7 votes

Nullification VS Secession - Nullification Is The "Rightful Remedy"

I think if more people realized that "NULLIFICATION" and or "VOIDING" any over-reaching federal power was both established in the Virginia Ratifying Conventions 1788 and actually practiced in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions by both the Author of the Constitution and Author of the Declaration of Independence, They would have more cause to understand the validity, simplicity and ease of the process.

A judge (state or county), local county commission or state legislature simply writes it's reasons for nullification and refuses to enact the federal imposition or "law".

(This is in fact established as a DUTY of all state and local judges and legislatures / commissions i.e all well regulated communities - SEE BELOW)

If the federal government attempts to impose, The state or local government engages the police and national guard or deputizes it's CITIZEN MILITIA to enforce their OWN laws.

Virginia Ratifying Convention, 6-16-1788:

Defining the meaning of the Constitution:

Mr. PENDLETON. "Mr. Chairman, this clause ("Supremacy Clause" i.e. "Sweeping Clause") does "NOT" give Congress power to impede the operation of ANY PART of the Constitution, (N)OR to make >>>"ANY REGULATION" that may affect the interests of the citizens of the "Union at large".

(Stop and give that last sentence some serious thought)

George Nicholas: "...But, says he, WHO is to determine the extent of such powers? I say, the same power which, in >>>ALL WELL-REGULATED COMMUNITIES (i.e. includes counties - Judicial and Commissions), DETERMINES the "EXTENT" of (Federal or State) "legislative" powers. >>>If they exceed these powers, the "JUDICIARY" will DECLARE it "VOID", or else "the PEOPLE" will have a "RIGHT" to "DECLARE" it "VOID"."

It all has to do with "CONSENT".

The States and Communities have a second right, the right to resist force with force.

Mr. JOHN MARSHALL: "...The state governments DID NOT derive their powers from the general government; but each government derived its powers from the people, and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication. Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the states, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The state legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away.

For Continental purposes Congress may call forth the militia, as to suppress insurrections and "repel invasions". But the power given to the states by the people is "NOT taken away"; for the Constitution does NOT say so. ...All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is NOT included in the restrictions in that section. But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." When invaded, they "CAN" engage in war, as also when in "imminent danger"."

James Madison: "...There is a powerful check in that paper. The STATE governments are to govern the militia when not called forth for general national purposes; and Congress is to govern such part ONLY as may be in the actual service of the Union. Nothing can be more certain and positive than this. It expressly empowers Congress to govern them when in the service of the United States. It is, then, "clear" that the STATES govern them "when they are not"."

When referring to the federal legislature, James Madison states this very clearly:

"...The states may make what stipulation they please in it, and, if they apprehend "ANY" danger, they may REFUSE it ALTOGETHER."

See Ratifying Convention Day in full: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter


Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, 1798:

James Madison, Author of the Constitution:

"...That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the "plain sense and intention" of the instrument constituting the "COMPACT" (i.e. ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION); as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants "enumerated" in THAT COMPACT;

>>>>>and that in case of a "deliberate", "palpable", and "dangerous exercise" of "OTHER" powers, not granted by the said "COMPACT",

the "STATES" who are parties thereto, have "the RIGHT", and are in >>>>>"DUTY BOUND", to INTERPOSE for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective LIMITS, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them..."

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798:

8th:"...that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States;

and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently "unlimited powers" in "NO MAN", or >>>>"BODY OF MEN ON EARTH": that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the "constitutional" remedy;

"BUT", where powers are assumed which have NOT been delegated, a NULLIFICATION of the act is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY:

>>>that EVERY "STATE" has a "natural right" in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to "NULLIFY" of THEIR >>>"OWN AUTHORITY" "ALL" assumptions of power by others WITHIN their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:..."

In 1798, the Virginia (Only a half page long) and Kentucky Resolutions (only a page and a half), was established and agreed to by their state legislatures as well as all but one of states; and the "Alien and Sedition Acts" attempted to be imposed upon the states, and which was an UNDELEGATED ARROGATED Federal power NOT granted in the Original Constitution;

Was simply NULLIFIED; Which is the RIGHTFUL REMEDY.


IMPORTANT NOTE: That the "Ratifying and Amendment process" is not authorized by the Constitution as a means (for the federal "OR STATE" governments) to Arrogate New Powers upon the Federal Government outside the VERY LIMITED DELEGATED powers, in fact, it is EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from taking "EVEN ONE STEP" outside the DELEGATED powers;

See the Virginia Ratifying Convention (link above) that presents this clearly. As Well as the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 10 years after the Constitution Reaffirming this Fact.

American Patriot Party


"LIKE" us on Facebook:

"FOLLOW" us on Twitter:

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Oh, and the marijuana

debate / issue will be interesting.

What will the feds do when it is legal in some states? :

1. We know they wanna kick some *ss here, but will they? Perhaps not, as people who are allowed to numb themselves with more substances (nothing against weed, either... I have certainly smoked my share!) will be more easily pacified, having been lulled into the belief that since now that we can smoke out, we must be headed towards greater freedom overall (WRONG!).

2. Or will they still want to bust people, as having an "IN" into dissidents' lives / excuse to bust 'em is always good--many dissidents are free thinkers who smoke out. So it is an ideal weapon for the feds to keep people down. And RICO laws, too. Who knows?

But anyway, the Mary Jane state v. federal government issue is a PERFECT arena in which to further the nullification cause and make it better known to the masses... and perhaps more socially "acceptable" than the succession move (which people equate with racist, lazy, rich, slave-owning white elites in the South, etc. etc. etc.--I mean, we have a black president now [*cough* puppet], so succession will never get the support needed and will be seen as a pariah and will be spun into "angry white people hating on a black president", or some such. Which is, sadly, at least partially true. (History can't be entirely undone.)

Strategy is required. Nullification is IT, baby!

Just a thought.

What would the Founders do?


I had a discussion on the old Campaign for Liberty.com site a couple of years ago with one of their writers who advocated legalizing "drugs" and ending the war on drugs.

You brought up one of the many points that I had brought up which indicated that legalizing drugs just "isn't that easy";

I will try to post many of those discussions on our new web site when finished at http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

It is a state issue, not a federal issue within or between states;
State('s - joint operations)& local citizen militia issue, not a federally controlled National Guard issue;

It is a State police issue within the state, not a military policing issue. Militias (singular or in joint operation) CAN be used to stop "smuggling" (James Madison - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788: "...would this be denied?" i.e. it wouldn't be denied; Madison also gave a reference of a occurrence to back up his point.)

The issue of a standing army requires a declaration of war; They cannot be used as "police"; Another issue of proper definitions.

The Constitution allows the federal government to define and prosecute only 4 crimes; and cannot govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington, DC (See the Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788 see link this page).

One of the issues I brought up, was that you could make the federal government end its war on drugs; BUT you cannot force the "states" by federal law to end their war on drugs; Which if given to the states and local communities where it belongs, aside from possibly of marijuana, the states and local communities would probably not change the laws much.

(Here I had brought up the issue of the need to define what was a drug and what was a poison. As the definition is important in law - addictive mind altering drugs you simply will never legalize without other issues arising which I will summarize below)

The next problem is the attempt to make the federal government make a "federal law" that "forces the states" to legalize drugs; which is both unconstitutional as it is outside the federal authority of the constitutional compact;

Now the broader problem, if you legalize "drugs" (undefined) in the United States without forcing legalizing drugs all over the world, you will simply create a smuggling cartel(s) situation here in the states (like Columbia) to supply countries where drugs are still illegal...

Not a good thing...

Nor is Taxing drugs a solution (as some propose) Taxing drugs is not legalizing drugs, it simply grants "exclusive privileges" to the producers (like oil) and the money derived from taxes feeds larger government, regulations and dependency on the bureaucracy built upon it. It does just the opposite of what they propose;


"AND" such taxation EMPOWER CORPORATIONS, UNIONS and SPECIAL INTERESTS (i.e State born exclusive privileges of cartel) by expanding government union and corporate contracts and dependency on the unlimited flow of money to government;

Such exclusive privileges should not exist in a free country as was warned by the founders; As when they do, free trade becomes "privileged trade" and freedom of contract becomes "privileged contracts";

The video on another post proposing drug legalization, attempted to say that the unemployment and degradation of communities in the US was a drug "caused" issue; This is far fetched;

More likely these communities fall into ruin when government regulations, zoning laws and the allowance of exclusive privileged entities mentioned above, stifle true free trade;

In the video, one can ask if you see vendors in the streets they show? Of course not; because it is against ZONING REGULATIONS that prevent it, and grant EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES to those in "COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS";

Drugs are more an an after effect of government restraint (on honest constructive trades), no hope and idle hands.

So, drug laws are bound to remain; but smaller states (republics) will reflect more accurately the will of local societies to define how they want their society to be.

See our 2008 News Letter on the APP site "Republics and Representation" http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter... which covers the smaller states and representation issue.

There are more points, but I will have to wait till I post the old article on the APP web site.

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.


There is a wealth of information here.

Interesting indeed. I'll check out your links.

What would the Founders do?

Great book =

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

THANKS FOR THIS POST! It's our last chance.

What would the Founders do?

So if...

King Hussein calls up the National Guard for 'Overseas Operations' without a declaration of war from Congress, then the Governors can just say 'No'?

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"- Homer Simpson


That is how the Constitution was written to mean; and it can be read by anyone who cares to read the Documents. Start with the Virgina Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788

If you have a governor willing to test the federal government as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in fact did.

Eventually, the federal government is going to have to be stopped, now, 1 year from now...4 years..?; Just as the British government had to be eventually stopped; They have long been outside their intended delegated powers, which means they are acting "outside their authority" under the "pretense" of authority; which common criminals are guilty of;

You may enjoy reading the end of Samuel Adams Absolute Rights of the Colonists where he says:


Samuel Adams: "....Now what liberty can there be, where property is taken away without "consent"? Can it be said with any colour of truth and Justice, that this Continent of three thousand miles in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which however, its supposed, there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote or influence in the decisions of the British Parliament? Have they, all together, any more right or power to return a single member to that house of commons, who have not inadvertently, but deliberately assumed a power to dispose of their lives,8 Liberties and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China! Had the Colonists a right to return members to the british parliament, it would only be hurtfull; as from their local situation and circumstances it is impossible they should be ever truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country in all probability in a few years will be more numerous, than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected [Volume 5, Page 397] by the promoters of the present measures, that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy while their property, shall be disposed of by a house of commons at three thousand miles distant from them; and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest: Who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it; as every burden they lay on the colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto many of the Colonists have been free from Quit Rents; but if the breath of a british house of commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt.

>>>The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels, only for complaining of their grievances; >>>How long such treatment will, or "ought to be born is submitted". "

Written in 1772, just 4 years before the revolution...

History repeats itself...

Also review post below.

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Then it is obvious

We must get to every party and every movement and scream 'Nullification' from every mountain top until we break the grip and the back of the usurper. (Sorry, I've read so much 240 year old text lately that I'm starting to talk that way.) But seriously, We need to make Nullification as big a deal as possible. It seems to be the only viable way to fight back since all this secession talk has got their attention but really means nothing.

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"- Homer Simpson

That is about it; Just Think about This Danger of Secession.

It is the STATES that are allowing this corruption to occur, and now people want to put their full trust in their states???

Our country has been made ignorant by lack of education in our schools, and our states selling themselves to dependency.

I would say the counties need to claim statehood to wrest themselves from the corruption of their state capitols first, before ever thinking of secession.

Review Republics and Representation: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/americanpatriotpartynewsletter...

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Even Jefferson Would Support Seccession

It doesn't appear that Thomas Jefferson would take an "either or" approach. Nullification wouldn't replace the option to succeed, rather it would be the first step before succession:

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts):

"Jefferson and James Madison also secretly drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions denouncing the federal legislation, though state legislatures rejected these resolutions.[25][26][27] Though the resolutions followed the "interposition" approach of James Madison, Jefferson advocated nullification and at one point drafted a threat for Kentucky to secede.[28] Jefferson's biographer Dumas Malone argued that this might have gotten Jefferson impeached for treason, had his actions become known at the time."

True, Not Either Or; But One Before The Other, THEN.

Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution actually present eloquently, as was often done in "duels" of the time, an "ultimatum".

Here is something many people miss in reading these resolutions:

"...that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, "NECESSARILY" drive these States into >>>>>>"REVOLUTION and BLOOD" and will furnish "NEW calumnies" against "REPUBLICAN" government, (APP: that is a clear threat)

and new "pretexts" (APP: think about this statement as well) for "THOSE" who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a >>>"DANGEROUS DELUSION" (APP: Another Threat) were a confidence in the "men of our choice to silence our fears" for the safety of our rights: that CONFIDENCE is everywhere the parent of DESPOTISM — free government is founded in JEALOUSY, and NOT in CONFIDENCE; it is JEALOUSY and not confidence which prescribes LIMITED constitutions, to "BIND DOWN" those whom we are obliged to trust with power:

that our Constitution has accordingly "FIXED the LIMITS" to which, and >>>"NO FURTHER", our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in "FIXING LIMITS" to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, >>>>if it be not a "TYRANNY", which the men of our choice have "CON ERRED" on our President, and the President of our choice has "assented to", and accepted over the friendly stranger to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicion of the President, than the solid right of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but BIND him down from mischief by the CHAINS of the Constitution. "


So Thomas Jefferson was clearly drawing a line; But it was done first through a Declaration of Nullification; The end result was that the Alien and Sedition Acts WENT AWAY because of the Resolutions:

If they had not, whether or not the state legislatures agreed, the people would have revolted and there would have eventually been war;

All but one state at that time agreed that the Constitution was a LIMITED COMPACT; And this is proven by reading both the Resolutions; But more importantly the "Ratifying Conventions - see 6-16-1788" which define the meaning of the words in the Constitution under which it was understood at the time it was agreed to; The Resolutions simply reaffirmed the Ratifying Conventions.

I have read a number of Wikipedia articles; They do their best to downplay important principles and foundations of freedom; If one looks at many of the so called Wiki "editors"; They are European, or liberal, and their edits lean toward socialism. Read the documents themselves, and there is no question as to what they meant.

One only has to read the Absolute Rights of the Colonists 1772: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Rights_of_t... and John Locke: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Locke_Civil... to see that these principles of COMPACTS; and as John Locke presents in his treatise on Civil Government, when Governments "dissolve themselves" (see Locke #220 Dissolution of Government) BY NOT ABIDING by the government (TERMS) of which everyone at FIRST CONSENTED TO...i.e. THE ORIGINAL COMPACT.

At the end of the Wikipedia article, the attempt to make you believe that James Madison was against Nullification, but if you read his letter, there is much more to it than that: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mjmtext:@field(DOCID+@lit(jm090163))

And Note that this is in 1834, 36 years after the Kentucky Resolutions was presented. Madison clearly however points at the Federal government, that it must stay within the limits allowed it:

"..."The only distinctive effect, between the two modes of forming a Constitution by the authority of the people, is that if formed by them as imbodied into separate communities, as in the case of the Constitution of the U. S. a DISSOLUTION of the Constitutional COMPACT would replace them in the condition of "separate communities", that being the Condition in WHICH THEY ENTERED into the COMPACT; whereas if formed by the people as one community (Which we did not), acting as such by a numerical majority, a dissolution of the compact would reduce them to a state of nature, as so many individual persons. But whilst the Constitutional COMPACT remains undissolved, it >>>>>>>"MUST" be executed "according to the forms and provisions" >>>>>>>SPECIFIED in the COMPACT. It must not be forgotten, that COMPACT, express or implied is the vital principle of free Governments as contradistinguished from Governments not free; and that a revolt against "this principle" leaves no choice but between anarchy and despotism."-- Mad. MSS.] "

When the federal government fails to stay within it's DELEGATED LIMITS, it becomes a Despotic government and dissolves it's own authority; and as John Locke presents:

(In Full) http://www.pacificwestcom.com/oregonpatriotparty/Locke_Civil...

Locke: "202. Wherever law ends, tyranny begins, if the law be transgressed to another's harm; and whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command to compass that upon the subject which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority may be opposed, as any other man who by force invades the right of another...."

Locke 232. Whosoever uses force without right -- as every one does in society who does it without law -- puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.

American Patriot Party.CC

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Very Nice!

Such a good post there, I am happy to have read it.
Thanks for responding.