At a September 4 “John Dennis for Congress” rally in San Francisco, Texas Congressman Ron Paul addressed the growing popularity of the state nullification movement. Dennis, a Republican, hopes to win the seat now held by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

State nullification is based on the principle that states can ignore or refuse to comply with federal laws deemed unconstitutional or beyond the boundaries of the federal government's delegated authority. Proponents of state nullification, such as Professor Thomas E. Woods and Judge Andrew Napolitano, assert that it is the most appropriate measure to take against federal government overreach like ObamaCare and cap and trade.

At the rally, Ron Paul noted that the federal government has moved away from its original role as designed by the Founding Fathers, which was ultimately “to protect liberty.” He notes, “The Constitution has nothing to do with restraining peaceful activity of individuals. It is essentially a document written for the purposes of limiting the government.”

Unfortunately, according to Paul, the federal government has morphed into a Leviathan hungry for power. “We have government getting bigger in Washington and [it] is intrusive throughout the country.”

On the other hand, while the nature of the federal government has changed from the original intent of the Founding Fathers, “the revolutionary spirit we have today” mirrors that of the Founding Fathers. For Paul, a prime example of that revolutionary spirit is the growing call for state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws.

You can listen to Paul's remarks on nullification here:

Groups promoting the use of state nullification as a defense mechanism against the federal government’s unconstitutional overreach include the The John Birch Society, Tenth Amendment Center, and WeRefuse.com. The growing popularity of state nullification has prompted these and many other organizations to sponsor a speaking tour called Nullify Now!, which touts the benefits of state nullification as a viable solution to America’s problems.�

While the Left has dubbed nullification a “right-wing” example of treason or secession, Paul asserts, “It is possible to have nullification without undermining our whole system. It’s the idea that if we’re mistreated and overtaxed and overregulated, that we have that option to put brakes on the federal government.”

Thumbnail photo: Ron Paul

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Lyle said:

The Compact It is important to note that the US Constitution is a compact amongst the States. The federal government is not a party to this compact but a creation from it. If the federal can dominate a State then not only is the creation usurping the creator, mob rule of the many vs the few is employed. In a nation ruled by law, the only rightful remedy in judging the power of the federal in disputes between the federal and any one or few States, where not ceded in the compacted, is nullification.

September 08, 2010

RBrown said:

Treason? If the Federal Govt. passes unconstitutional laws, and State Legislatures refuse to enforce it ... who has violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution? Obviously, it is the Federal who violated their oath. It is the constitutional duty of legislators to nullify such laws.

September 08, 2010

Bob Price said:

Nullify Now Conference Mr. Paul spoke about the Nullify Now tour. The first event was held in Fort Worth Texas last weekend. CLICK HERE for coverage at TexasGOPVote.com http://texasgopvote.com/princi...nce-001754

September 08, 2010 | url

Michael said:

... I wish people were honest...we do not want freedom. We want to be mindless slaves. Of course, fighting for freedom is a good plot in movies, but that is not what we want in real life. Give us a dictator!

September 17, 2010

David said:

The Constitution As A Contract The US Constitution is in essence a contract between the states, and people thereof, and the federal government, which was created by the aforementioned contract. Nobody would ever sign a contract that gives one side of the contract the sole authority to determine the meaning of that contract. No branch or associate of the federal govt can be allowed such authority. That is why the states ratified the Constitution, particularly Virgina, demanded that there be no doubt of any kind that the authority of the federal govt would be limited to those specific powers identified in Article 1 Section 8, and that if a state ever felt that the federal govt was attempting to expand its powers beyond those specified they would have the DUTY (not option) to reject and nullify any such claim and ignore any attempt to enforce such a claim upon its citizens. The states and citizens thereof must have a way to maintain a seat at the table where it is decided what the Constitution says and means. And nullification, as defined and endorsed by Jefferson and Madison, is the mechanism that provides that chair at the table.

September 20, 2010

Bill said:

none There has only been a very brief period in our nation's history without a limited, but strong central government - from 1776 until 1789 - under the Articles of Confederation. Under the Articles, petty tyrannies were becoming manifest throughout the land, and these tiny small-minded nations were almost at war with each other over the smallest of reasons. Import and export duties were being levied on trade between states, and colonies issued their own paper monies. The U.S. almost never ratified the Treaty of Paris due to bickering and lack of a quorum. There was virtually no U.S. Army. In a short time, the new nation would have disintegrated and probably fallen back into the hands of one of the Super Powers. I am not proud of the period 1781-1789.

September 30, 2010 | url