills

I've just been very busy lately and haven't had the time to read & post as I normally do.

I'll be back later this evening to continue our discussion. I've enjoyed it so far.

Sorry, I've Been Busy

I recognize the words found in the Declaration of Independence. I can agree with what it says. In addition, I think I understand a particular defining point of Jefferson's most famous quote. Specifically, that although 'they are created equal' with respect to 'certain' things, they are not created equal with respect to every 'certain' thing. That is simply to say that although being human as a category bestows 'certain' (particular) points of equality in the very nature of that category (Jefferson offered three), being a particular human being carries with it a whole host of peculiar characteristics that can be compared to other particular human beings, and found wanting. For example, I get the unmistakable feeling that dabooda is probably smarter than I am (having read many of his posts). On the other hand, I'd like to think I am far better looking... something I am free to think since I've never met him. But the point here is that dabooda and I are equally human, but not equal in every aspect of our existence. In the world of individual men, some are stronger than others.
With that in mind, I want to focus on something you wrote for a moment: "While I do possess the liberty of being able to violate your rights, you enjoy the liberty to defend those rights." Please allow me to word things a bit different, just to keep my categories straight. As per the above Jefferson quote, if liberty is an 'unalienable right', then what you are essentially saying is that you posses the right to violate my rights. Now I'm not altogether clear that you would like how I put that, but I don't see any brake in what you write between liberty as an unalienable right, and the way you claim you have liberty (freedom) to violate my liberty. The only caveat you offer is that I am free to fight back. Okay, but the whole point of an unalienable right is that no entity has the rightful prerogative to prejudicial violate it. Certainly, rights can be violated. And I think that is basically your point, so I don't want to beat this over the head too much. But you go onto to write: "In our current paradigm there happens to be a third party that interjects itself by force into that relationship between us. That third party is government."
Well yes, but what we actually have in your example are two entities injecting themselves by force into an unjust relationship with me - the government and you. So how is it that government is the prime villain here? From my perspective, there are two of them.. and it could be that neither of them is more loving to my rights than the other. Then again, perhaps from my perspective that third party is coming to the aid of my individual rights, and putting you back in your place with regard to them. So what we have here is a situation where you maybe (by providential grace) stronger than me physically, or smarter, or better looking, or richer, or whatever, and you can use this strength against me (the weaker human) and abuse my humanity, no matter my weaker efforts to defend it. Furthermore, in my ideal view of government (clumsy and hard to achieve, no doubt) this third party stands as a bulwark to defend both of our unalienable rights. And it would do so quite apart from 100% consensus, 100% of the time. I rather doubt that the individual violator of my unalienable rights will consent to being put in his place. It would be like an armed robber stopping the police chase and announcing, "I now remove my consent to be governed, away with your laws!" And in such a case, it is not necessarily the government which has changed its behavior and become a rights violator, but the newly ordained criminal. Perhaps he consented to be governed before he took up knocking off 7 Elevens... but hey, a guys got a right to change his mind about his relative behavior (i.e. the freedom to violate my rights) and, apparently, his consent to be governed in the process. In your example, the most unjust entity I can be sure of is you. but you seem to think it is government. Whether it be an individual, or a consortium of them, tyranny happens. So how is it your tyranny in violating my rights is your right, while an arbitrary consortium called 'government' has no such right? I'm not altogether clear on that.

Thanks for the Response...

I'd actually like to analyze this a bit because there are a lot of interesting things in here. I can agree with some of what you write, while in other places I'm left with more questions before I could agree. Plus, there is at least one point that becomes a 'devil in the details' type issue.

But before I go into all that, a simple answer to a simple question may help me understand better.

Is any government, at any level, compatible with individual liberty? Can they ever exist side by side in harmony... or at least in a reasonable balance?

Thank You

I'm going to agree with dabooda below, and add a bit.

Government as it has existed throughout the ages that I've been able to research has never enjoyed the unanimous consent of the governed. Bear in mind that this unanimous consent would not just be consent to whom was in that government, but also for each decision that government made. So, it's rather unlikey that such a government could ever exist. But, if it were to exist that would certainly be one example of how it's possible for a government to be compatible with individual liberty.

The only other form of government which I could imagine would respect individual liberty wouldn't be a government in a traditional sense at all. It would be more like several businesses perhaps, competing in the free market for customers. They'd have no authority, legal or moral, to force anyone to purchase their services. If you can't say 'no thanks' and not participate in a system without a penalty, you're not free and your liberty isn't being protected.

There's a very good read on this subject called 'The Market for Liberty'. It's available at this link http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ towards the bottom of the page. It goes into some detail on how a free market for what are currently government functions could work, and while I don't think what's proposed within it is perfect, it's far better than being a slave.

I've enjoyed our conversation so far. Thanks.

A simple answer

Sure: a government which functions with the UNANIMOUS consent of the governed, and so long as any individual who agrees to be governed retains the option to terminate the arrangement. In this context, you might find Lysander Spooner's famous tract "NO TREASON" of interest. http://jim.com/treason.htm

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.larkenrose.com/store/34-books/2019-the-most-dange...