Arguments AGAINST State Nullification -- Feedback PleaseSubmitted by spacehabitats on Tue, 03/29/2011 - 14:46
Personally, I welcomed Tom Woods' book on nullification as a breath of fresh air. The concept of the states as sovereign entities having actual rights to contain an overarching federal government, is a perspective sorely lacking in contemporary political thought.
But I also acknowledge that there is such a thing as the right idea at the wrong time.
Is pushing for state nullification premature; a STRATEGIC mistake?
Do we have the numbers of people needed to defend a nullifying state against a federal attack?
If not, do we risk another setback to states' rights, setting another terrible precedent?
From the Freedom First Society's March newsletter:
Our objection has nothing to do with
whether states have the right to nullify
federal laws, propose a constitutional
amendment, or even call for a
constitutional convention. The issue
is whether those are the right things
to do. Unfortunately, the arguments
supporting any of those steps rely
on faulty assumptions regarding the
source of our problems.
Of course, the people have made
poor use of their power in allowing
the federal government to ignore
constitutional limits. Why? Because
they are constantly misled and
confused by the Conspiracy, which
dominates the media, the political
parties, and so much of education.
The American people don’t
understand the Conspiracy’s influence
and deceptions, and so they have sat by,
while the Conspiracy has centralized
power in Washington and weakened
the brilliant checks and balances
crafted into our constitutional system.
But a movement focused on state
nullification of federal laws would
leave the Conspiracy’s influence
intact. Even worse, consider:
• State nullification is a revolutionary
step that circumvents the principle
of federalism and sets the stage for a
severe federal reaction. Nullification
advocates either overlook, or do
not know, that the Conspiracy loves
faction and confrontation — and that
a state-nullified law might serve as a
pretext for dispatching federal troops
to enforce the law.
• Force of arms is not the only means
the federal government has to obtain
state compliance. In the past, the
federal government has threatened
to withhold highway, welfare, and
education funds from non-compliant
states. Would a nullifying state be
willing to forego those amenities?
And would the citizens continue to
pay federal taxes that support what
the state rejects? These are serious
complications that could lead to the
breakup of the Union, or despotic, or
violent confrontation. Wouldn’t the
enemy love that?
The states gave up a very important
check on federal power when they
were fooled by the Conspiracy
into ratifying the 17th Amendment
(providing for the direct election
of U.S. senators). Nevertheless, an
informed electorate still has the power
to restore good government through
the House of Representatives.
So let’s use the freedoms we
still enjoy and build that informed
electorate. Then we can return the
source of the bad federal laws —
Congress — to the side of freedom.
There is no easy way — we build
an informed electorate, or we live in a
What do you think?