# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  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A Federal Law can be repealed in general via a majority vote in a national referendum, or via a vote of majority of the states, the states voting either through state legislatures, or state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:
*Justice Constitutional Amendment (JCA)* The Fundamental Law Constitutional Amendment Honest Money Constitutional Amendment Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Taxation No Judicial Monopoly Constitutional Amendment (NJM) Nullification - Constitutional Amendment  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.
> ...


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:
*
Honest Money Constitutional AmendmentTaxation Constitutional AmendmentThe Fundamental Law Constitutional AmendmentNullification Constitutional AmendmentConstitutional 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

> Originally Posted by 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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty



----------


## Pericles

Already contained within the 10th Amendment and Article VI, so I voted no.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Already contained within the 10th Amendment and Article VI, so I voted no.


Jury and state nullification are Natural laws, that are in force right now, but not widely understood because of brainwashing and propaganda by the government. Therefore the KEY importance to educate the people to the power they already have. This amendment adds language that was not explicitly in the Constitution (there was no mention of jury and state nullification explicitly). 

It will serve dual purpose: it will educate the people about their true power (the power they ALREADY have), and it will make it infinitely harder for the government to brainwash the people again. In the end it is all about persuasion. The more explicit, the more clear, and the more persuasive the law is, the more likely it is that the people will uphold it to preserve their Liberty. Because in the end, it is the people who must defend the Constitution, because the history undeniably shows that the government will not; and they cannot defend their rights unless they understand and know their rights. This Amendment fixes that flaw in the original Constitution. 

Thanks for posting.

----------


## fisharmor

No.  Absolutely not.
I've been coding all afternoon and this is how I see this statement:
( This amendment is consistent with true principles of liberty ) and ( I would support it. )
( Evaluates to true ) and ( evaluates to false )
True and false = false.
/dorkingout

Ok, here's the real problem... let me put on my "constitutional scholar" hat for a second and demonstrate how this will immediately fail.
"*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, "
*
"Living constitution" Translation, bit by bit:

People created and validated the government.  
People are the masters of the government - obviously, since they can "vote the bums out".  They have ultimate power!  Ignore the non-voting people who crossed the government, they don't count, because the government is the people.
On top of that, they have states they created who created the federal government.  That's two layers of validation!
Therefore government is always valid no matter what it does.  See, right there, it's in the constitution now.
Jury trial?  Please, the 28th amendment clearly states that the federal government was correct when it passed the jury abolition act, because it derives its power from the people, and this is government by the people.  And look at how much more efficiently we can get convictions now!

I take the 2nd Amendment as a model.  There's stuff in the explanatory clause that gives them the wiggle room they need to do the polar opposite of what it says and disarm entire states... why would it be any different with this amendment?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

The only thing the preamble says is that the people are superior to the government, so it does not mean that"Therefore government is always valid no matter what it does."

In fact, in the second paragraph it states that [because government is NOT always right] the juries can nullify any and all laws that they deem wrong in the case before them!

Instead of giving the government "wiggle room," it denies them any and all wiggle room!

/analysisoff

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Montana judge is unable to gather a jury that is willing to convict a man on marijuana-possession charges. This is a sign of growing public disapproval of the so-called War on Drugs.Huff Post posted 2011 Dec 27 (Cached)*

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

dl

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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!


This^^  The 17th amendment is one of the worst ones, and definitely one of the worst ideas to succeed in post-1787 history.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I don't know where to post this so I'll do it here to disabuse people about our presidents:

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Wyoming lawmakers consider a bill to study how to survive a collapse of the federal government. It would include plans to issue its own currency and to create a standing army – even strike aircraft and aircraft carriers.Trib.com Posted 2012 Feb 25 (Cached)*

----------


## fisharmor

Uh..... srsly?  An aircraft carrier?
Someone's preemptively trying to sink the idea, I guess?  (No pun intended...)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Virginia legislature overwhelmingly nullifies the NDAA indefinite-detention law recently passed by Congress. Seven other states are considering similar legislation. The bill is opposed by the Governor, but the legislature could override his veto.
TAC 2012 Feb 28 (Cached)*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

How the US uses sexual humiliation as a political tool to control the masses

I think the individual States must pass legislation *NULLIFYING* this Federal ruling, and asserting the dignity of the individual!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Arizona's legislature passed a bill rejecting cooperation with the federal government to carry out indefinite detention of Americans under the NDAA bill, and it is awaiting a decision from Governor Jan Brewer. Virginia already passed a similar law as have a growing number of cities and counties.* [We are not fans of the ACLU, which is proposing model legislation for this move, but we wholeheartedly approve of their action in this case.]_
ACLU 2012 Apr 27 (Cached)

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*US District Court judge rules that a man who handed information to jurors regarding 'jury nullification' (the right of jurors to judge, not just the lawbreaker, but the law that was broken) was entitled to do so.* [The government argued that this was an attempt to influence a juror's decision; but the court ruled (correctly) that, because the information did not relate to any specific case, it was merely educational in effect and entirely legal. Hurray for this judge!] NaturalNews 2012 May 8 (Cached)


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

----------


## Sam I am

> 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.


I'd be lying if i said that this is the most anti-rule-of-law notion that I've ever seen on this board, but it's up there.


It pretty much says that It doesn't matter what the law is, the jury can rule however it pleases.  Laws would no longer have the force of law.

----------


## Sam I am

> 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.





Things like "Might equals right" are natural laws.  

All of the good laws, all of the "rights" outlined in the constitution are artificial laws.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'd be lying if i said that this is the most anti-rule-of-law notion that I've ever seen on this board, but it's up there.
> 
> It pretty much says that It doesn't matter what the law is, the jury can rule however it pleases.  Laws would no longer have the force of law.


The only laws that have moral authority are the laws of justice. Any other laws created by legislators, that violate the principles of justice are immoral. Therefore juries are designed as a check against usurping legislators who pass wicked laws. It makes perfect sense.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Things like "Might equals right" are natural laws.  
> 
> All of the good laws, all of the "rights" outlined in the constitution are artificial laws.


Justice exists independent of temporary "might." The laws of justice are absolute and eternal, like the laws of arithmetic or mechanics, etc. This is why I call them Natural Laws, because they exist and operate REGARDLESS of your opinion of them, just like the law of gravity, for instance. 

Your ignorance of the law of gravity, or your dislike of it, will not prevent you from falling once you step off the cliff. So are the laws of Justice. They are eternal and unalterable. Justice ALWAYS fulfills its course, REGARDLESS of your opinion of it. Therefore, Justice is the ULTIMATE MIGHT. So I guess we agree.

As for the Constitution: inasmuch as its laws violate the eternal Laws of Justice, they are artificial and, in fact, immoral. But whatever law in the Constitution is in harmony with principles of Justice, it is Natural, as justice itself. 

Thus, JUST laws are Natural; and unjust laws are artificial, and have no moral force whatsoever. 

Thanks for your comment.

----------


## Sam I am

> Justice exists independent of temporary "might." The laws of justice are absolute and eternal, like the laws of arithmetic or mechanics, etc. This is why I call them Natural Laws, because they exist and operate REGARDLESS of your opinion of them, just like the law of gravity, for instance. 
> 
> Your ignorance of the law of gravity, or your dislike of it, will not prevent you from falling once you step off the cliff. So are the laws of Justice. They are eternal and unalterable. Justice ALWAYS fulfills its course, REGARDLESS of your opinion of it. Therefore, Justice is the ULTIMATE MIGHT. So I guess we agree.
> 
> As for the Constitution: inasmuch as its laws violate the eternal Laws of Justice, they are artificial and, in fact, immoral. But whatever law in the Constitution is in harmony with principles of Justice, it is Natural, as justice itself. 
> 
> Thus, JUST laws are Natural; and unjust laws are artificial, and have no moral force whatsoever. 
> 
> Thanks for your comment.


Law of gravity is also a natural law
Newton's three laws of motion are natural laws.  

Moral laws are artificial laws.  "Justice" is an artificial law.  You seem to confuse the concepts of "natural" and "good"  Nature knows no good or evil.  It knows no morals or justice.  It just is. 






> Justice ALWAYS fulfills its course, REGARDLESS of your opinion of it.


I applaud your optimism, but I think you should go read some of AntiFederalist's threads. regarding that issue.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Law of gravity is also a natural law
> Newton's three laws of motion are natural laws.  
> 
> Moral laws are artificial laws.  "Justice" is an artificial law.


We differ in definition of the word "natural." I defined it as something that is universal and independent of your opinion of it (like the law of gravity). Defined this way, Justice is natural.




> Nature knows no good or evil.  It knows no morals or justice.  It just is.


Wrong. But you will have to wait till the Final Judgment to receive the undeniable proof of it. But you, and everyone else WILL receive that proof! 

Your agnosticism will not dethrone God. You labor under a delusion that it can, but He, like Justice, exists independent of your opinion of Him.  I humbly suggest you make him your friend, because with him is all the "might" and all the right, you alluded to before. And if it is only force that you respect, well he got ALL power BECAUSE he is right. This is the case where RIGHT makes MIGHT, even all of it.



Cheers.

----------


## Sam I am

> We differ in definition of the word "natural." I defined it as something that is universal and independent of your opinion of it (like the law of gravity). Defined this way, Justice is natural.
> 
> Wrong. But you will have to wait till the Final Judgment to receive the undeniable proof of it. But you, and everyone else WILL receive that proof! 
> 
> Your agnosticism will not dethrone God. You labor under a delusion that it can, but He, like Justice, exists independent of your opinion of Him.  I humbly suggest you make him your friend, because with him is all the "might" and all the right, you alluded to before. 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers.


And that's the big difference between Actual Natural Laws like gravity and fake "natural laws" like morality

you don't have to wait for gravity to be proven or not.  It already has been proven, and it can be proven again, repeatedly.

----------


## Sam I am

..

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> And that's the big difference between Actual Natural Laws like gravity and fake "natural laws" like morality
> 
> you don't have to wait for gravity to be proven or not.  It already has been proven, and it can be proven again, repeatedly.


I beg to disagree. The laws of morality and justice are proven constantly, though some people fight against them. Only those societies that live in harmony with laws of Justice and morality enjoy peace. Only those individuals who live in harmony with the eternal laws of Justice and morality have peace in their hearts. These are facts attested by experience. You can deny them, but it will not make it otherwise. It is possible to obtain the proof of this for yourself by personal experience, but you cannot force this knowledge upon another until the Final Judgment, where every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. But for now everyone may choose for themselves. 

Peace is real. Happiness is real. You cannot have them unless by abiding the principles of Justice and morality, try as you might. It is a fact. It is no less real than the Sun that shines over your head. 

In fact the most important things in life are invisible, but nonetheless real.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Alabama Nullifies Agenda 21 with Legislation Receiving Signature of Governor

"Alabama has become the first state to NULLIFY the United Nations Agenda 21, which was agreed upon by International Government in Rio in 1992 at the Earth Summit on Climate Change, to be imposed on sovereign nations, such as the United States of America.

Alabama SB 477, by Senator Dial,  known as the Due Process for Property Rights Act, was approved by the Alabama Senate and House, along with achieving a resistant signature from Governor Robert Bentley."

----------


## Sullivan*

> I beg to disagree. The laws of morality and justice are proven constantly, though some people fight against them. Only those societies that live in harmony with laws of Justice and morality enjoy peace. Only those individuals who live in harmony with the eternal laws of Justice and morality have peace in their hearts. These are facts attested by experience. You can deny them, but it will not make it otherwise. It is possible to obtain the proof of this for yourself by personal experience, but you cannot force this knowledge upon another until the Final Judgment, where every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. But for now everyone may choose for themselves. 
> 
> Peace is real. Happiness is real. You cannot have them unless by abiding the principles of Justice and morality, try as you might. It is a fact. It is no less real than the Sun that shines over your head. 
> 
> In fact the most important things in life are invisible, but nonetheless real.


You should (re)read The Law.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

I have read it. And your point is?

----------


## showpan

How many people here have actually attended a town meeting? Let's go to the next step, how many people who have attended  town meetings have stood up and spoke?
200 years ago, practically the whole town showed up. Today you're lucky to get a dozen people. I have actually been to meetings where it was only me and one other gentleman who is there like clockwork wearing his Vietnam Vet t-shirt and cap. If nobody is going to participate, then liberty is lost. It starts at the town level, the lowest form of government. This is where your voice is the loudest and yet this is also where we remain silent. First the town is allowed to get away with whatever they want. Then the county sees this and they do whatever they want. Then the states see that the people are asleep and they can do whatever they want. Finally the Fed realizes that the people are actually in a coma and here we are today.

Does anyone here actually think that 100 protesters at the white house is going to be enough to sway anything?

This is an example from 1981
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=3815,1459048
This is recent
http://www.courierpress.com/news/201...r-white-house/
This is now
http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/pres...-bill-h-r-347/

The only thing that the current fascists are going to understand is this from 1968, it will be the only way to get anything done now because too many people decided that they were going to lay down.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Rand Paul calls for Revolt After Health Law Ruling

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so,”




State Nullification is the answer!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Jury Nullification Passed in New Hampshire!

Alleluia!!!

This is BIG! Please, urge your state representatives *NOW* to do the same in your State!

Jury Nullification is an ABSOLUTE MUST if Liberty is to be restored!!!

This is an excellent way to end Obama care and any other overreaching and wicked Federal law! Juries of peers can nulify them on the spot, in the case before them!

Hurray!

Do it now, please!

"Jury nullification, in which jurors refuse to convict defendants under laws they find objectionable or inappropriately applied, is a favored tactic of many libertarians who, rightly or wrongly perceive individual liberty as, at best, a minority taste among their neighbors. They like the idea of a tool that can be wielded on the spot to shield people from powerful control freaks without first having to win a popularity contest. But nullification is useful only if people know about. And last week, New Hampshire's governor signed a law requiring the state's judges to permit defense attorneys to inform jurors of their right to nullify the law."

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/29/ne...-nullification

----------


## PierzStyx

I'm against it simply because its not needed. We already have a nullification amendment. Its called the Tenth Amendment. That people don't use their power is the issue, not the need for another useless amendment.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I'm against it simply because its not needed. We already have a nullification amendment. Its called the Tenth Amendment. That people don't use their power is the issue, not the need for another useless amendment.


They don't use this power because they are being LIED to by the judges who tell them they have NO right to judge the law only the facts of the case.

----------


## Keith and stuff

> Jury Nullification Passed in New Hampshire!
> 
> Alleluia!!!
> 
> This is BIG! Please, urge your state representatives *NOW* to do the same in your State!
> 
> Jury Nullification is an ABSOLUTE MUST if Liberty is to be restored!!!
> 
> This is an excellent way to end Obama care and any other overreaching and wicked Federal law! Juries of peers can nulify them on the spot, in the case before them!
> ...


I think I heard something about this.  I hope a fully informed jury bill passes in every state.  In fact, I'd love the judge to have to inform the jury and the defense to be able to inform the jury with lots of leeway to use examples.  A man can dream, can't he?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I think I heard something about this.  I hope a fully informed jury bill passes in every state.  In fact, I'd love the judge to have to inform the jury and the defense to be able to inform the jury with lots of leeway to use examples.  A man can dream, can't he?


 Yeah! I think the Judge must be ordered, by law, to say:


*You, the jurors, have the right and responsibility to judge BOTH the law and the facts in the case before you, and it is your duty to acquit the defendant and find him/her not guilty, if you feel that the law is unjust, unfair, inapplicable or unconstitutional.

**
*​

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Tom Woods Nullification Documentary Wins at Film Festival




Nullification The Rightful Remedy - Full

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Jury imposition is a bulwark against tyranny in defense of Liberty.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Judge Napolitano on Nullification and the Constitutional Powers of States





Note:



> an·ar·chy
>    [an-er-kee] Show IPA
> noun
> 1. a state of society without government or law.
> 
> 2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
> 
> *3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.*
> 
> 4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.


Definitions 1, 2, and 4 are negative. Definition 3, is the very definition of Freedom. And it is the 3rd definition of the word that applies to Napolitano. 

The better word, of course, is Liberty, since the 3rd definition is not widely known.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Hennepin County, Minnesota: Jury finds farmer not guilty in raw-milk case.* [The government had claimed that is was a crime to sell unpasteurized milk.] StarTribune 2012 Sep 20 (Cached)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thomas Woods: 
Nullification a Tool We All Have
He should be in stand up. Nice!

----------


## Working Poor

Are the voters in legal terms "the People"? I ask this because I am not so sure that the voters are according to the constitution are "the People". People correct me if this understanding I have come to is incorrect.

When court cases are prosecuted they are done so by the state aka "the People".

Now the voters elect many government officials but then the officials become "the People"
I believe according to the Constitution the voters are called "citizens" that would be the ones who vote. The ones who do not vote are just out their in limbo land or something? Am I right or wrong? Someone please clear this up for me.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Are the voters in legal terms "the People"? I ask this because I am not so sure that the voters are according to the constitution are "the People". People correct me if this understanding I have come to is incorrect.
> 
> When court cases are prosecuted they are done so by the state aka "the People".
> 
> Now the voters elect many government officials but then the officials become "the People"
> I believe according to the Constitution the voters are called "citizens" that would be the ones who vote. The ones who do not vote are just out their in limbo land or something? Am I right or wrong? Someone please clear this up for me.


The State is NOT the people. The people are just that, all the individuals who live in the country. The State (as it is now) is a parasite upon the people. The State (as it is now) is organized crime. Why? Because they violate the Non Aggression Principle. So, thus, they are the criminals.

----------


## PierzStyx

> They don't use this power because they are being LIED to by the judges who tell them they have NO right to judge the law only the facts of the case.


Irrelevant to the point. With the internet education on the issue is easy to obtain.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Irrelevant to the point. With the internet education on the issue is easy to obtain.


How exactly is it irrelevant to the point? Do you not think that if people's right to nullify will be spelled out in the supreme legislation of the land it will HELP in educating them? The most important things must be on the surface, readily available to dispel deception perpetrated by the crooked judges. Truth must prevail this way.

Besides, the tenth amendment is LESS strong, than the correct principle I am proposing here.

----------


## Working Poor

> The State is NOT the people.


Then why do they call themselves "the People" in court?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Then why do they call themselves "the People" in court?


Because they are liars.
Surprised?

----------


## Working Poor

> Because they are liars.
> Surprised?


I am talking about legal terms yes I know they are lairs. Are you are lawyer?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> I am talking about legal terms yes I know they are lairs. Are you are lawyer?


Do I sound like one?

----------


## Working Poor

> Do I sound like one?


No you don't that is why I asked I think it is a question for a lawyer.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> No you don't that is why I asked I think it is a question for a lawyer.


A lawyer will say: "The government signs as 'The People' because you voted it in, therefore they are representing you." This is, of course, is a pile of manure, because no one has the right to represent me without my EXPLICIT permission, and neither I, nor MOST of the people in the country gave them that permission. Therefore they are usurpers and liars. (Or should I say liawyers?) Nothing new here.

Besides, "The People" means something only when PUBLIC property is involved. It means exactly NOTHING when PRIVATE property is involved, and none of the people has a just claim to it.  "The People" have nor moral right to violate the property of even ONE individual.

----------


## AFPVet

I believe the reason why the state calls themselves "the people" is due to representation. The state represents the people (in their little minds lol). Usually, however, they say government, or the state rather than the people.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Thomas Jefferson’s Other Declaration



_In 1798 Thomas Jefferson secretly drafted another declaration few know about..._


_by Derek Sheriff
_
Most Americans know that Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of “The Declaration of Independence”, the most important of all our founding documents.

Yet few of them have even heard of another document that I would say might be the second most important declaration he ever wrote: The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. He drafted them secretly while he was serving as vice president. It was written in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts which were passed under the Adams administration during an undeclared war with France.

The acts authorized the president to deport any resident alien considered dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States, and criminalized any speech which might defame Congress, the President, or bring either of them into contempt or disrepute. You could compare it to the Patriot Act, but really it was much worse. Either way, The Alien and Sedition Acts were probably Thomas Jefferson’s worst nightmare.

Some people are surprised to learn that in response to these acts, Jefferson did not hold up the First Amendment in protest. Rather he invoked the Tenth Amendment, which states that:

_“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”_
Essentially, he argued that by passing and enforcing the Alien and Sedition Acts, the federal government had over stepped its bounds and was exercising powers which belonged to the states.

In other words, the Alien and Sedition Acts were acts of usurpation.

James Madison corresponded with Jefferson about these issues, (they suspected that their mail was being secretly opened and read by the way). As a result of their correspondence, James Madison penned another series of resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were passed by the Virginia legislature in 1798 and 1799.

As important as these resolutions were in objecting to the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, their lasting importance was due to the the fact that they were strong statements in defense of federalism, the sovereignty of the people of the several states, and the authority of state governments to check or resist the tyrannical proclivities of the federal government.


Read more: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010...r-declaration/

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*US: The recent elections produced 6 victories for      states' rights and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. * [Here is a list of the propositions that were      passed, legalization of marijuana and relief from Obamacare.] _ 
    Tenth Amendment_ Center 2012 Nov 7 (Cached)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*State by State, a Nullification Domino Effect*

Marijuana oil has amazing medicinal properties. We should rejoice in decriminalization, because war on drugs is:
 
a) immoral 
b) impractical 
c) devastating to liberty and thus the life of the nation.

Let FREEDOM ring!

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/poindexter9.1.1.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*The Michigan House of Representatives unanimously      passed the NDAA nullification bill to prevent indefinite detention of      American citizens by the federal government.*  [The bill now is headed for the state Senate.] _TAC_ 2012 Dec 5 (Cached)

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Tom Woods:
Ron Paul Right, Thought Controllers Wrong, on Secession 

Right on! Brilliant.

----------


## cbrons

> *US: The recent elections produced 6 victories for      states' rights and nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. * [Here is a list of the propositions that were      passed, legalization of marijuana and relief from Obamacare.] _ 
>     Tenth Amendment_ Center 2012 Nov 7 (Cached)


Any one who doesn't vote for it is a complete traitor IMO. Hopefully more and more state houses will start telling the fedcoats to go back over the pond from whence they came.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Any one who doesn't vote for it is a complete traitor IMO. Hopefully more and more state houses will start telling the fedcoats to go back over the pond from whence they came.


Right on!

----------


## Origanalist

> Any one who doesn't vote for it is a complete traitor IMO. *Hopefully more and more state houses will start telling the fedcoats to go back over the pond from whence they came.*


They will only do so when the people demand it. In no uncertain terms.

Great thread Foundation_Of_Liberty.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> They will only do so when the people demand it. In no uncertain terms.
> 
> Great thread Foundation_Of_Liberty.


Thanks!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Montana Lawmaker Moves to Protect Second Amendment



A Montana lawmaker is proposing amendments to the Constitution to nullify the effects of laws in the works to outlaw firearms.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/montana-...amendment.html

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Ret. Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor On 2nd Amendment and* *Nullification!*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Wyoming Bill Would Nullify Obama Gun Control, Jail Feds

*Alex Newman*
New American

Jan 12, 2013

As the Obama administration plots various assaults on gun rights by “executive order” and legislation, proposals described as “very extreme” even by some Democrats, state lawmakers in Wyoming have another idea. Republican legislators are rallying behind nullification legislation that would void unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, even providing prison time for any federal agents who may try to enforce Washington, D.C., gun control in the state. Lawmakers expect it to pass.

The new bill, H.B. 0104 or the “Firearms Protection Act,” would nullify any new federal infringements on the constitutionally protected gun rights of state residents — who enjoy some of the lowest crime rates while being among the most heavily armed people in America. Unconstitutional federal gun registration schemes, as well as restrictions on semi-automatic guns or standard-capacity magazines, would also be nullified under the legislation.

*There are teeth in the proposed law too: Any federal official attempting to enforce unconstitutional statutes or decrees infringing on gun rights passed after January 1 of this year would be charged with a felony. If convicted, criminal officials would be punished by up to five years in state prison and a $5,000 fine. The legislation also authorizes the state attorney general to defend citizens of Wyoming if federal authorities seek prosecutions under unconstitutional gun control rules.
*
At least eight state representatives and two state senators have already sponsored the legislation. And nationwide, support for similar measures is exploding. “We want to get things ahead of the game,” Republican state Rep. Kendell Kroeker, the primary sponsor of the bill, told the _Huffington Post_. “We take the Second Amendment seriously in Wyoming…. If the federal government is going to pass laws taking back our rights, it is our right as a state to defend those rights.”

Citing his oath to support and defend the U.S. and state constitutions, state Rep. Kroeker has been a leader in standing against lawless usurpations of power by the federal government. In a previous session, he introduced legislation to increase the use of gold as currency in the state, for example. “I take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Wyoming,” Kroeker continued, telling reporters that his constituents and activists nationwide were thrilled by the move. “I believe it is my duty to take that oath seriously.”

In a separate interview with the Associated Press, the liberty-minded lawmaker noted that there are “a lot of people” who would seek to take all of Americans’ guns — at least if they could. The only thing restraining them, Kroeker said, is public opposition as well as other lawmakers who take their oaths seriously and are concerned about protecting the people’s unalienable rights.

“We’re a sovereign state with our own constitutional form of government,” he told the AP. “We’ve got a right to make our laws, and if the federal government is going to try to enforce unconstitutional laws on our people and take away the rights of Wyoming citizens, then we as a state are going to step up and make that a crime.”
In the state Senate, another co-sponsor of the legislation, Wyoming State Senator Larry Hicks, cited the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the states or the people. The nullification bill, he added in an interview with the _Washington Examiner_, will send a message to federal politicians considering further infringements on the rights of his constituents.

“It says that your one size fits all solution doesn’t comport to what a vast majority of the state believes,” Sen. Hicks told the paper about the message federal politicians should be taking from the legislation, telling other reporters that state lawmakers were receiving e-mails in support of the bill from all across America and that citizens were urging their own states to take similar action. “I don’t think this is controversial in Wyoming at all…. I fully expect this bill to pass.”

According to the liberty-minded state senator, even if Congress refuses to budge, the administration is determined to restrict gun ownership by presidential decree. “I think that’s the biggest threat we’re facing,” he told the AP. Sen. Hicks also said that his constituents were “absolutely terrified” about threats from Washington to assault gun rights — especially Vice President Joe Biden’s pledge this week to implement the lawless attack by executive order.

“They are very, very upset that we’re going to see some level of federal takeover of our weapons and abuse of our rights given to us by the Second Amendment,” the state senator was quoted as saying, referring to his constituents. “Also, that the federal government will bypass our legislative officials and confiscate our weapons through executive order. This gives citizens of the Western United States a great deal of concern.”

The AP, in an uncharacteristically honest assessment, pointed out that Wyoming has one of the highest rates of per-capita gun ownership in America, and that it also has among the lowest levels of gun violence. “Part of it’s our culture,” Hicks explained. “Our kids grow up around firearms, and they also grow up hunting, and they know what the consequences are of taking a life. And they know at an early age, whether you hunt or fish, that there’s consequences from pulling that trigger. We’re not insulated from the real world in Wyoming.”

At least one Democrat, Rep. James Byrd, has already expressed his opposition to the plan. “If you want to pick a fight with the feds, let’s pick a fight with the feds that’s about something that means something,” he was quoted as saying by the AP while claiming to be a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment. It was not immediately clear why Byrd thought the unalienable right to keep and bear arms — enshrined in both the Wyoming and U.S. constitutions — was not meaningful.

Predictably, Obama apparatchiks funded by billionaire statist George Soros are already crying foul, too. The far-left “Think Progress” blog, for example, claimed that nullification would be unconstitutional. “The constitution actually stipulates that federal law ‘shall be the supreme law of the land,’” Annie-Rose Strasser alleged falsely, without pointing out the constitutional stipulation that federal laws must be “made in pursuance” with the Constitution. It was not clear whether the writer was simply ignorant of American history and the U.S. Constitution, or whether the false statements were deliberate lies in an effort to confuse readers.

Some analysts quoted in the establishment press, also presumably unfamiliar with history or the U.S. Constitution, have claimed that states may not nullify unconstitutional federal usurpations as well. Of course, American history is replete with examples of nullification — Wisconsin nullified a federal statute purporting to require the return of escaped slaves to their masters, for example. Even Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson helped states void unconstitutional legislation in the early years of the Republic.

More recently, states all across America have been putting their foot down. Even causes traditionally associated with liberals, such as marijuana legalization, have succeeded through nullification — Colorado and Washington state both legalized the controversial plant in November, and many other states have approved it for medical use in spite of unconstitutional federal statutes. Conservatives and libertarians have also been relying on nullification, especially in recent years.

As the increasingly out-of-control federal government tries to restrict more and more of Americans’ unalienable rights — with the Second Amendment just the latest target — state lawmakers all across the country are taking action. A bill just introduced in Indiana known as the Firearm Freedom Act, for instance, would also protect the rights of gun owners to be free from federal regulations if the gun was produced and purchased in the state. Similar legislation has already been adopted in other states.

Meanwhile, law-enforcement officials, such as sheriffs and police chiefs, are also developing legal strategies to protect gun rights in their jurisdictions, with some lobbying for nullification measuresas well. As _The New American_ reported this week, while the Obama administration seeks to severely infringe on the Second Amendment, talk of mass resistance nationwide is growing in tandem. The president may believe he can violate the Constitution by decree, but it appears that many states have had just about enough of the lawlessness. If Congress refuses to rein in the out-of-control administration, state governments may have to do it instead.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

States Aim to Nullify Obama Gun Control

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Yoohoo, Go Utah!*

 * 28 out of 29 Utah sheriffs have signed a letter to      Obama proclaiming they are willing to trade their lives to uphold the      traditional interpretation of the Constitution.*  [They specifically mentioned the Second Amendment and      said they will refuse to enforce gun confiscation.] _CNS News_ 2013 Jan 22 (Cached)

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Secession Part 1 of 3: 
CONSENT of the Governed. 




Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiaQvkY6eRY

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvlx3kfxFtc  << Awesome!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Counties and Cities Now Nullifying Gun Control
**by Alex Newman
The New American**

*As state lawmakers all across America craft nullification legislation to defy unconstitutional federal gun-control schemes and sheriffs openly vow to protect the Second Amendment regardless of what Obama or Congress say, municipal and county governments are getting involved in the action, too. In fact, in recent weeks, several local governments have unanimously approved ordinances and resolutions nullifying any and all lawless restrictions on gun rights.

At least two counties so far, one in North Carolina and another in Indiana, recently adopted ordinances nullifying every infringement on the unalienable human right to keep and bear arms. Municipal governments are jumping on the bandwagon as well, with Gilberton Borough in Pennsylvania adopting on January 24 the "Second Amendment Preservation Resolution" proposed by liberty-minded Police Chief Mark Kessler.

Analysts and activists, meanwhile, expect that trend to continue accelerating as extremists in Washington, D.C., and some state capitals openly threaten to impose further violations of the Constitution in defiance of their oath of office. Nationwide, activists are applauding officials at all levels of government who are rising up and putting their foot down, vowing to defend the Second Amendment rights of Americans no matter what decrees or pretended acts of legislation may be issued to the contrary.

Most recently, commissioners in Franklin County, Indiana, voted unanimously this week to approve the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance. The popular measure exempts all law-abiding residents of the southeastern Indiana county from unconstitutional federal gun control, including past, current, and future restrictions, according to the text of the strongly worded ordinance.

All federal acts, laws, orders, rules or regulations regarding firearms are a violation of the 2nd Amendment,reads the simple but powerful measure. It shall be the duty of the Sheriff of this County to take all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of any federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Hundreds of sheriffs nationwide, of course, have already openly announced their intention to defy any federal restrictions on gun rights, and a powerful new coalition just formed to recruit even more. Echoing state-level nullification efforts that are spreading like wildfire across America, the county ordinance in Indiana goes on to explain in clear language the rationale behind the lawful resistance: Unconstitutional infringements on unalienable rights are totally illegitimate and must be treated as such.

The Franklin County Board of Commissioners declares that all federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations  past, present or future  in violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violate its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, the county law states. Therefore, all such measures are hereby declared to be invalid in this county, shall not be recognized by this county, are specifically rejected by this county, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this county.

Analysts noted that the ordinance represents an extremely strong stand in defense of the Second Amendment. And that is exactly what county commissioners intended. The citizens of Franklin County take the Constitution seriously and the State and Federal government need to do so as well, said County Commissioner Scott McDonough, who joined all of his fellow commissioners voting in favor of the powerful stand against lawless tyranny. A legal expert quoted by the Associated Press said the law is legitimate unless and until it is successfully challenged in court.

Last month, meanwhile, Beaufort County, North Carolina, became the first county in America to officially nullify restrictions on the Second Amendment. In a unanimous vote, the board of commissioners approved a resolution calling on the governor and the state legislature to immediately pass an act to nullify the implementation within the State of North Carolina of any federal law, executive order or regulations restricting the right to keep and bear arms.

*Yeah!*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*US: 231 Sheriffs and 4 state sheriff associations have taken a stand against Obama gun control.*[In this video, Sheriff Richard Mack explains why this is important.] _InfoWars Posted 2013 Feb 2 (Cached)

_http://www.realityzone.com/currentperiod.html

----------


## Tod

More news w/ Gilberton Borough, Pennsylvania Police Chief Mark Kessler.  http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/po...-against-feds/




> If you wish to be a part of his “reserve force,” or if you are not in  the area and wish to donate to the Gilberton Borough Police Department,  you can contact Chief Kessler via snail mail, email or phone.
>  Attn: Chief Of Police
> Gilberton Borough Police Department
> 2710 Main street
> Mahanoy Plane, Pa 17949
>  chiefkessler[at]gmail.com
> 570-874-4790
>  UPDATE:  Kessler will be interviewed on Arising Republic Radio on Friday, February 22, 2013 at 9pm EST.  *Calls will be taken*.
> 
> ...


http://arisingrepublic.com/


Anyone wanna toss out some good questions regarding constitutionality of some laws for him to field?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Is Nullification Unconstitutional?
(Who cares, right?)
by Tom Woods.

Now on some level, we shouldn’t care: resisting violent people who claim the right to expropriate you and force you around is a natural right, and doesn’t rely on any parchment guarantee.

But I for one prefer to address my opponents from every angle I can, including their own.

These days we’re seeing a lot of newspaper columns condemning the idea of state nullification of unconstitutional federal laws. A common claim is that nullification is “unconstitutional.” I’ve addressed this claim in bits and pieces elsewhere, but I figured I’d write up one post I can use to counter this argument once and for all.

The most common claim, which one hears quite a bit from law professors (this is not meant as a compliment), is that the Supremacy Clause precludes nullification. “Federal law trumps state law” is the (rather inane) way we hear the principle expressed these days.

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. It’s safe to assume that Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and _laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof_ shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”

At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”

Another argument against the constitutionality of nullification is that the Constitution nowhere mentions it.

This is an odd complaint, coming as it usually does from those who in any other circumstance do not seem especially concerned to find express constitutional sanction for particular government policies.

The mere fact that a state’s reserved right to obstruct the enforcement of an unconstitutional law is not expressly stated in the Constitution does not mean the right does not exist. The Constitution is supposed to establish a federal government of enumerated powers, with the remainder reserved to the states or the people. Essentially nothing the states do is authorized in the federal Constitution, since enumerating the states’ powers is not the purpose of and is alien to the structure of that document.

James Madison urged that the true meaning of the Constitution was to be found in the state ratifying conventions, for it was there that the people, assembled in convention, were instructed with regard to what the new document meant. Jefferson spoke likewise: should you wish to know the meaning of the Constitution, consult the words of its friends.

Federalist supporters of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention of 1788 assured Virginians that they would be “exonerated” should the federal government attempt to impose “any supplementary condition” upon them – in other words, if it tried to exercise a power over and above the ones the states had delegated to it. Virginians were given this interpretation of the Constitution by members of the five-man commission that was to draft Virginia’s ratification instrument. Patrick Henry, John Taylor, and later Jefferson himself elaborated on these safeguards that Virginians had been assured of at their ratifying convention.

Nullification derives from the (surely correct) “compact theory” of the Union, to which no full-fledged alternative appears to have been offered until as late as the 1830s. That compact theory, in turn, derives from and implies the following:

1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” (and by “states” it means places like Spain and France) that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one.

The states performed activities that we associate with sovereignty. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina outfitted ships to cruise against the British. It was the troops of Connecticut that took Ticonderoga. In New Hampshire, the executive was authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In 1776 it was declared that the crime of treason would be thought of as being perpetrated not against the states united into an indivisible blob, but against the states individually.

Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.

2) In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.

3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:
The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

In other words, the courts have their role, but in “great and extraordinary cases” it would be absurd for the states, the fundamental building blocks of the United States, not to be able to defend themselves against the exercise of usurped power. The logic of sovereignty and the American Union demand it.

And as for “but Madison later claimed he never supported nullification!” see myNullificationFAQ.com, and/or pages 288-290 of my book _Nullification_.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Kansas enacts law to nullify federal violations of Second Amendment

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Both chambers of Missouri's state legislature      passed a bill with a huge veto-proof majority.*  [The bill nullifies unconstitutional federal gun laws, including      those that impose special taxes, track ownership, or confiscate firearms.      Missouri reserves the right to determine the constitutionality of such laws.] _TAC_ 2013 May 9 (Cached)


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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

* Arizona Legislation Tells NSA “You’re Not Welcome Here.” *  [If passed, the Fourth Amendment Protection Act will prevent local agencies from  providing water and electricity, prohibit the use of evidence in  court if gathered without a warrant, block universities from serving as NSA  research facilities, and penalize corporations that try to fill NSA needs  withheld by the state.] _10th Amendment Center_ 2013 Dec 9 (Cached)

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*Jury Nullification a Way to Save America*
 



 

*What is Jury Nullification?*

 Jury nullification is the act of a criminal trial jury in refusing  to convict on conscientious grounds in spite of proof of guilt beyond a  reasonable doubt, because they think the law is unjust, the law is  misapplied, or the punishment is inappropriate.

 Juries have always had [a political] role. Thats what the founders intended to protect in the 6th Amendment, and thats whats guaranteed in the constitutions of all 50 states.

 The understanding of the phrase judges of both fact and law has  changed over the years because our understanding of where the law comes  from has changed. Back in that period of history, people believed in natural law doctrine.  That was the generally accepted view of where the law comes from. Law  was considered part of natural science to be discovered.

 Today we have a much more technocratic understanding of the law.  Natural law doctrine has given way to a positive, formalistic conception  of law. But under natural law doctrine when you say the jury is the  finder of fact and law, it means they can determine where justice lies,  because justice is what the law was. It was the understanding of what  was just that was their understanding of the law.

 Today judges tell jurors to commit injustice in the name of law, and we call that progress.

...

*Top 3 Common Objections to Nullification*


*1) Doesnt jury nullification undermine rule of law?*No.  Jury nullification is a part of our law. Its part of the checks and  balances in our constitutional system. Just as pardon power is used by  governors and the president, juries have the power to bring back  acquittals.
*...*

*3) Doesnt jury nullification violates the jurors oath?*If  theres any problem, the problem is the way with which these oaths are  written. The problem is not with the ability of jurors to vote according  to their conscience.

...

*Fugitive Slave Era: Jury Nullifications Finest Hour
*


1850s-style rights flexing


 Kirsten displayed this pre-Civil War know-your-rights flyer, urging Northern abolitionists not talk to police tasked with enforcing fugitive slave laws. She highlights famous Shadrack Minkins fugitive slave case and others where Northern prosecutors repeatedly failed to secure convictions under these onerous laws.


*Re: Disingenuous Fact Finding*

 Id like to reframe something that Clay [Conrad] said. He referred  to jury nullification as disingenuous fact finding. Id like to  suggest an alternative framing. I consider it a genuine finding that a  law applied in a case at hand is wrong. The true disingenuous of the  system is from laws that redefine vices, which harm nobody, as crimes.  Crimes are actually things that harm people or property. And further  disingenuousness comes from judges who explicitly misinform jurors of  their rights.

...

Jury nullification really should be a tool that we use to provide  relief from the War on Drugs and to protect all of our rights. And the  fact that were not makes me a little nuts. It boggles my mind. But it  is indeed a tool for policy change, and we can see that because two  constitutional amendments were helped along to their final passage  through jury nullification. 

The highest and best purpose of the independent jury is to protect  each other from the unjust laws and abusive prosecutions imposed by  government.


*Whats at Stake?*

 What is at stake is huge. You can save reputations. You can save  relationships. You can save peoples livelihood or property. You can  save their educations, because they might not be able to get a student  loan if convicted. You can save their freedom, and you can in fact save  their life. (Even if its not a death penalty case people get killed in  prison.) _You cannot be required to check your conscience at the  courthouse door_. No victim means no crime. If there is no victim, then  the law is wrong. The person is not guilty.

...


*Jury Duty Tips*

 For starters, [a jury] hero simply shows up for service. Instead of  tossing the summons in the trash like about 70% of us do, she seizes the  opportunity to do what is perhaps the single most important and  powerful thing an individual citizen can do to stop the War on Drugs. To  put it another way, being a trial juror is the most important and  powerful political position any of us will likely hold in our entire  lives.

 Instead of using jury selection as an opportunity to expound on her  views as a proud drug policy reformer, our hero chooses a path that is  more likely to help set free a drug war prisoner and make a powerful  public statement.

 For my money, the two articles that present the most clear-minded  strategic approach to being an intelligent and conscientious juror are  Clay Conrads article _A Guide to Surviving as a Juror_ and an article called _Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right_ [PDF] by Prof. James Duane.

 Our movie will borrow lots of tips from these articles which show  you how to answer prosecutors and judges question truthfully and  improve your odds of getting selected. My favorite tip is from Clays  article. He says if, for example, youre asked in a drug case Would you  be able to put your opinions aside and vote guilty? The correct answer  is yes. Of course you could vote guilty. Just like you could  shove your arm down a garbage disposal, that doesnt mean youre legally  committed to doing so! [Audience laughter.] You can always change your  mind later.

 The key to improving your odds of getting picked for the jury is to  always present yourself as having an open mind, or perhaps even a mind  that maybe hasnt yet given a whole lot of thought to the issue.

*Just Say Not Guilty*

 The judge and jury wont make it easy [to vote 'not guilty']. Our  hero will have to stick to her guns and shes going to have to resist  saying anything that smacks of any knowledge of jury nullification.

 So what can our hero reasonably do to persuade other jurors to vote  not guilty when there doesnt seem to be much reasonable doubt about  technical guilt? Maybe she could try to open up some doubt about the  trustworthiness of witness who cut a deal with the prosecutor to betray  their partner? Or maybe she could even try to cast doubt on the  political motivators of the ambitious lead prosecutor? But even if she  cant convince anybody to change their mind. Even if shes all alone,  our hero will stick to her guns and vote her conscience and calmly  repeat Not Guilty.

 ...

*What if the government retaliates against me for nullifying?*

*Jesse Stout:* How would you advise someone who has  been contacted by the government after nullifying. I have a close friend  who recently successfully hung a federal drug sales jury. He called me  and I congratulated him on exercising this constitutional right. And  only a few weeks later he called to say The FBI is called me. They want  to talk about my jury service, and I was curious what our experts on  the panel would advise we tell people who are concerned about the  government tampering, interfering, or trying to retaliate against  someone whos exercising this important right?

*Clay Conrad:* First, nobody should ever talk to the  FBI unless you are subpoenaed to a grand jury. [Audience applause.]. And  even then you should talk to a lawyer before you do so. Anything you  say can be used against you, of course. Not only that, but any  statements you make might be deemed a false statement and then can be  used to indict you. Thats how they got Martha Stewart,  and she can probably afford better lawyers than anybody in this room.  So when the FBI comes knocking at your door, unless your child has been  kidnapped, you probably want to say No comment.

*Lindsay Lasalle:* Is it the case that people whove  nullified and have been public about it, has there been any legal  repercussions for any of those individuals?

*Clay Conrad:* The short answer is no. There was a woman named Laura Kriho that  some of you might know about. Shes from Colorado. She was charged  after her jury duty with perjury for allegedly not being candid during  jury selection. That case was thrown out on appeal because she was  honest in answering the questions she was asked. She didnt lie. They  were upset that she didnt volunteer information that the prosecutors  felt she knew they wanted to know.

*Audience Heckler:* So they suck at voir dire and its her fault?

*Clay Conrad:* Exactly! They didnt ask the right  questions, because they were afraid A) they were going to put ideas into  the minds of the jurors and B) they didnt want to offend anybody. So  they didnt ask penetrating questions. She didnt volunteer information.  Thats okay. You dont have to volunteer anything. During jury  selection you have to tell the truth. You dont have to volunteer  anything. You dont have to be any more specific than the question  demands.

 If they say, Could you do something? Yeah. Would you do  something? I dont know; I havent seen the evidence yet. But you dont  have to be any more specific than the question demands. You dont have  to volunteer anything. Now if they ask Have you ever attended a drug  reform conference, you would have to say yes. My personal feeling is  if I were on jury duty Id continue to be vague. If they did nail me  then Id probably make a short two or three sentence speech in order to  infect the rest of the juror pool.

...

*Tim Lynch:* Clay Conrad has in his book an entire  chapter addressing the problem of racist verdicts, which is a common  objection that does come up, and Ill let Clay address that. But the  quick response is that to use Clays words, juries are sometimes  scapegoated because theres a potential for abuse there.

 We have to remember that police officers have discretion to make  arrests. Sometimes that discretion is abused. Prosecutors have  discretion about whether they bring charges and how many types of  charges, so prosecutorial power can also be abused.

 We dont take away the governments power, because their powers have  the potential for abuse. But when people talk about juries and their  potential for abuse they want to take away the jurys prerogative for  leniency, so we have to put that into perspective.

...

Now are juries perfect? Of course not. Is jury nullification perfect?  Of course not. Any power, any prerogative can be abused. But I will say  that a panel of twelve diverse citizens acting through deliberation are  less likely to abuse their power than the judge, or the prosecutor, or  the police. That they are more likely to act in the interest of justice  than one person or a small group of like-minded people acting in the  privacy of a closed office that would be my judgement.

 So I would say out of all the actors in the criminal justice system,  the jury is the least racistand that is backed up in death penalty  cases. Where it has been shown that a black man is more likely to be  sentenced to death for killing a white man than in any other situation  because hes more likely to be prosecuted and charged with a capital  offense, the discretion is almost always on the part of the prosecutor.  Maybe a small percentage [of the discretion] is on the part of juries,  but its very small compared to the discretion the prosecutor tends to  have and the impact the prosecutor has in that disparity.



Read more http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/s...on-is-the-way/

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*The True Duty of a Jury*








I would still vote to dismantle the system of aggressive violence (and only for that purpose).

Secondly, please read _A Guide to Surviving as a Juror._ It teaches you how to prevent the government from throwing you out as a juror.  Basically, just say: No, Not guilty. They can legally do nothing about it. But they will not seat you as a juror if they suspect that you know the truth about your real power as a juror. 

So read the guide. 

Good luck, and God bless you.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*States take aim at the NSA by cutting off services*

----------


## 56ktarget

People who support nullification are neo-confederates.

----------


## otherone

> People who support nullification are neo-confederates.


I see what you did there....."neo-confederates" is dog whistle politics for "racists".

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> People who support nullification are neo-confederates.


*Nullification: Interview with a Zombie*

----------


## Occam's Banana

> People who support nullification are neo-confederates.





> I see what you did there....."neo-confederates" is dog whistle politics for "racists".


I wonder if Walter Williams can hear it?

*Walter Williams on Nullification, Secession and More*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6rBVpAu5aA

----------


## Occam's Banana

Also of interest ...

http://tomwoods.com/blog/beware-citi...s-catching-on/



> Thanks to James Corbett for this great pro-nullification, anti-Maddow video, featuring clips of the zombie (and I don’t mean Maddow). On nullification, see my StateNullification.com and NullificationFAQ.com.


*WARNING: Nullification Is Catching On*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cOcTrclc_8

*... NOT "Interview with a Zombie" ...
... GunnyFreedom cameo @ 6:05 ...*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Brilliant! Thanks!

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

**   *Idaho has passed a law affirming the 2nd Amendment.* [It  prohibits police from following federal  orders to confiscate citizens'  lawfully owned guns � as in New Orleans following  the Katrina flood.] _KBOI2_ Posted 2014 Feb 22

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added words: "*unjust law is no law at all*" to the top post.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Added a sentence to the amendment: 
*
"Juries must be made thoroughly aware, by any public court that hears the case, of this right of nullification."*

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

Changed the last paragraph of the amendment as follows:

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

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

*7 Bad Laws Undone By Good Jurors*

*
What is Jury Nullification?*

 You won’t find jury nullification defined in your dictionary or  described in your encyclopedia. You weren’t taught about it in school,  and indeed it is even considered a crime to tell other people about it  in some circumstances. Imagine that for a moment – it is a crime to  inform a citizen as to their right, even the scope of their duty while  serving on a jury.
 According to the Wikipedia entry:_Jury nullification is a constitutional  doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are  technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a  trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions  as to the law._ 
_A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to  the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops,  however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory  offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A  pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an  unwanted legislative enactment…_*Source: CopBlock.org* If you believe in a system of checks and balances to keep government  power from growing out of control, then you support jury nullification!
 Now, let’s look at some important cases in the history of jury nullification…


Read the rest here: http://libertyupward.com/bad-laws-un...y-good-jurors/

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## dude58677

So what action is being done so far? Anyone proposing an amendment like this? Will the Congress be sidestepped with a State Convention as stated in the Constitution?

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Nullification Amendment: The permission to not to ask for permission.


Not really. Rather a sky-high billboard (the Constitution) blazing the truth that can no longer be hidden by the judges. That is the reason for putting it into the Constitution. Visibility.

----------


## OReich

The federal government protects individual rights better than the states. If this amendment were passed, then Chicago could go back to taking away ppl's guns. This amendment would allow states to nullify the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment would no longer guarantee gun rights at the state level. I think Chicagoites should be allowed to own guns. Therefore the 14th amendment should continue to be upheld in Illinois and every other state. I like gun rights. This amendment sucks.

Same goes for the rest of the Bill of Rights at the state level. There's nothing libertarian or free about choosing state law supremacy over federal supremacy. Some states have crappy laws.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> The federal government protects individual rights better than the states.


It violates them better too. History shows that.




> If this amendment were passed, then Chicago could go back to taking away ppl's guns. This amendment would allow states to nullify the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment would no longer guarantee gun rights at the state level. I think Chicagoites should be allowed to own guns. Therefore the 14th amendment should continue to be upheld in Illinois and every other state. I like gun rights. This amendment sucks.
> 
> Same goes for the rest of the Bill of Rights at the state level. There's nothing libertarian or free about choosing state law supremacy over federal supremacy. Some states have crappy laws.


The beauty of this system, I am proposing, is that if a state has a bad law, it is much easier for the people to change it (because they are closer to that level of government) than a bad federal law, and it is also possible to vote with your feet and to move to a different state with better laws, thus naturally shrinking unjust states, and growing just ones. 

Both of these advantages are lost if the bad laws are Federal and forced upon the whole country.

Moreover, the amendment says: "*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.*" Notice a law can be nullified only if it is unjust. Who would you want to be the judge of what is just: Federal government or the people who live locally? I'd say justice is justice anywhere. It is science like mathematics. Whoever has it should be able to prove it, and has a right to enforce it.

This amendment simply says the obvious, that injustice can be stopped at any level it is found at, and the people have the right to nullify the injustice of both Federal and State governments. It is a perfectly sound principle of justice.

I say it again: ANYONE at any level has a right to nullify injustice or an unjust law, because an unjust law is null and void *by definition*. In the language of the amendment: "*unjust law is no law at all.*" So, all this amendment does is restates this obvious truth, so that corrupt judges cannot hide it anymore.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*CONstitutional Nullification Amendment*
*I'd probably be much more interested in a ^^.*

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> It violates them better too. History shows that.
> 
> The beauty of this system, I am proposing, is that if a state has a bad law, it is much easier for the people to change it (because they are closer to that level of government) than a bad federal law, and it is also possible to vote with your feet and to move to a different state with better laws, thus naturally shrinking unjust states, and growing just ones. 
> 
> Both of these advantages are lost if the bad laws are Federal and forced upon the whole country.
> 
> Moreover, the amendment says: "*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.*" Notice a law can be nullified only if it is unjust. Who would you want to be the judge of what is just: Federal government or the people who live locally? I'd say justice is justice anywhere. It is science like mathematics. Whoever has it should be able to prove it, and has a right to enforce it.
> *
> *This amendment simply says the obvious, that injustice can be stopped at any level it is found at, and the people have the right to nullify the injustice of both Federal and State governments. It is a perfectly sound principle of justice.
> ...


Not only can juries nullify a federal or state law in a specific court case, but state legislatures can and do permanently nullify a federal law.

A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law.  The "countermand amendment".  I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...same-authority

However, that does not not improve the peoples education which is vital to informed opinion that will be used in nullification approvals.  This proposal makes an Article V convention safe because it sees the people informing themselves by ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution

----------


## acptulsa

> A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law.  The "countermand amendment".  I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.


My God!  Chris!  That's actually an interesting idea!  And much safer than a full constitutional convention, from which all manner of frightening things could emerge.

I would remove the word 'unconstitutional' from it, though.  Let the states have the right to repeal federal code whether the Supreme Court or anyone else will agree it's unconstitutional.

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> My God!  Chris!  That's actually an interesting idea!  And much safer than a full constitutional convention, from which all manner of frightening things could emerge.
> 
> I would remove the word 'unconstitutional' from it, though.  Let the states have the right to repeal federal code whether the Supreme Court or anyone else will agree it's unconstitutional.


Wow, I actually made a post acptulsa approved of.  

Yes, the countermand amendment should really already be a part of the constitution. It's an extension of state nullification and a very efficient way to support states rights.  They are having quite good luck with states and last I heard I think 18 states had drafted applications for an Article V proposing the countermand amendment.

----------


## Foundation_Of_Liberty

> Not only can juries nullify a federal or state law in a specific court case, but state legislatures can and do permanently nullify a federal law.
> 
> A very constitutional amendment being proposed right now makes it possible for 60% of the states to remove an unconstitutional federal law.  The "countermand amendment".  I support this as an alternative to Article V for permanently getting rid of unconstitutional federal actions that impede all states.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...same-authority
> 
> However, that does not not improve the peoples education which is vital to informed opinion that will be used in nullification approvals.  This proposal makes an Article V convention safe because it sees the people informing themselves by ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ful-revolution


Nice! That is another way to do it. The only difference is that mine is a bit broader, as it allows a single state nullify an unjust federal law within its boarders; mine also mentions jury nullification, which is also important (because States can be as wicked as the Feds at times).

But I do like the penalty provisions in yours. I need to think about that. Thanks for posting!

----------


## Christopher A. Brown

> Nice! That is another way to do it. The only difference is that mine is a bit broader, as it allows a single state nullify an unjust federal law within its boarders; mine also mentions jury nullification, which is also important (because States can be as wicked as the Feds at times).
> 
> But I do like the penalty provisions in yours. I need to think about that. Thanks for posting!


I too like the idea of the 10th amendment standing.  Nullification of a specific federal law within a state is very important.

I've spoken personally with Charles Kacprowicz and Mike Cooney and they both liked the notion of a lawful, peaceful revolution as I define it.  However, they are committed to the countermand amendment which I appreciate.

It comes down to a chicken and egg dilemma.  Of course the countermand amendment is easier for states legislatures to comprehend and support.  My strategy challenges them and the bad ones won't like that.  But If I'm right and ALEC has been running a major scam for 20 + years, then enough states legislators are bought and paid for to hijack an Article V convention by conventions in 3/4 of the states without congress calling a convention; the needed 34 states will not apply for a convention in support of the countermand.

In that case the people need to be ready to jump state legislators with the "constitutional intent" question and preventing the states from leaving out the people in approval of proposed amendments as well aspects of ratification.

So, as much as anything else, my strategy is to prepare Americans to define constitutional intent properly, by completely tying definition of intent into the framing documents.  

I was testing ALEC and COS in 2012.  My tests raised significant suspicions.  Then when I saw the 12/4/14 video with Levin at the conference sponsored by ALEC, and Levin invited by COS, I about $#@!.  I could find not connections between the two in 2012, but their positions espoused were as different as night and day.  Now they are having conferences together.  A little reasearch shows the Koch bros. Through ALEC financing numerous covert politic organizations.  Riiiiiight!  Things add up!

So the chicken and egg thing comes down to IF the countermand amendment is not carried by 34 states applications for Article V, THEN, the Koch bros. Have infiltrated nearly 39 state legislations and are poised for a clandestine Article V convention.  Meaning the strategy for a lawful and peaceful revolution is required to at least stop the hijacking.

Consider that media hasn't said a word about the fact that for the first time in 226 years congress hassle a rule to count application for an Article V convention, which is MAJOR news, the clandestine convention is a possibility reinforced by the media non feasance.  Also, congress is violating the intent of the constitution and not going back before 2014 to count and they stopped at 10.  That's some inside info I got from FOAVC members.

Accordingly I am hammering the public on forums with prime constitutional intent trying to get them ready to deal with renegade state legislations, and deal with them permanently to continue on to a REAL Article V convention with *preparatory amendment* that prepares Americans to know and define constitutional intent.

In the case of my suspicions being correct, after the preparatory amendment, the first logical
Amendment would be to make the countermand law.  They facilitates states getting rid of bad federal laws without an Article V convention.

After 5 to 10 years, after America has recovered from the intensive 40 years psyops of media, to confuse, divide and mislead the people, then another Article V will be needed to deal with what the infiltrated federal government has done in the last 150 years.

----------

