In 1776, Thomas Jefferson penned one of the greatest documents of freedom of all time, the Declaration of Independence. He states in that document that, “...whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” The American Colonies believed that their unalienable rights were being infringed upon and their original system of government was being deteriorated. Jefferson once again wrote about injustice that he saw in the new American Republic in 1798. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, and were a response to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson wrote, “whenever the [federal] government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force… each [state] has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as the mode and measure of redress.” Thomas Jefferson recognized the breach in constitutional boundaries that the unconstitutional acts created and called nullification the “rightful remedy” for resisting federal tyranny. One way that states can fight an unconstitutional or illegal federal law is through nullification. As defined by the 1794 edition of the Royal Standard English Dictionary, null is defined as “something of no power or meaning” and to nullify is “to make void.”
Frederic Bastiat stated that, “the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning… Justice is only achieved when injustice is absent.” When the those in government, commit Political Disobedience, which can be defined as disobedience by policy, it is our obligation to civilly disobey that Political Disobedience. The purpose of the Constitution is to provide boundaries, so when the governors break those boundaries by committing Political Disobedience, they are creating injustice by violating the Constitution. Therefore, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, it is our obligation to disobey it.
The states did not agree to a system of government in which they would submit without protest. The states established a constitutional government with limited powers, most of which were reserved to themselves. As said by Thomas E. Woods, New York Times Bestselling Author, “The federal government, which the states themselves created, cannot hold a monopoly on constitutional interpretation and cannot decide for itself what the extent of its powers are. That would mean the people were governed by mere discretion of their rulers rather than by the Constitution.” Virginia Legislator John Taylor said while proposing the Resolutions to the Virginia legislature that the states do not “hold their constitutional rights by the courtesy of Congress…. Congress is the creature of the States and of the people; but neither the States nor the people are creatures of Congress. It would be evidently absurd, that the creature [Congress] should exclusively construe the instrument of its own existence [the Constitution].” Congress, nor any branch of government can interpret what it’s own controls are. The sovereign states created the federal government to govern Constitutionally, and when they don’t they are trying to overthrow their own creator. Because the creature can never overthrow the creator, nullification of an unconstitutional law is justified.
In 2010, the Wyoming house passed House Bill 95, the Firearms Freedom Act. The bill states,”that specified firearms that are manufactured, sold, purchased, possessed and used exclusively within Wyoming shall be exempt from federal regulation, including registration requirements.” This law not only declares federal gun regulation null and void, but it creates a penalty for “Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Wyoming and that remains exclusively within the borders of Wyoming shall be guilty of a felony.” “As the Framers of the Constitution intended, these matters properly belong to the states and the people, not the federal government.” Wyoming is nullifying federal law because it is unconstitutional.
Wyoming is not the only state nullifying federal law. In a 2013 analysis, the Associated Press concluded that “⅘ of states now have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses.” The principle of nullification applies to almost every state, including the District of Columbia.
Twenty- six states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and 7 states and D.C. have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes, which is a direct offense to the Controlled Substances Act. Kansas House Bill 2610 declares, “The legislature of the state of Kansas declares that this act is pursuant to the police power of the state to protect the health of its citizens that is reserved to the state of Kansas and its people under the 10th amendment to the United States Constitution.” New York’s Assembly Bill A09016 and Senate Bill S4041B state, “This legislation is an appropriate exercise of the state’s legislative power to protect the health of its people under article 17 of the state constitution and the tenth amendment to the United States Constitution.” The federal government raided medical marijuana patients and dispensaries and the Supreme Court ruled against the states, yet use of marijuana still continues. Just last election cycle, a proposition was on the ballot to not only make marijuana legal for medical purposes in Arizona, but also for recreational purposes. The constitutional struggle to retain the control that they were granted by the Constitution of the United States.
Heritage Academy, a charter school in Mesa, Arizona does not receive and funding directly from the federal government. The only federal funds that Heritage receives is through the State of Arizona. In the charter for Heritage Academy, it states that to keep its charter, the school has to follow all laws put forth by the state regulating education. The only federal funding that Heritage receives is through the State of Arizona. Because of this, Heritage is not subject to follow laws such as free and reduced lunches or federal common core. Upon talking to Principal Earl Taylor, I discovered that the reason that Heritage Academy refuses federal funds directly from the federal government is because Principal Taylor believes that the Board of Education is unconstitutional. Mr. Taylor is nullifying federal regulation because it is unconstitutional.
Twenty- four states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. This law was scheduled to take effect in December of 2008, but because of state opposition, it did not take effect until January of 2013. Thomas Jefferson asked, “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Pushback from the people, or the states, keeps the federal government within their boundaries. The REAL ID Act proves as an excellent example of how nullification can work. The resistance is so fierce that Washington gives up for a while and comes back with less regulations to appease the states.
The great philosopher John Locke stated, “Whenever the [governors] endeavor to reduce [the people] to slavery under arbitrary power they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are there upon absolved from any further obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.” When the governors create an unconstitutional law, they are not following the system as prescribed by the Constitution. If we submit to this unconstitutional law, then we are accomplice to a new system; monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, or ochlocracy. Therefore we have just decided to make the Constitution have “no power or meaning,” which in essence would be nullifying the Constitution. It is of greater value to nullify an unconstitutional law than to allow that unconstitutional law to nullify the Constitution by our consent.
Comments
Post a Comment