Article VI Non-Pursuance vs Tenth Amendment Nullification

[GunnyFreedom]

I am no longer interested in Tenth Amendment Nullification, instead, I am working on Article 6 Nonpursuance.
(By popular demand)

We fail to achieve real nullification because we argue and articulate this wrong. Sure, it's "nullification" and it's based in the Tenth Amendment, but many of the forces on the left have succeeded in mischaracterizing nullification as arising from John C Calhoun when the most successful examples came out of the Free States preventing the re-enslavement of escaped slaves.

State nullification was used to fight slavery and segregation 10 times more than the proponents of slavery tried (and failed) to use it to preserve slavery, but because the opponents have managed to so deeply mischaracterize this Jeffersonian doctrine you can't make an inch of headway on the policy since it comes with so much false baggage.

Well, it turns out the exact same policy is described right inside of the Supremacy Clause itself. You don't need to reach out to the 10th Amendment for nullification, especially when nullification has been so desperately misconstrued. Right inside the Article 6 Supremacy Clause is a subclause describing only those laws in Pursuance to the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the land.

So I am saying we pivot away from the articulation of 10th Amendment Nullification and start talking about Article 6 Nonpursuance.

It sidesteps all the false baggage that has been hung onto the 10th Amendment and eliminates the primary objection. If you notice, whenever talking about nullification the first thing that the status quo statists (be they left or right) say, is "But the Article 6 Supremacy Clause says whatever Congress does is supreme!"

Of course, that is NOT what Article 6 says at all, but at that point they inevitably smugly decide they have won and refuse to even listen anymore. However, when you START with the Pursuance subclause to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause, they have no where to run to. The objection goes up in smoke, and you completely avoid all the baggage that the establishment has falsely attached to the word "Nullification."

So I suggest we start arguing for Article 6 Nonpursuance, and writing bills arguing from the pursuance subclause to the Article 6 Supremacy clause. In my experience you get a LOT further with both the left and the right than when you bring up "The N word."


But those making federal law will always claim they are "acting in pursuance of their constitutionally authorized powers".

Of course they will, but they are not the ones we have to turn. It's the average everyday Joe on the street we have to turn. Once the general electorate grasps the idea that federal laws that do not follow from the Constitution are not supreme, a great deal of Washington's leverage goes away. We have not been able to make progress on that so far because of the false baggage that Nullification has been painted with. You say "Nullification" and 65% of America immediately thinks slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the Confederacy. It doesn't matter that Nullification was most successfully used to keep former slaves free. That's the image that has been associated with it, and that's the way the voters are going to think about it.

Here's the thing, we want to get these bills passed out of State Legislatures and force the feds to back down from enforcing unconstitutional laws. The State Legislators are not going to pass laws that 65% of their constituents think are insane. Where you have 65% of the electorate thinking Tenth Amendment Nullification is insane, we may be able to get 70% of the electorate thinking Article 6 Nonpursuance is actually a pretty good idea. That's when you will see the States exploding with these bills left and right.

Just look at the condition of the electorate today. Most of them hate Obamacare but think the Affordable Care Act is great. If you want to impact policy, one of the things you have to look at is articulation. The left has poisoned the well for 10th Amendment Nullification by spreading lies about it until the lies have been accepted as truth. Fight fire with fire. Get people lined up behind Article 6 Nonpursuance and nobody has painted that with slavery or segregation. You make past the gatekeeper doors and start changing minds.

If the people overwhelmingly want "X," it's an awful lot easier to get a State Legislature to pass "X" into law.

[muzzled dogg]

i dunno man you say that when you mention nullification 65% of people think of slavery

i would argue that 65% of people don't know what nullification is, no matter how you define it

then you say we need to turn the average everyday Joe on the street onto article 6

rather than turning the average everyday Joe on the street onto article 6 why dont we just turn them on nullification?

[GunnyFreedom]

i dunno man you say that when you mention nullification 65% of people think of slavery

i would argue that 65% of people don't know what nullification is, no matter how you define it

then you say we need to turn the average everyday Joe on the street onto article 6

rather than turning the average everyday Joe on the street onto article 6 why dont we just turn them on nullification?

I have been on the street as an activist, door to door and face to face for seven solid years now arguing nullification. In the beginning, nobody knew what it was. Today nearly everybody has heard of it, and the vast majority of them snort in derision and ask me why I am trying to bring back Jim Crow, Republicans and Democrats alike.

It is not my experience at all that most people I run into have not heard of it. Most of them have, and think it's associated with segregation.

We've been pushing nullification now for a decade, and it's not gotten any traction at all. If you include JBS you can make that 4 decades. At some point, if you want to actually make policy into law, you have to stop, reassess, realize that what you are doing isn't working, and change tack to something that will.

[Origanalist]

Here's the thing, we want to get these bills passed out of State Legislatures and force the feds to back down from enforcing unconstitutional laws. The State Legislators are not going to pass laws that 65% of their constituents think are insane. Where you have 65% of the electorate thinking Tenth Amendment Nullification is insane, we may be able to get 70% of the electorate thinking Article 6 Nonpursuance is actually a pretty good idea. That's when you will see the States exploding with these bills left and right.

Ok, so legislatures pass a bill stating exactly what? That a federal law is void because it fails to be in in pursuance of congresses constitutionally authorized powers?

I'm merely trying to wrap my feeble mind around the difference between this and nullification.

[WM_in_MO]

We are finally making headway, and now it's time to change course?

[Origanalist]

It seems there would need to be some particular way of communicating this to ward off the same smear job Tenth Amendment nullification got.

[NewRightLibertarian]

We've been pushing nullification now for a decade, and it's not gotten any traction at all. If you include JBS you can make that 4 decades. At some point, if you want to actually make policy into law, you have to stop, reassess, realize that what you are doing isn't working, and change tack to something that will.

What are you talking about? There are more nullification bills now than ever and a lot of them have a good chance of passing.

[FrankRep]

Nullify ObamaCare has been massively successful.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Nullify ObamaCare has been massively successful.

Nullification (especially of Obamacare and gun control) seems like the best idea to rally libertarians and tea partiers around. Abandoning it now just when it's starting to take off would be absurd.

[GunnyFreedom]

We are finally making headway, and now it's time to change course?

How exactly are we making headway, and how exactly is this changing course?

[GunnyFreedom]

It seems there would need to be some particular way of communicating this to ward off the same smear job Tenth Amendment nullification got.

Well, it's the exact same thing without the vulnerability to the smear job. That's kinda the point. There never was a Southern Nonpursuance Crisis. Nonpursuance was never invoked by Calhoun.

I'm LOLing at even the people on this board not thinking it through. Did Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ever actually call it 'nullification?" And here we are hung up on a word. Not a policy, but a word, because the policy is exactly the same, we're just articulating it out of Article 6 instead of the 10th A. Why is that? Why are we so invested in a word at the expense of the actual policy, when simply adjusting a word has a better shot at actually affecting the policy?

[WM_in_MO]

How exactly are we making headway, and how exactly is this changing course?

Colorado, Washington, almost Missouri (on two bills), several other states have bills that could pass.

[GunnyFreedom]

What are you talking about? There are more nullification bills now than ever and a lot of them have a good chance of passing.

And where they have actually passed (Other than Colorado and Washington State -- who BY THE WAY did NOT call it 'Nullification' nor did they invoke the 10th Amendment) has any of the bills that have passed actually affected policy at all?

[GunnyFreedom]

Colorado, Washington, almost Missouri (on two bills), several other states have bills that could pass.

And just as I am suggesting, Colorado and Washington, the two states where this has actually affected policy and made an actual difference in the lives of people, you will note they neither call it nullification nor do they invoke the 10th.

[GunnyFreedom]

Nullification (especially of Obamacare and gun control) seems like the best idea to rally libertarians and tea partiers around. Abandoning it now just when it's starting to take off would be absurd.

I am still LOLing at people who think this is an abandonment of the policy. :D Boy, if this has YOU GUYS fooled, imagine what it'll do to the average voter?

[GunnyFreedom]

Nullify ObamaCare has been massively successful.

Even where 10th A bills concerning the PPACA have passed, other than -- I think Ohio? (where they passed a Constitutional Amendment that {again!} neither mentions the word "Nullification" nor the "Tenth Amendment") where has it actually changed the policy on the ground? The point being that everywhere this policy has been enacted in a way that actually changes peoples lives, they call it something else other than 'nullification' and use a different justification than the 10th A.

So I have to ask, what do we care about more, a word, or the actual policy that actually changes things?

[GunnyFreedom]

Everywhere this policy has affected the people on the ground, it was not called "nullification" nor was the Tenth Amendment invoked. Everywhere a Tenth Amendment based bill actually called "Nullification" has been passed, it has not affected the lives of the citizens of that State.

Colorado and Washington State MJ legalization, the never called it nullification, they never invoked the Tenth. Ohio Obamacare, a Constitutional amendment. The do not call it nullification, they did not invoke the 10th.

Montana Firearms Freedom, the first of the nullification bills passed -- 2009; they called it nullification and based it on the Tenth. You still cannot buy a Montana Freedom Firearm.

If what I am saying is true, we have to ask ourselves whether we care more about the actual policy and making a difference on the ground, or whether we care more about a word.

[EBounding]

Even where 10th A bills concerning the PPACA have passed, other than -- I think Ohio? (where they passed a Constitutional Amendment that {again!} neither mentions the word "Nullification" nor the "Tenth Amendment") where has it actually changed the policy on the ground? The point being that everywhere this policy has been enacted in a way that actually changes peoples lives, they call it something else other than 'nullification' and use a different justification than the 10th A.

So I have to ask, what do we care about more, a word, or the actual policy that actually changes things?

Gunny has a point. In Michigan, a public act was passed in December to prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in NDAA indefinite detention. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0228.pdf

There's no mention of nullification or the tenth amendment. I don't think it was ever mentioned when it was debated in the legislature either (it passed unanimously).

[WM_in_MO]

So it's only nullification if you use a certain gunny approved vocabulary.

got it.

[GunnyFreedom]

So it's only nullification if you use a certain gunny approved vocabulary.

got it.

What?

I'm sorry, you aren't making sense.

Please re-state your query.

ETA: You do know that I'm the guy who introduced the most nullification bills in the nation, right?

Is there a source for your hostility? I'm just trying to get this stuff from the realm of good ideas into actual policy around the nation.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny has a point. In Michigan, a public act was passed in December to prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in NDAA indefinite detention. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0228.pdf

There's no mention of nullification or the tenth amendment. I don't think it was ever mentioned when it was debated in the legislature either (it passed unanimously).

Thank you, and exactly. TPTB have effectively poisoned the word 'nullification' and the concept of arguing from the tenth Amendment to the point where it is awfully difficult to pass bills that most citizens would support; and even once passed, the bureaucrats are too scared to actually implement them. Do the exact same thing without the poisonous words, and it actually carries the policy into law, which I assume is what we all want. :)

[ClydeCoulter]

Unless it can be proven that the federal government has no authority to do something, then nullification is useless. Nullification, on it's own, just looks like a bratty child not wanting to do what mommy and daddy says. (that's how it is portrayed).

Article VI is the authorization for the federal government to subordinate the states to it's laws and treaties, "when in pursuance of this constitution". Article VI is the case for the argument that the laws/treaties must follow the constitution, otherwise are of no consequence.

The 10th Amendment only specifies where those non-compliant Article VI authorities reside, not what is lawful for the states or the people.

[GunnyFreedom]

Unless it can be proven that the federal government has no authority to do something, then nullification is useless. Nullification, on it's own, just looks like a bratty child not wanting to do what mommy and daddy says. (that's how it is portrayed).

Article VI is the authorization for the federal government to subordinate the states to it's laws and treaties, "when in pursuance of this constitution". Article VI is the case for the argument that the laws/treaties must follow the constitution, otherwise are of no consequence.

The 10th Amendment only specifies where those non-compliant Article VI authorities reside, not what is lawful for the states or the people.

That's true. I would say that if the 10th and nullification had not been poisoned by the statists trying to prevent an uprising of the States, then it is exactly the tack to take, but they have invested all of their effort poisoning the 10th and building up Article VI, as though Article VI somehow countermanded the 10th A. Obviously that's not true, the same policy found in the 10th A is found in Article VI.

But here we can use the statists efforts against them. They have spent years derogating the 10th Amendment and building up Article VI, so we make the argument from Article VI and they literally have no defense against it, since they were the ones in the first place building up the Supremacy Clause so much as though it contradicted our efforts.

The only objection I have heard anybody able to muster from an Article VI Non-Pursuance argument is "But that's not really what it means!" That objection is very simple to overcome, simply by pointing to the Tenth Amendment and explaining that it was ratified in the event that people failed to understand Article VI, the Tenth Amendment spells it out clearly.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's true. I would say that if the 10th and nullification had not been poisoned by the statists trying to prevent an uprising of the States, then it is exactly the tack to take, but they have invested all of their effort poisoning the 10th and building up Article VI, as though Article VI somehow countermanded the 10th A. Obviously that's not true, the same policy found in the 10th A is found in Article VI.

But here we can use the statists efforts against them. They have spent years derogating the 10th Amendment and building up Article VI, so we make the argument from Article VI and they literally have no defense against it, since they were the ones in the first place building up the Supremacy Clause so much as though it contradicted our efforts.

The only objection I have heard anybody able to muster from an Article VI Non-Pursuance argument is "But that's not really what it means!" That objection is very simple to overcome, simply by pointing to the Tenth Amendment and explaining that it was ratified in the event that people failed to understand Article VI, the Tenth Amendment spells it out clearly.

I agree. I see Article VI spelling out what the Federal government supreme powers are limited to, and then the 10th Amendment answering "well, then, who do the rest of the powers belong to".

[Pericles]

Well, it's the exact same thing without the vulnerability to the smear job. That's kinda the point. There never was a Southern Nonpursuance Crisis. Nonpursuance was never invoked by Calhoun.

I'm LOLing at even the people on this board not thinking it through. Did Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions ever actually call it 'nullification?" And here we are hung up on a word. Not a policy, but a word, because the policy is exactly the same, we're just articulating it out of Article 6 instead of the 10th A. Why is that? Why are we so invested in a word at the expense of the actual policy, when simply adjusting a word has a better shot at actually affecting the policy?
This is the way to approach it - not a delegated power, therefore not in pursuance of the Constitution.

[NewRightLibertarian]

And where they have actually passed (Other than Colorado and Washington State -- who BY THE WAY did NOT call it 'Nullification' nor did they invoke the 10th Amendment) has any of the bills that have passed actually affected policy at all?

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

[NewRightLibertarian]

Gunny has a point. In Michigan, a public act was passed in December to prohibit state and local law enforcement from participating in NDAA indefinite detention. http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/publicact/pdf/2013-PA-0228.pdf

There's no mention of nullification or the tenth amendment. I don't think it was ever mentioned when it was debated in the legislature either (it passed unanimously).

There is no mention of nullification and the tenth amendment in the bill because it was watered down.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

I just read California's Assembly Bill 351, as well as both the Senate and the Assembly's analyses.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB351

There is no mention of nullification anywhere, and the Assembly's primary legal Constitutional justification is...are you ready for this? Article 6 nonpursuance.

So in California, where this has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion, they used Article VI Nonpursuance

[Anti Federalist]

I understand Gunny's point, but...

All of this is just mental masturbation unless and until some state actually finds the stones to enforce nullification or non-pursuance.

Without that, NDAA will still be the "law" in CA, and you still will not be able to buy a Montana Firearm Freedom weapon.

[NewRightLibertarian]

I just read California's Assembly Bill 351, as well as both the Senate and the Assembly's analyses.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB351

There is no mention of nullification anywhere, and the Assembly's primary legal Constitutional justification is...are you ready for this? Article 6 nonpursuance.

So in California, where this has actually worked in a bipartisan fashion, they used Article VI Nonpursuance

It's not enough to deny compliance the feds though. We need to work toward nullification and get the idea out there and teach people about it. Non-compliance bills won't be enough to stop federal kidnapping or gun control.

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand Gunny's point, but...

All of this is just mental masturbation unless and until some state actually finds the stones to enforce nullification or non-pursuance.

Well, that's exactly why I am suggesting a pivot into a rhetorical approach that can be embraced by both parties instead of just half of one party. Alcohol prohibition was killed largely by a preponderance of States rejecting it. If we want to effect change in federal law and behavior, we need to build a preponderance of States. We can accelerate the uptake of this policy by presenting it in a way that the majorities of both parties can accept rather than a minority of just one party. When 35 States declare a federal law invalid in their States for failure to follow from the Constitution, then the law will go away, whether the individual States have the guts or not. Use the sheeple effect to our advantage.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not enough to deny compliance the feds though. We need to work toward nullification and get the idea out there and teach people about it. Non-compliance bills won't be enough to stop federal kidnapping or gun control.

Is there something specific about the word 'nullification' itself that would cause us to cling to a word when the exact same policy has 4 to 6 times as much public acceptance when described in other terms?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Is there something specific about the word 'nullification' itself that would cause us to cling to a word when the exact same policy has 4 to 6 times as much public acceptance when described in other terms?

Non-compliance or anti-commandeering would work on certain issues, but we ultimately need nullification and interposition if we are going to ward off the feds.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, that's exactly why I am suggesting a pivot into a rhetorical approach that can be embraced by both parties instead of just half of one party. Alcohol prohibition was killed largely by a preponderance of States rejecting it. If we want to effect change in federal law and behavior, we need to build a preponderance of States. We can accelerate the uptake of this policy by presenting it in a way that the majorities of both parties can accept rather than a minority of just one party. When 35 States declare a federal law invalid in their States for failure to follow from the Constitution, then the law will go away, whether the individual States have the guts or not. Use the sheeple effect to our advantage.

I see...well, I'll introduce it in discussion and see what happens.

I'm game to try any damn thing at this point.

[ClydeCoulter]

Wow. It. Blows. My. Mind. That. This. Is. So. Hard. To. Understand.

You can call me Joe, you can call me Moe, you can call me Curly, you can call me.............whatever.

The principle of nullification is based on WHAT? Can you constitutionally nullify a constitutional law? Eh? Why? Why not? WTF?

[GunnyFreedom]

Non-compliance or anti-commandeering would work on certain issues, but we ultimately need nullification and interposition if we are going to ward off the feds.

So what makes the stronger argument that 1) a given federal law does not pursue from the US Constitution, therefore the State should interpose itself with the blessing of the Article VI Supremacy Clause; a worse idea than the argument that 2) a given power is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States therefore per the Tenth Amendment we should nullify and interpose the State in protection of the citizens?

Not only is nonpursuance with interposition stronger because it arises from the Supremacy Clause itself (leaving the statists no objection to run to for cover), it is also stronger because it takes fewer words to explain it. The end result is the same. Fedgov can't do it, the State should interpose if they try. The main difference is nonpursuance is acceptable to a majority of both parties while nullification is only acceptable to a minority of a single party.

If we want to change the way the feds do business, we have to build a preponderance of States. If we want to build a preponderance of States, we have to articulate the policy in a way that the majority accepts.

[GunnyFreedom]

I see...well, I'll introduce it in discussion and see what happens.

I'm game to try any damn thing at this point.

I started re-framing the debate in this direction about a year ago, and the difference in acceptance has been astounding to me. You can still go back to the 10th A for explanations and support, but when you LEAD with Art VI nonpursuance, it opens a lot more doors. A lot of people have filters and gatekeepers up, particularly on the middle and left of the false spectrum. Making it past the filters and the gatekeepers is about 80% of this battle. Re-frame the debate, wake more people up.

[Origanalist]

Wow. It. Blows. My. Mind. That. This. Is. So. Hard. To. Understand.

You can call me Joe, you can call me Moe, you can call me Curly, you can call me.............whatever.

The principle of nullification is based on WHAT? Can you constitutionally nullify a constitutional law? Eh? Why? Why not? WTF?

I sense a lot of resistance.....

[NewRightLibertarian]

So what makes the stronger argument that 1) a given federal law does not pursue from the US Constitution, therefore the State should interpose itself with the blessing of the Article VI Supremacy Clause; a worse idea than the argument that 2) a given power is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States therefore per the Tenth Amendment we should nullify and interpose the State in protection of the citizens?

Not only is nonpursuance with interposition stronger because it arises from the Supremacy Clause itself (leaving the statists no objection to run to for cover), it is also stronger because it takes fewer words to explain it. The end result is the same. Fedgov can't do it, the State should interpose if they try. The main difference is nonpursuance is acceptable to a majority of both parties while nullification is only acceptable to a minority of a single party.

If we want to change the way the feds do business, we have to build a preponderance of States. If we want to build a preponderance of States, we have to articulate the policy in a way that the majority accepts.

A majority of voters accept nullification so there is no reason for this change in terminology

[GunnyFreedom]

A majority of voters accept nullification so there is no reason for this change in terminology

You clearly don't canvass where I do.

[EBounding]

Gun control nullification was passed last year in 2 states. NDAA was nullified in California of all places. There are more bills that have been introduced this year than ever.

Didn't California end up taking out all the 10th Amendment language though?

[ClydeCoulter]

More education is better.

edit: Educating people on the supremacy clause is a great way to help spread the idea of limited government.

[GunnyFreedom]

More education is better.

edit: Educating people on the supremacy clause is a great way to help spread the idea of limited government.

Aye,

I think the biggest thing is 90% of the people in opposition, when discussing the subject, automatically leap to the Article 6 Supremacy Clause and say "The Supremacy Clause says whatever Congress does is supreme!" and then they shut their ears, jam their fingers in and go 'nyaa nyaa nyaa.'

You can crush the vast vast majority of the (allegedly) educated opposition, by starting the discussion with the Article 6 Pursuance subclause of the Supremacy Clause. Don't even mention the 10th Amendment or the issue of Nullification up front. Take the entire doctrine of the lack of federal supremacy straight from nonpursuance within the Supremacy Clause itself, and the statist objectors have nowhere to pull an objection from. They have been taught for YEARS that nullification is a non-starter because 'Article 6 takes precedence.' So you use their ignorance against them and argue the whole thing out of Article 6.

This opens the doors and gets you past the effective objections. Once you do that, you find that more and more people are open to convincing.

[NewRightLibertarian]

You clearly don't canvass where I do.

Talking to Republicans, they almost always seem sympathetic to nullification. Liberals will never go against their federal gods and whine about racism. I think explaining non-compliance or anti-commandeering would be a less arcane way of communicating the message of resistance than talking about Article VI

[Origanalist]

Talking to Republicans, they almost always seem sympathetic to nullification. Liberals will never go against their federal gods and whine about racism. I think explaining non-compliance or anti-commandeering would be a less arcane way of communicating the message of resistance than talking about Article VI

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I happen to think Gunny's idea of using the statists own argument against them is a damn fine idea and I would like to see it get some wide spread use.

[ClydeCoulter]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done/used to combat unconstitutional laws at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

[Origanalist]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

If you're referring to my rep comment Clyde, I wasn't aiming that post at you. If not, ooops...:o

[ClydeCoulter]

If you're referring to my rep comment Clyde, I wasn't aiming that post at you. If not, ooops...:o

Thanks for the clarification :)

[ClydeCoulter]

It seems I may have conveyed my thoughts on this improperly and have been misunderstood.

I am in full support of the idea of using Article VI education to combat unconstitutional laws. (At one time my signature used to refer to Article VI deobfuscation/clarification.) And I am all for it being done/used to combat unconstitutional laws at the state level and below.

I am also for dropping the "nullification" word when using this approach. I would not drop the 10th amendment, because that finishes the question.

Start with "Why is it that the federal government cannot do something". That involves Article VI, the enumerated powers, and the 10th Amendment.

Then explain how it is that the federal government is to be brought into compliance. That's the big problem. Just ask anyone, and they will say "The Supreme Court". If the Supreme Court says it's constitutional then it is, to many, and there is no other recourse. That's where the idea of nullification comes in.

Education of Article VI and the enumerated powers must be first, but then followed by redress and recourse.

One other thing that I might add to this is, the Supreme Court is part of that federal government that is subject to Article VI pursuance. I know that sounds obvious. But, is it?

[Occam's Banana]

I don't care what it's called - nullification, non-pursuance, repudiation, GTF(eds)O, whatever. As long as it happens.

Ultimately, though, any particular differences between "nullification" and "non-pursuance" aren't really going to make any difference at all as far as the purveyors of power and (so called) "public opinion" are concerned. If non-pursuance ever gains traction sufficient to pose any threat to the powers-that-be, non-pursuers WILL be denounced as "crypto-nullifiers" - exactly as "nullifiers" are currently denounced as "neo-Confederates" (i.e., non-pursuers will become "crypto-neo-Confederates").

Mere labels will not mollify those who stand to lose power as a result of any repudiation of federal authority ...

[Origanalist]

I don't care what it's called - nullification, non-pursuance, repudiation, GTF(eds)O, whatever. As long as it happens.

Ultimately, though, any particular differences between "nullification" and "non-pursuance" aren't really going to make any difference at all as far as the purveyors of power and (so called) "public opinion" are concerned. If non-pursuance ever gains traction sufficient to pose any threat to the powers-that-be, non-pursuers WILL be denounced as "crypto-nullifiers" - exactly as "nullifiers" are currently denounced as "neo-Confederates" (i.e., non-pursuers will become "crypto-neo-Confederates").

Mere labels will not mollify those who stand to lose power as a result of any repudiation of federal authority ...

The same thought occurred to me right off the bat. However, this may make it more difficult as it is using the same "supremacy clause" they have been trumpeting. There can be no doubt about the attacks that will come however.

[Occam's Banana]

The same thought occurred to me right off the bat. However, this may make it more difficult as it is using the same "supremacy clause" they have been trumpeting. There can be no doubt about the attacks that will come however.

Like I say, as long as involves putting the Feds in their place (or better yet, giving them the boot entirely), I have no objections to this approach.

But reason, logic, consistency and the plain sense of words (not to mention the plain sense of the Constitution) mean nothing to the people who will be opposed to this. Their reverence for the so-called Supremacy Clause goes only as far as they can abuse it in order to blow off anyone who seeks to limit or proscribe the power of the federal government. That is simply not going to change, regardless of what tack is taken. They'll tap-dance around "non-pursuance" as gracelessly (and with as little intellectual integrity) as they do around "nullification" ...

[GunnyFreedom]

Like I say, as long as involves putting the Feds in their place (or better yet, giving them the boot entirely), I have no objections to this approach.

But reason, logic, consistency and the plain sense of words (not to mention the plain sense of the Constitution) mean nothing to the people who will be opposed to this. Their reverence for the so-called Supremacy Clause goes only as far as they can abuse it in order to blow off anyone who seeks to limit or proscribe the power of the federal government. That is simply not going to change, regardless of what tack is taken. They'll tap-dance around "non-pursuance" as gracelessly (and with as little intellectual integrity) as they do around "nullification" ...

I don't really disagree with you, except to say I believe it will be WAY more difficult for them to derogate an Article VI argument in the eyes of the public than 10th Amendment Nullification, in part because heretofore they have used ArtVI to derogate the 10th A.

By showing the powers that be to be incompetent and keeping them in derision, we win over the Idiocracy crowd -- which happens to be the American majority. They don't really care who is right or wrong, which arguments are cogent or fallacious, they get off on seeing one guy make another guy look like a fool.

Picking up general public support for the doctrine of State supremacy over powers not enumerated is critical. If we can gain general public acceptance of the true fact that the States are sovereign over all powers not enumerated in the US Constitution, it will become a lot easier to elect people to State Legislatures who tell fedgov to get stuffed. Those people, then, will get into their State legislatures and actually tell fedgov to get stuffed.

[ClydeCoulter]

Bump...Bump...Bump...Bump...Bump...

[T.hill]

It argues nullification without mentioning it directly, it's different in-name only. To practically implement this so called article 6 nonpursuance law would to mechanically invoke state nullification.

Rand and Greg Brannon would be wise to use this as alternative rhetoric to state-nullification advocacy.

[TaftFan]

Why not just use the word "interposition" as well? Basically it is nullification but with more than one state.

[ClydeCoulter]

It argues nullification without mentioning it directly, it's different in-name only. To practically implement this so called article 6 nonpursuance law would to mechanically invoke state nullification.

Rand and Greg Brannon would be wise to use this as alternative rhetoric to state-nullification advocacy.

I agree, "Corrective Action to Article VI Non-Pursuance".

[Christian Liberty]

Everywhere this policy has affected the people on the ground, it was not called "nullification" nor was the Tenth Amendment invoked. Everywhere a Tenth Amendment based bill actually called "Nullification" has been passed, it has not affected the lives of the citizens of that State.

Colorado and Washington State MJ legalization, the never called it nullification, they never invoked the Tenth. Ohio Obamacare, a Constitutional amendment. The do not call it nullification, they did not invoke the 10th.

Montana Firearms Freedom, the first of the nullification bills passed -- 2009; they called it nullification and based it on the Tenth. You still cannot buy a Montana Freedom Firearm.

If what I am saying is true, we have to ask ourselves whether we care more about the actual policy and making a difference on the ground, or whether we care more about a word.

Why can't you buy a Montana Freedom Firearm, BTW?

That said, if changing the word will change the results in our favor... why not?

I think its funny that it confused some people on here, BTW. It will probably work on the average voter;)

[Peace&Freedom]

The strategy Gunny has proposed is solidly constitutional, and cleverly bypasses the sticky point preventing widespread adoption of measures that would invalidate unconstitutional federal laws. One caveat I would have with the idea, however, is that it doesn't eliminate the demagogues who distorted nullification in the first place, just maneuvers past their smear job on the term. Soooo, what's to stop these same people from also poisoning "non-pursuance" the same way they did nullification?

Getting past the sticky point is fine in the interim, just remember you still have to fight for the substance, and defend the substance of the idea, which was never faulty, that under the Constitution the states provide a check against the overreach of the federal government. The cult of the omnipotent state will fight this basic principle tooth and nail, in whatever rhetorical or tactical form we advance it.

Ultimately, they do not believe in limits on government power, or in checks against its overreach, no matter which part of the Constitution is cited to them. Switching sections or terminology merely delays, not disposes of the fundamental conflict.

[GunnyFreedom]

The strategy Gunny has proposed is solidly constitutional, and cleverly bypasses the sticky point preventing widespread adoption of measures that would invalidate unconstitutional federal laws. One caveat I would have with the idea, however, is that it doesn't eliminate the demagogues who distorted nullification in the first place, just maneuvers past their smear job on the term. Soooo, what's to stop these same people from also poisoning "non-pursuance" the same way they did nullification?

Getting past the sticky point is fine in the interim, just remember you still have to fight for the substance, and defend the substance of the idea, which was never faulty, that under the Constitution the states provide a check against the overreach of the federal government. The cult of the omnipotent state will fight this basic principle tooth and nail, in whatever rhetorical or tactical form we advance it.

Ultimately, they do not believe in limits on government power, or in checks against its overreach, no matter which part of the Constitution is cited to them. Switching sections or terminology merely delays, not disposes of the fundamental conflict.

Oh make no mistake, they will try and roadblock that route too, but they aren't the ones we need to convince. Not only will their attempt at roadblocking it be way more difficult and consume more PR resources, but it will also be easier to overcome, and their own actions will show them up as liars and hypocrites. All three factors helping us to win over the actual people we need to win over.

First, it's more difficult and will consume more PR resources. People like John C. Calhoun never spoke in terms of "non-pursuance" so they don't have a history to easily distort. Without a ready reservoir of source-material, poisoning the well will become an order of magnitude more difficult. They will have to expend more resources because they will now have to make the lies up from scratch, and expend energy to justify their lies.

Second, it will be easier to overcome, in part because of their own efforts. They are the ones who have sown the seed that "Article VI trumps everything," so to the people they have managed to condition an Article VI argument will automatically "trump everything." They will be working against their own conditioning, and so in part consuming themselves in a kind of mass cognitive dissonance that will open more minds to accept the truth about the real Constitutional division of powers.

Third, their most skilled apologists will have a thorough history of arguing for Article VI as contradicting the Tenth Amendment. When they step up to mock our Article VI argument, all we have to do is point to one of their articles from the past and ask, "Say, isn't this you a year ago arguing that the Article VI Supremacy Clause trumps everything else in the Constitution because it's Supreme? Have you changed your mind now?" Now they are in a Catch-22. If they have changed their mind, now Nullification becomes viable, but if they have not changed their minds they just contradicted their own argument. If they remain opposed in either case they look like hypocrites to everyone observing the debate.

So if we take this approach, they will have to consume and spend more resources to fight it, their objections will be easier to overcome, and by setting their own words against them they will come across like hypocrites.

All of this works to our advantage amongst the very group we need to convince -- the people too busy (or unmotivated) to study for themselves, who simply take on faith the word of others they believe more knowledgeable than themselves. That group, often derogatively referred to as the "Low Information Voter," make up the vast majority of voters in any election.