Nullification Constitutional Amendment

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Nullification Constitutional Amendment

Since all political power rests with the people as the creators of the government, and is delegated from them, first to local, then to State, and then to Federal government; thus the people being superior to, and the masters of the government; and the States being the creators, and thus the masters of the Federal government, and since unjust law is no law at all,

Therefore:

The right of the juries, as the representatives of the people, to nullify any unjust, unconstitutional, or inapplicable law in the case before them, shall not be abridged. Juries must be made thoroughly aware, by any public court that hears the case, of this right of nullification.

The right of individual States, as the representatives of the people, to nullify unconstitutional or unjust Federal Law within their borders shall not be abridged.

A Federal Law can be repealed in general via a majority vote in a national referendum, or via a vote of majority of the states, the states voting either through state legislatures, or state referendums.

-------

Explanation:

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.


=====================================
This amendment is a part of 7 amendments that were designed to bring the Constitution into harmony with the Fundamental Principles of Liberty, without which Liberty cannot exist:

1. Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)
   
2. The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
   
3. Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
   
4. Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation
   
5. No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM)
   
6. Nullification - Constitutional Amendment
   
7. Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

[Travlyr]

The original 13th amendment:

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I prefer the 13th amendment... The original 13th amendment

That's niece, but it is not nearly as powerful in reminding the people of the power they have as this one.

[TastyWheat]

Nullification used to be in the Constitution. We called it appointing Senators.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Nullification used to be in the Constitution. We called it appointing Senators.

It was always there as a natural unalienable right of the people. Like the first amendment does not grant, but simply acknowledges and protects a preexisting natural right of the freedom of speech, so is this amendment. It does not grant anything; it simply reminds the people of the power they always had! Thus this amendment protects this preexisting unalienable right of the people.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Ok. I changed the amendment. Is it better now? How's my English?

Help anyone?

Thanks

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I like this amendment very much! Good job Foundation_Of_Liberty!
Thank you!!!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I added a poll at the top of this thread. Please vote!

Thanks.

[Zulske]

The original Constitution had a provision to deal with that, it was the creation of the Senate. Senator were elected by the States' Legislatures... If the majority of the States felt that a Federal law was unconstitutional or against their interests, the Senate would protect the States's interests against the will of the majority. Now Senators are elected by the people, so there is no check against a majority rule.

We should be campaigning to abolish the 17th amendment, then would not be necessary your proposal. Besides the original Constitution required only 51% of the Senators to repeal a bill or law, not 2/3.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The original Constitution had a provision to deal with that, it was the creation of the Senate. Senator were elected by the States' Legislatures... If the majority of the States felt that a Federal law was unconstitutional or against their interests, the Senate would protect the States's interests against the will of the majority. Now Senators are elected by the people, so there is no check against a majority rule.

We should be campaigning to abolish the 17th amendment, then would not be necessary your proposal. Besides the original Constitution required only 51% of the Senators to repeal a bill or law, not 2/3.

We should do both. The more the merrier! The truth, though, is that my amendment goes FURTHER by enshrining, JURY and state nullification into the Constitution itself. These are very powerful ideas, and correct principles of liberty, which people must remember to remain free and prosperous. This amendment accomplishes just that. The states ALREADY have nullification power; the juries ALREADY have nullification power. They are not using it because they are ignorant of it. So the purpose of this amendment is to educate the population of the power they ALREADY have, and so that this all important knowledge may not be easily again hid from the people, so they may remain free, if they will! Education and persuasion is everything! It is the ONLY way to save the Republic!

[Zulske]

I love the idea of nullification and State's sovereignty, because balances power between Federal and State's governments. But analysing your proposal practically could bring some problems. For example:

Let's say that in order to protect the coal industry the government of Kentucky pass a very popular tariff on coal from States such as West Virginia. But the Federal government prohibits such practice and base its Constitutional authority on the interstate commerce clause and the supremacy clause (which I think in this case it's 100% correct, to avoid such practice between States the commerce clause was created). But the government of Kentucky, like its majority population, think the Federal government is overstepping its Constitutional authority, even though they are not. The case is brought to the Judiciary by the Federal Government and goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Federal Government, basing its ruling on the commerce clause and supremacy clause once again. But still, Kentucky uses your amendment and say they have no Constitutional authority to do so and maintains the tariff nullifying the Federal law that prohibits so.

Who will be right in this case, if it is so simple for Kentucky to just ignore a Federal rulling?

I still think the State's power to avoid the Federal government on overstepping its constitutional authority rests in the Senate, when they where elected by States' Legislatures...

That's why I voted no
Convince me to the contrary and I will change my vote

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I love the idea of nullification and State's sovereignty, because balances power between Federal and State's governments. But analysing your proposal practically could bring some problems. For example:

Let's say that in order to protect the coal industry the government of Kentucky pass a very popular tariff on coal from States such as West Virginia. But the Federal government prohibits such practice and base its Constitutional authority on the interstate commerce clause and the supremacy clause (which I think in this case it's 100% correct, to avoid such practice between States the commerce clause was created). But the government of Kentucky, like its majority population, think the Federal government is overstepping its Constitutional authority, even though they are not. The case is brought to the Judiciary by the Federal Government and goes all the way to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Federal Government, basing its ruling on the commerce clause and supremacy clause once again. But still, Kentucky uses your amendment and say they have no Constitutional authority to do so and maintains the tariff nullifying the Federal law that prohibits so.

Who will be right in this case, if it is so simple for Kentucky to just ignore a Federal rulling?

I still think the State's power to avoid the Federal government on overstepping its constitutional authority rests in the Senate, when they where elected by States' Legislatures...

That's why I voted no
Convince me to the contrary and I will change my vote

OK. Let’s give it a try.

You say that the Senate is the proper way to resolve this scenario. But how is it better? Suppose the 17th amendment is abolished (which would be a good thing of course); still a problem remains: what if majority of the states decide to abuse one state and all the 98 senators vote 98 to 2 to tax the citizens of say Nebraska, 5 times more than any other state. What then? Supreme court, hypothetically says it is a good idea. What is Nebraska to do? Nullify!

Yes. Nullification could be abused by the states as well, but in my view it is much lesser evil if one state does something wrong, than an error by a tyrannical federal government imposed upon all 50 states!

Think of nullification, as hermetically sealed compartments in a ship. If one compartment floods (abuse of State nullification), the ship will not sink; the people still can move to another state and vote with their feet. But without the right of nullification there is only one great hall, and if it floods (the federal government forcing tyranny and error on all 50 states) the whole ship sinks! It is safer to have many compartments; besides, it is morally right too, because the States are the creators of the federal government, and thus are superior to it. And the people are the creators of the state and local government and thus superior to them. Therefore a jury should be able to nullify ANY law it deems improper, thus the government is kept in check.

It is the application of the proper chain of deligation of power i.e. from people (who are superior to all earthly government), to local governments (who are superior to the State government), to States (who are superior to Federal government). That is the proper chain of authority, not the other way around, as we are falsely taught. The closer the government to the people, the greater is its authority to nullify, because the people are the source of all political power.

Does it make sense?

[Zulske]

OK. Let’s give it a try.

You say that the Senate is the proper way to resolve this scenario. But how is it better? Suppose the 17th amendment is abolished (which would be a good thing of course); still a problem remains: what if majority of the states decide to abuse one state and all the 98 senators vote 98 to 2 to tax the citizens of say Nebraska, 5 times more than any other state. What then? Supreme court, hypothetically says it is a good idea. What is Nebraska to do? Nullify!

Yes. Nullification could be abused by the states as well, but in my view it is much lesser evil if one state does something wrong, than an error by a tyrannical federal government imposed upon all 50 states!

Think of nullification, as hermetically sealed compartments in a ship. If one compartment floods (abuse of State nullification), the ship will not sink; the people still can move to another state and vote with their feet. But without the right of nullification there is only one great hall, and if it floods (the federal government forcing tyranny and error on all 50 states) the whole ship sinks! It is safer to have many compartments; besides, it is morally right too, because the States are the creators of the federal government, and thus are superior to it. And the people are the creators of the state and local government and thus superior to them. Therefore a jury should be able to nullify ANY law it deems improper, thus the government is kept in check.

It is the application of the proper chain of deligation of power i.e. from people (who are superior to all earthly government), to local governments (who are superior to the State government), to States (who are superior to Federal government). That is the proper chain of authority, not the other way around, as we are falsely taught. The closer the government to the people, the greater is its authority to nullify, because the people are the source of all political power.

Does it make sense?

Unfortunately your example is totally possible to happen since we still have the 16th amendment (which should be abolished as well). To the contrary that would be in direct violation to the original Constitution when it says: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. In this case Nebraska would have to fight all the way to the Supreme Court and probably would win the case. But we still have the 16th amendment.

Your arguments about how it is better for one State to be in error than the whole Nation makes absolute sense to me. But what bothers me also is that the framers decided that a Constitutional Amendment could pass with 3/4 of the States approval. What if Nebraska, for instance, do not accept an amendment proposal and it is approved anyway. Does the principle of abiding by the supremacy of the Federal laws that applies here (in the amendment process), cannot be applied also when it comes to a statutory law passed through the constitutional process? I mean, there should be some balance on both powers, something that puts both parts in check, today there is too little elements puting the Federal government in check against the State's interests. I just think your proposal puts no checks on a State. And some powers (very few, but some) should be kept in the Federal government.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Your arguments about how it is better for one State to be in error than the whole Nation makes absolute sense to me. But what bothers me also is that the framers decided that a Constitutional Amendment could pass with 3/4 of the States approval.

The Framers did a pretty good job and were inspired men. But neither they nor the Constitution they produced were entirely perfect. The Constitution had the seeds of its own destruction planted in it because the Framers:

a) Did not perfectly understand the Fundamental Principles of Liberty without which Liberty is impossible.
b) Failed to put into the Constitution itself clear Reasons WHY certain provisions were made and why they are important.

Last one is important, because it is the People who need to defend the Constitution, because the government will not. Therefore the all important persuasive power is in the WHY, which was almost entirely missing in the Constitution itself on its specific provisions. This dis-empowered the people because they did not understand it, therefore they could not defend it.

I seek to remedy that by introducing my 5 amendments:

1. Honest Money Constitutional Amendment
2. Taxation Constitutional Amendment
3. The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment
4. Nullification Constitutional Amendment
5. Constitutional Amendment: Abolishing Copyrights and Patents

I think these 5 plug the most gaping flaws. They are based on two fundamental principles of Liberty without which liberty cannot exist nor prosper:

1) Private Property IS Liberty.
2) The Benson Principle.

Now back to Nebraska:

What if Nebraska, for instance, do not accept an amendment proposal and it is approved anyway. Does the principle of abiding by the supremacy of the Federal laws that applies here (in the amendment process), cannot be applied also when it comes to a statutory law passed through the constitutional process?

The principle of supremacy of Federal Law is false! It is the people who have absolute supremacy as far as government is concerned, and it is the people themselves who provide the best check on all levels of government, whether Federal, or State or Local, the peoples' sovereignty and supremacy tramps it all!

In this example, I say if Nebraska chose to join the union, it can also choose to leave it. But that is too drastic a measure. Much better solution is to nullify the provisions it is unhappy with.

I mean, there should be some balance on both powers, something that puts both parts in check, today there is too little elements puting the Federal government in check against the State's interests. I just think your proposal puts no checks on a State. And some powers (very few, but some) should be kept in the Federal government.

Again, the best check either on the States or on Federal Government are the people themselves. They are the true masters of the government, and only they can truly hold it in check.

In this example, again, the States are superior to Federal Government because they are closer to the people, who are the source of all political power. Nebraska chose to join the union, therefore it is only logical that it can choose to leave it if it wants to. So, short of leaving, the next best and proper thing is nullification. Nebraska has a complete right to do so, because within its borders Nebraska is sovereign and is superior to the Federal Government! As for checks put on the State, it is jury nullification. The citizens of Nebraska can hold the State government of Nebraska (and Federal government for that matter too) in check via jury nullification. This is not anarchy, it is placing the power where it ought to be,--with the people!

[Zulske]

One of the main arguments Madison had to convince the States to adopt the Constitution was that it is somehow better to not only spread power and public opinion within one State but also across the country, because in this case it would be harder for some majority group (he called "factions") to gain control all over a State, or over the Union. You suggest so much power for the State that it would be harder for the People of a single State to stop majority rule within its borders. Today, we have the opposite, it is hard to stop majority rule in the Federal power. I just think your proposal will flip everything over instead of giving it the necessary balance that was destroyed on the Civil War and on the passage of the 17th amendment.

You can't deny human nature, and in every society the People can destroy each other, that is why democracy never works, some powerful majority will eventually gain power over the people of the State. Your proposal puts no checks on the will of the State and of the People. You might ask: "Checks on the People?" Yes! There must be checks on the People as well, so the majority don't gain control. Otherwise, we would be a democracy. All political authority comes from the People, but without checks on the People, the government of the People will become the government of the majority. There must be an arena where conflict of interests is kept fighting all the time, and that is government. But when it grows too big and unlimited, eventually it is dominated by majority that passes to dominate the life of every individual... In your case, you are advocating for a big, unlimited State, instead of Union. I'm just saying both should be kept in check. What makes you think that since the people can't make the Federal government infringe on civil liberties, it will make their own State?

The whole idea behind the Constitution was to create an arena where conflict of interests will be fighting all the time, not only between the three branchs, but also between States and Federal. If one side wins, liberty is not secure. Today the scheme was changed so the Federal can win all the time, that is why liberty is not being secure among the Federal level.

You say that the People has true supremacy of the law, I would say no, but that the people is the source of all political authority, but don't forget, it is the people that puts tyrants in power.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

One of the main arguments Madison had to convince the States to adopt the Constitution was that it is somehow better to not only spread power and public opinion within one State but also across the country, because in this case it would be harder for some majority group (he called "factions") to gain control all over a State, or over the Union. You suggest so much power for the State that it would be harder for the People of a single State to stop majority rule within its borders.

If people are wicked they will succumb to majority rule and destruction of personal liberty, and will be ruled by tyrants and destroyed either on the State or Federal level. I say it is better on the State level, because it is closer to the people and easier to fix.

You can't deny human nature, and in every society the People can destroy each other, that is why democracy never works, some powerful majority will eventually gain power over the people of the State. Your proposal puts no checks on the will of the State and of the People. You might ask: "Checks on the People?" Yes! There must be checks on the People as well, so the majority don't gain control. Otherwise, we would be a democracy. All political authority comes from the People, but without checks on the People, the government of the People will become the government of the majority. There must be an arena where conflict of interests is kept fighting all the time, and that is government. But when it grows too big and unlimited, eventually it is dominated by majority that passes to dominate the life of every individual... In your case, you are advocating for a big, unlimited State, instead of Union. I'm just saying both should be kept in check. What makes you think that since the people can't make the Federal government infringe on civil liberties, it will make their own State?

I beg to differ. The amendment provides for JURY nullification as well. So state law can be overturned by a jury of twelve peers in the case before them! And mind you their voice has to be unanimous or the accused goes free! So the State itself is checked by the people via Jury mechanism.

The whole idea behind the Constitution was to create an arena where conflict of interests will be fighting all the time, not only between the three branchs, but also between States and Federal. If one side wins, liberty is not secure. Today the scheme was changed so the Federal can win all the time, that is why liberty is not being secure among the Federal level.

The dangerous of corrupt Federal government are much higher than the dangers of corrupt State government, because State government is closer to the people and is therefore easier to control.

You say that the People has true supremacy of the law, I would say no, but that the people is the source of all political authority, but don't forget, it is the people that puts tyrants in power.

True, ultimately the people deserve the form of government they tolerate. But let me ask you again, If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, can they be trusted to govern others? What are the dangers of an elite purporting to know what is best for the dumb people? I say it is better for the people to govern themselves, than to be governed by a corrupt, parasitical and murderous elite!

Jury of peers is the best way for a man to be judged (unless God is the judge), because it keeps government in check by the people, a need proclaimed with the voice of thunder by the whole of human history!

[Zulske]

[QUOTE=Foundation_Of_Liberty;3132927]True, ultimately the people deserve the form of government the tolerate. But let me ask you again, If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, can they be trusted to govern others? What are the dangers of an elite purporting to know what is best for the dumb people? I say it is better for the people be governed by themselves than by a corrupt, parasitical and murderous elite! [QUOTE]

The idea is that government will be so much in conflict within itself that it will be kept limited. The problem with a tyrant it is not that he can be a wicked person, yes he can, but the problem lies in the fact that for the tyrant to maintain in power, he has to favor a lot of a very powerful elite on the cost of the people.

When the people use the government to govern the rest, that is so bad as having an elite governing. Nobody know what is best for nobody, only individuals know what is best for themselves, so we must keep the government in a scheme that nobody can control, not even the people. When the majority comes to control government, there is no protection or property rights, and rights of the minority. Remember, fascism, nazism, socialism all came to power democratically.

I recomend you to take a look at the Federalist #10. Madison can explain that way better than me, lol

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

True, ultimately the people deserve the form of government they tolerate. But let me ask you again, If people cannot be trusted to govern themselves, can they be trusted to govern others? What are the dangers of an elite purporting to know what is best for the dumb people? I say it is better for the people to govern themselves, than to be governed by a corrupt, parasitical and murderous elite!

The idea is that government will be so much in conflict within itself that it will be kept limited. The problem with a tyrant it is not that he can be a wicked person, yes he can, but the problem lies in the fact that for the tyrant to maintain in power, he has to favor a lot of a very powerful elite on the cost of the people. When the people use the government to govern the rest, that is so bad as having an elite governing. Nobody know what is best for nobody, only individuals know what is best for themselves, so we must keep the government in a scheme that nobody can control, not even the people. When the majority comes to control government, there is no protection or property rights, and rights of the minority. Remember, fascism, nazism, socialism all came to power democratically. I recomend you to take a look at the Federalist #10. Madison can explain that way better than me, lol http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

Madison was obviously wrong, our current history is a testament to that. Even though it is true that a wicked idea is less likely to prevail over a large group of people rather than a small one, Madison missed the important point that if a wicked idea takes hold of a majority of people, then that majority will have power to force itself upon the minorities via the mechanism of Federal Government. On the other hand if this happens in a State, the people can move out of it and vote with their feet by moving to another State; but in case of a Federal government unchecked by State and Jury nullification, there is no where to run,—the whole country is effected. So I say Madison was wrong. He did not understand that the greatest power must reside at the lowest level of government, not the highest. In other words, the closer the level of government is to the people the greater authority it should have. Yes, there is some value in different branches of government opposing each other, but you overestimate its effectiveness. The ultimate check on the government must be State and Jury nullification, where the people are judged by the people, the unanimous voice of twelve peers, rather than by the government.

In his latter years Madison recognized this, that’s why he and Jefferson pioneered the State nullification idea in their Virginia and Kentucky resolutions:



The bottom line is that the people themselves are the best defense for liberty, and are best positioned to protect their own liberty. That is the core notion in Jury and State nullification.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

North Dakota passes law to fully nullify all aspects of ObamaCare!

From http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

[This truly is encouraging in that it dramatizes the fact that states are empowered by the Constitution to reject any federal law they consider to be unconstitutional. Now, if more states will do the same...] TenthAmendmentCenter posted 2011 May 9

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...fication-bill/


(Cached)
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/reali...llifiedND.html

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Nullify Now! Tour Los Angeles May 28, 2011



Brilliant!

[AFPVet]

I would support it!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

I would support it!

Thank you!

[osan]

Ok. I changed the amendment. Is it better now? How's my English?

Help anyone?

Thanks

No, it is grossly insufficient. I understand and agree with that which you are trying to accomplish, but such an amendment will fail due to the fact that, as worded, it may be very broadly interpretable. For example, a very liberal crowd might decide that a law striking down the welfare state is unconstitutional. IOW, there is no absolute standard given, against which decisions are made. Even so, a corrupt, misguided, or ignorant jury could cause as much damage as a proper jury can do good... more so in fact, IMO.

A nation of dumbasses simply cannot maintain a free state. It is not possible, except by the most statistically impossible fluke, which will not likely be the case no matter how many tries a group of people may attempt. Adopt your amendment if you want, but it will fail in the end when your judges exercise power beyond their grants and do so corruptly. Things are so bad here now that it would not even surprise me in the smallest measure were the SCOTUS to rule that such an amendment was "unconstitutional". Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but not so much as a whit more than the recent ruling that has basically given cops carte blanche to enter anyone's house any time just so long as they say they heard "suspicious" noises therein.

The bites are getting bigger and are occurring at ever greater frequency - all the while we do nothing substantive to stop it. We "voted them out" this November past and what has changed? Nothing important as typified by the wailing and gnashing of teeth as the congress cut a whopping $6 billion from trillion dollar plus budget. They're not listening - HELLO. Not listening at all. Take from that what you might.

[galantarie]

[galantarie]

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Even so, a corrupt, misguided, or ignorant jury could cause as much damage as a proper jury can do good... more so in fact, IMO.

True. But then people can vote with their feet and move to an area where there is more understanding and respect for principles of liberty. But if you leave the ultimate power with the Federal government, then there is nowhere to run, the whole country is effected! Again, it is the logic of dividing a great ship into multiple hermetically sealed compartments, so that if one of them floods (or even a few of them), the ship will not go down; but if it be one great hall (think Federal government unchecked by local juries), then the whole ship goes down. Again, it is a correct and proper logic to leave the greatest power at the lowest level, -- the closest to the people, who are the source of all political power and are the creators of the government itself. And that is precisely what this amendment is doing.

A nation of dumbasses simply cannot maintain a free state. It is not possible, except by the most statistically impossible fluke, which will not likely be the case no matter how many tries a group of people may attempt. Adopt your amendment if you want, but it will fail in the end when your judges exercise power beyond their grants and do so corruptly. Things are so bad here now that it would not even surprise me in the smallest measure were the SCOTUS to rule that such an amendment was "unconstitutional". Yeah, it sounds ridiculous, but not so much as a whit more than the recent ruling that has basically given cops carte blanche to enter anyone's house any time just so long as they say they heard "suspicious" noises therein.

The more reason to limit the power of "dumb asses" who gain position of Federal power! You are proving my point!

The bites are getting bigger and are occurring at ever greater frequency - all the while we do nothing substantive to stop it. We "voted them out" this November past and what has changed? Nothing important as typified by the wailing and gnashing of teeth as the congress cut a whopping $6 billion from trillion dollar plus budget. They're not listening - HELLO. Not listening at all. Take from that what you might.

Exactly. The only proper recourse, therefore is to NULLIFY as Jefferson and Madison directed us! You are making my point again!

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

The idea here, is to leave the greatest political power at the lowest level, where it properly belongs, -- with the people, -- who are the source of all political power, and the creators of the government itself. Thus the authority of a State (within its borders) supersedes the authority of the Federal government, and the authority of a jury supersedes the authority of both the State and Federal government in the case before them. Thus the people (as the creators of the government) are superior to the government and can hold it in an absolute check as they ought to.

[osan]

True. But then people can vote with their feet and move to an area where there is more understanding and respect for principles of liberty.

This is a common fallacy that some use here, and to be honest I don't see the attraction. Why should I have to move my life away just because some cadre of $#@!s moves into town and takes over? The whole and single legitimate purpose of properly constituted and administered government is to set a standard of basic behavior that nobody is entitled to violate. I doubt we will find any significant proportion of people who will agree that it is OK to murder others. That is the sort of basic standard of which I speak. The standard is very small, very simple, very intuitively obvious, and is generally a very easy line to toe for most people.

But if you leave the ultimate power with the Federal government, then there is nowhere to run, the whole country is effected!

That is fine, as far as it goes. But the universal standard of behavior should still be present. If a state or some portion thereof goes off the rails, is there no right of those affected by the tyrants to affect extrication from under the thumb?

If there is an objective standard of behavior for each of us to toe with respect to living amongst our fellows, then should it not be enforced? It is one thing for a bunch of commies to get together and live as such amongst each other. It becomes something quite different when uninterested third parties are forced to participate. It is clear that there exists a baseline standard of free living that may, if necessary, be enforced with physical action against those who violate it. This prevents no choices except the choice to violate the rights of others.

Again, it is the logic of dividing a great ship into multiple hermetically sealed compartments, so that if one of them floods (or even a few of them), the ship will not go down; but if it be one great hall (think Federal government unchecked by local juries), then the whole ship goes down.

A reasonable, but incomplete analogy. Every blade cuts in both directions. OTOH, the ship that has hatches from one compartment to the another allows repair crews to circulate and fix damages. They also allow others to escape drowning.

You are stuck in the notion that structure is sufficient for freedom. It is not. It is arguably necessary, at least in many cases, but not sufficient. Without proper hearts and minds and attitudes of tolerance and intolerance, freedom cannot long survive. Freedom is, paradoxically, a state of low entropy - whereas slavery is one of high entropy - each case completely counter-intuitive to the perception of many. High entropy systems are easily maintained because there is no need to fight nature. Highly ordered systems are hard to maintain because you fight entropy every step of the way. Authoritarian, slave government is low-order and high entropy. It is, therefore, easily maintained because all people have to do is go along to get along. Free states of living, OTOH, are highly ordered states of being and therefore require constant fighting against those who by their very nature seek to strip from you your sovereignty. It seems like a really $#@!ty deal, but its the only game in town. Fight and be ever vigilant, or become a slave.

Again, it is a correct and proper logic to leave the greatest power at the lowest level, -- the closest to the people, who are the source of all political power and are the creators of the government itself. And that is precisely what this amendment is doing.

This is probably right, but there needs to be a means of countervailing those who go off the rails of the standard of action. Any time an individual or group thereof endeavor to violate the sovereign rights of another individual or group thereof, there must exist and be readily available various means and mechanisms for stopping such violations. Such mechanisms must provide for unequivocal restoration of individual rights and the equitable holding of accountability of those who have transgressed. When the numbers involved in such transgressions grows beyond a point, individual measures often cease to be effective in stemming the tides of tyranny and outside help is required if flight is not to be regarded as an acceptable answer.

The more reason to limit the power of "dumb asses" who gain position of Federal power! You are proving my point!

Cutting one way, yes. Cutting the other, a different point emerges.

Exactly. The only proper recourse, therefore is to NULLIFY as Jefferson and Madison directed us! You are making my point again!

I am not speaking against nullification. I am only pointing out that it is not sufficient in and of itself. Freedom requires far more than this.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

You are stuck in the notion that structure is sufficient for freedom. It is not. It is arguably necessary, at least in many cases, but not sufficient. Without proper hearts and minds and attitudes of tolerance and intolerance, freedom cannot long survive.

I am not speaking against nullification. I am only pointing out that it is not sufficient in and of itself. Freedom requires far more than this.

I never said that structure and nullification laws on the books are sufficient for freedom. They are NECESSARY but not sufficient. You have to have righteous people who respect and uphold the true principles of liberty (including nullification) if you wish freedom to prevail.

What I am saying, however, is that liberty can survive and prosper longer and in more places if such principles as stated in this Nullification Amendment are adopted and upheld.

As for your not being willing to move: It might be necessary if the people around you do not respect the true principles of liberty. This is much lesser evil, than denying the correct principle of nullification in favor of Federal tyranny, where error and wickedness is forced upon all without any recourse.

So the system I am proposing is based on correct fundamental principles, and is therefore more stable and more conducive to the triumph of liberty, which I hope is your goal as well.

[Foundation_Of_Liberty]

Thomas Woods speaks on Nullification at Nullify Now Los Angeles