Tag Archives: nullification

Setting the record straight on the idea of a Constitutional Convention

Historical Context

In the beginning of our Nation’s history, and after the war for independence. Our young nation was struggling with a flawed constitution, known as the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation may have had a very a limited percentage of good with in the Law. The Law however was still tremendously flawed, and needed to be revised and or replaced. The founders of this nation were incredibly Inspired, Wise, and Honorable men, and knew something had to be done. So they set out  meeting with different groups such as The Patriotic Society or the Society of the Cincinnati in order to discuss this first constitutional crises and possible solutions. The founders were wary of these groups, and were cautious when meeting with them such as this wise counsel from the Father of the Nation George Washington.

“If the first, I would fain hope that like other Mobs it will, however formidable, be of short duration. If the latter there are surely men of consequence and abilities behind the curtain who move the puppets; the designs of whom may be deep and dangerous. They may be instigated by British counsel; actuated by ambitious motives, or being influenced by dishonest principles, had rather see the Country in the horror of civil discord, than do what justice would dictate to an honest mind.”

The founders then decided to amend the current constitution by calling for a Convention of the States. Some of whom had great concern such as George Washington in his quote stating.

“On the last occasion, only five States were represented; none East of New York. Why the Nw. England Governments did not appear, I am yet to learn; for of all others the distractions and turbulent temper of these people would, I should have thought, have afforded the strongest evidence of the necessity of competent powers somewhere. That the Foederal Government is nearly, if not quite at a stand, none will deny. The first question then is, shall it be annihilated or supported? If the latter, the proposed convention is an object of the first magnitude, and should be supported by all the friends of the present Constitution. In the other case, if on a full and dispassionate revision thereof, the continuance shall be adjudged impracticable or unwise, as only delaying an event which must ’ere long take place; would it not be better for such a Meeting to suggest some other, to avoid if possible civil discord or other impending evils? I must candidly confess, as we could not remain quiet more than three or four years in time of peace, under the Constitutions of our own choosing; which it was believed, in many States at least, were formed with deliberation and wisdom, I see little prospect either of our agreeing upon any other, or that we should remain long satisfied under it if we could. Yet I would wish any thing, and every thing essayed to prevent the effusion of blood, and to avert the humiliating and contemptible figure we are about to make in the annals of mankind.

If this second attempt to convene the States for the purposes proposed by the report of the partial representation at Annapolis in September, should also prove abortive, it may be considered as an unequivocal evidence that the States are not likely to agree on any general measure which is to pervade the Union, and of course that there is an end of Foederal Government. The States therefore which make the last dying essay to avoid these misfortunes, would be mortified at the issue, and their deputies would return home chagrined at their ill success and disappointment. This would be a disagreeable circumstance for any one of them to be in, but more particularly so for a person in my situation. If no further application is made to me, of course I do not attend; if there is, I am under no obligation to do it, but as I have had so many proofs of your friendship, know your abilities to judge, and your opportunities of learning the politics of the day, on the points I have enumerated, you would oblige me by a full and confidential communication of your sentiments thereon.”

So after a few attempts in each State resolutions were passed calling for a general convention to amend the Articles of Confederation (the constitution). With the strict language of amend only and if not to come home immediately. A sample of such language can be found in the George Washington’s letter to Governor Edmund Randolph on Dec. 21st 1786.

“Sensible as I am of the honor conferred on me by the General Assembly, in appointing me one of the Deputies to a Convention proposed to be held in the City of Philadelphia in May next, for the purpose of revising the Foederal Constitution”

In Federalist number forty we read about New York’s call.

“as a mean to remedy which, several of the States, and PARTICULARLY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, by express instructions to their delegates in Congress, have suggested a convention for the purposes expressed in the following resolution; and such convention appearing to be the most probable mean of establishing in these States A FIRM NATIONAL GOVERNMENT:”Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress it is expedient, that on the second Monday of May next a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose OF REVISING THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such ALTERATIONS AND PROVISIONS THEREIN, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the federal Constitution ADEQUATE TO THE EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE UNION.”

If we look at all of the credentials of all of the delegates sent to that convention of the States in the Elliot Debates it shows the same language, that their intent was to “revise” the current constitution (Articles of Confederation. Then sending the Congress the proceedings of the convention to be voted upon and adopted. If we continue reading (in the Elliots Debates) the rules that were set up in the beginning of the convention itself  reads in the same manner. That being to “revise” the current constitution. Lets turn to the Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary as it reads.

1. To review; to re-examine; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a proof sheet.

2. To review, alter and amend; as, to revise statutes.”

During those hot summer months of 1787 the founders did NOT revise the Articles of Confederation, but worked hard on a new Constitution. With in this new constitution they changed the mode of ratification for the new constitution from 100% of the States to 3/4ths of States. Why do I say this? In Article eight of the Articles of Confederation (the old constitution) it’s expressively clear that All of the States or 100% of the States were needed to amend the constitution and or ratify any thing affecting the nation as a whole. The reason why for this change of ratification requirements were dual fold. One reason is that Rhode Island refused to attend, making their voice absent from the convention process. The other reason was when the convention was on it’s way and after the first resolution by Governor Randolph some of the delegates walked out, losing their say in the proceedings such as the case as Alexander Hamilton from New York.

Let me also add that all of these resolutions to call for one convention for the strict purpose of revising the constitution. The calls were done strictly to the vernacular of the Articles of Confederation. So why violate the rules and the strict instruction to set aside the old constitution and to draft a new constitution? The reason being is that the old constitution was written more like a treaty, it was flawed and could not with hold the tests of time. Some of the flaws of the document were  as follows. No war making authority for the defense of these States United. No supreme court to settle disputes among the states. No executive power to lead yes, but to act as another check and balance against the federal courts and the federal congress. No enforcement provisions regarding to international trade and the free trade amongst the individual states. There are many more reasons why we needed a stronger Law to bind this Union of States, but this should be sufficient for now.

I am grateful that the original Constitutional Convention that turned into a runaway convention took place. I am grateful for the founders that were raised up by God in order to fulfill their purpose upon this earth. I am grateful that God presided over that convention. I am grateful that the founders knew this to be a fact, and please let me share with you just two quotes of George Washington stating as such in two different letters. The first quote comes from his letter to Jonathan Trumbull on July 20th 1788.

“Or at least we may, with a kind of grateful and pious exultation, trace the finger of Providence through those dark and mysterious events, which first induced the States to appoint a general Convention and then led them one after another (by such steps as were best calculated to effect the object) into an adoption of the system recommended by that general Convention; thereby, in all human probability, laying a lasting foundation for tranquillity and happiness; when we had but too much reason to fear that confusion and misery were coming rapidly upon us. That the same good Providence may still continue to protect us and prevent us from dashing the cup of national felicity just as it has been lifted to our lips, is the earnest prayer of My Dear Sir, your faithful friend, &c.”

Or this letter to the Marques De Laffeyette on May 28, 1788 and it reads.

“A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come. Should every thing proceed with harmony and consent according to our actual wishes and expectations; I will confess to you sincerely, my dear Marquis; it will be so much beyond any thing we had a right to imagine or expect eighteen months ago, that it will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence, as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it. It is impracticable for you or any one who has not been on the spot, to realise the change in men’s minds and the progress towards rectitude in thinking and acting which will then have been made.”

This researcher is of the faith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and with in our Holy Writ it says this with in the Doctrine and Covenants on December 16 and 17, 1833.

“79.Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

As you may see The Constitution was inspired to come about to solve all the issues at the time in our Nation’s young history. The Constitution was and still is the solution to solve any of our issues that we may face as a Nation. So that all of man kind may be free and independent.

 Modern Day Push to Call for Another Convention

Jumping ahead two hundred and twenty eight years to this year 2015. We now have people from different walks of life and different special interest groups seeking to revise the US Constitution, by calling for one convention to do so. They are calling these ideas an Amendments Convention, an Article V Convention, or a Convention of the States. You know what the old saying goes? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck! All three names are a modern day constitutional convention. The suggestions that this researcher has seen has been amendments to call for balanced budget amendments (already mandated by the constitution), term limits amendments (we used to have in the articles of confederation), amendments to repeal or revise the second amendment, amendments to mandate governmental healthcare, amendments to restrict free speech, etc. Some of these special interest groups are ALEC, Balanced Budget Task Force, Occupy Wall Street,  different Tea Party groups, Wolf PAC, Goldwater Institute, Convention of States, Convention USA, MoveOn.org, etc.

Some of the persons with an agenda whom are pushing for this are as followers George Sorros, Mark Levin, Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Beck, Representative Sickles, etc. I know what you may be thinking “who are most of these people?” State Representative Sickles is known for making this comment which either proves his incompetence or his agenda.

“We don’t want anyone “whacking away” at our Constitution – and Delegates to an Art. V convention would have the power to do just that….”

While George Sorros is known for bankrupting different nation’s economies and causing havoc from with in those nation’s societies. If you don’t believe me then please just Google this simple known fact. Lawrence Lessig was the main former campaign manager for the Obama administration. There are also certain gay activists pushing for this as well. I take you to this excerpt from the New American Magazine as of Sunday the 8th of this year, and I quote.

“Make no mistake, if the Constitution is opened up to the tinkering of these tin horns, the monied interests will be present and their irresistible influence will shape the product of the Article V process.

Take a look around the country and one can see what a new constitution would look like. With courts forcing states to recognize gay “marriage” in one jurisdiction after the other, there is no limit to the panoply of “rights” that would be pursued by the con-con 2.0 delegates.”


The question is this. Do we really want this modern day constitutional convention to be torn ripped a sunder due to partisan bickering and globalist agendas?!  Let us remember George Washington’s advise earlier on in this white paper regarding unsavory characters. Let us also heed to George Washington’s advise and council with in this quote.

“In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no separate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.”

The proponents of such an idea to call for one ambiguous constitutional convention (no matter what name that they use to describe it). May say that the “States would be in control”, “the States would set the rules”, “that we can limit this to one item convention”, or that “we still need 3/4ths of the States for ratification”. All of which is simply not true! As we learn from history the founders changed the mode of ratification when Rhode Island choose not to attend, and when only 55 out of 73 delegates never attended the convention due to the distance of the convention and the financial restraint. If we use the first and only convention as a guide in these matters the same will occur again, that being the mode of ratification will be changed to adopt something that we ALL do not want. As to the other excuses that the proponents are using as this time, lets look at what the most current Congressional Research is saying about an Article V convention. Since it will be the Congress that will be calling this convention after the request from 2/3rds of the States. On Page 3 of that report generated in 2014 it reads.

“What compelling interest, among the many competing demands for its time and energy, does
Congress have in the Article V Convention mechanism? There is little to command its interest if
the Article V Convention remains, as it has for the past three decades, a constitutional footnote. In
the event of revived pubic interest in this issue, however, Congress might choose to reexamine its
constitutional duties under Article V.”Page 18
“The language of the Constitution is notably straightforward on Congress’s duty to call an Article
V Convention: “… on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
[Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…. (emphasis added)” The
founders’ intentions seem unmistakable, and no less an authority than Alexander Hamilton wrote
emphatically that, once the two-thirds threshold is met, “the Congress will be obliged … to call a
convention for proposing amendments…. The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress
‘shall call a convention.’ Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body
Page 4
“Second, while the Constitution is silent on the mechanics of an Article V convention, Congress
has traditionally laid claim to broad responsibilities in connection with a convention, including
(1) receiving, judging, and recording state applications; (2) establishing procedures to summon a
convention; (3) setting the amount of time allo
tted to its deliberations; (4) determining the
number and selection process for its delegates; (5) setting internal convention procedures,
including formulae for allocation of votes among the states; and (6) arranging for the formal
transmission of any proposed amendments to the states.”
Page 19
“For instance, most constitutional scholars hold
that applications proposing a specifically worded amendment are invalid. As one observer noted,
“these resolutions seek to make the ‘Convention’ part of the ratifying (emphasis in the original)
process, rather than part of the deliberative process for “proposing” constitutional amendments….
they are applications for a convention empowered solely to approve or disapprove the submission
to the states of particular amendments ‘proposed’ elsewhere.” 79 Another reason for hesitation in
calling an Article V Convention centers on the great issue of its scope”
Page 26
“… an application requesting an up-or-down vote on a specifically worded amendment cannot
be considered valid. Such an approach robs the Convention of its deliberative function which
is inherent in article V language stating that the Convention’s purpose is to “propose
amendments.” If the State legislatures were permitted to propose the exact wording of an
amendment and stipulate that the language not be altered, the Convention would be deprived
of this function and would become instead part of the ratification process.1″
Page 22
“According to his judgment, an Article V Convention must be free to pursue any issue it pleases,
notwithstanding the limitations included in either state applications or the congressional summons
by which it was called: If the legislatures of thirty-four states request Congress to call a general constitutional convention, Congress has a constitutional duty to summon such a convention. If those thirty – four states recommend in their applications that the convention consider only a particular subject, Congress still must call a convention and leave to the convention the ultimate
determination of the agenda and the nature of the amendments it may choose to propose. 96″
Lastly on Page 21
“In fact, he went on to assert that limited conventions would be constitutionally impermissible for the reason that no language is found in Article V that authorizes them:
It (Article V) does not (emphasis in the original) imply that a convention summoned for the
purpose of dealing with electoral malapportionment 91 may kick over the traces and emit
proposals dealing with other subjects. It implies something much more fundamental than
that; it implies that Congress cannot be obligated, no matter how many States ask for it, to
summon a convention for the limited purposed of dealing with electoral apportionment
alone, and that such a convention would have no constitutional standing at all. 92
Consequently, by this reasoning, the many hundreds of state applications for a convention to
consider amendments on a particular subject are null and void.”
As you can see with in this report that Congress will have sole discretion upon setting the rules on which to call the delegates. Setting the location of the convention. Setting the rules for the purpose of the convention. It is also apparent that a convention CAN NOT be limited to one cause, agenda, or amendment. There will be court challenges as well that would last years, money and resources. Why waste such valuable resources on such a dangerous unknown process?!  Please see pages 8 and 20 of that same report.Page 8
“17 states passed resolutions rescinding their applications for an Article V Convention, or in some instances, all previous applications. Five of these 17 states, most recently Tennessee and Georgia, have submitted fresh applications since 2010, thus arguably making the question of their original rescissions, and those of other states, moot. 23 With respect to rescission, the current status of applications from the remaining 12 states turns on the question of whether states have the right to rescind their applications for an Article V Convention. Proponents of the convention device tend to deny legality of rescission, while others argue to the contrary. Ultimately, the question remains at issue because it has yet to be the subject of congressional legislation or a definitive court decision.
Page 20
“Ultimately, it is difficult to conceive that Congress would fail to heed the deliberate call of a
substantial majority of the nation’s citizens, acting through the agency of their state legislatures,
and meeting the clearly stated requirements of Article V. As Cyril Brickfield noted, in the final
analysis, “[p]ublic opinion and, ultimately, the ballot box are the only realistic means by which
the Congress can be persuaded to act.” 87 The House Judiciary Committee speculated that congressional failure to call a convention might trigger court challenges that could lead to a constitutional crisis, 88 but another legal scholar wrote that, “[e]ven conceding the reach of the judicial power as exercised these days, I find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court would issue an order compelling Congress to carry out a duty which can hardly be called a simple ministerial duty, or would, in the alternative, take it upon itself to prescribe the procedures for a convention. I much prefer to rely on the integrity of Congress in carrying out a constitutional duty.””

Many of us patriots/citizens are not just the only ones in opposition to this modern day constitutional convention call, but many if not all of the founders were against having another convention of the States as well. Such as James Madison (Father of the Constitution) and George Washington (Father of the Nation). Let us heed to their wise counsel when the anti-federalists were pushing to have another constitutional convention. In his letter to Marquis De Lafayette, George Washington has this to say on Feb. 7th, 1788

“Should that which is now offered to the People of America, be found an experiment less perfect than it can be made—a Constitutional door is left open for its amelioration. Some respectable characters have wished that the States, after having pointed out whatever alterations and amendments may be judged necessary, would appoint another federal Co[n]vention to modify it upon these documents. For myself I have wondered that sensible men should not see the impracticability of the scheme. The members would go fortified with such Instructions that nothing but discordant ideas could prevail. Had I but slightly suspected (at the time when the late Convention was in session) that another Convention would not be likely to agree upon a better form of Government, I should now be confirmed in the fixed belief that they would not be able to agree upon any System whatever: So many, I may add, such contradictory, and, in my opinion, unfounded objections have been urged against the System in contemplation; many of which would operate equally against every efficient Government that might be proposed. I will only add, as a farther opinion founded on the maturest deliberation, that there is no alternative—no hope of alteration—no intermediate resting place—between the adoption of this and a recurrence to an unqualified state of Anarchy, with all its deplorable consequences.”

Or this this advice in James Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville on Nov. the 2nd 1788.

“If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumeable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned. 4. It is not unworthy of consideration that the prospect of a second Convention would be viewed by all Europe as a dark and threatening Cloud hanging over the Constitution just established, and perhaps over the Union itself; and wd. therefore suspend at least the advantages this great event has promised us on that side. It is a well known fact that this event has filled that quarter of the Globe with equal wonder and veneration, that its influence is already secretly but powerfully working in favor of liberty in France, and it is fairly to be inferred that the final event there may be materially affected by the prospect of things here. We are not sufficiently sensible of the importance of the example which this Country may give to the world; nor sufficiently attentive to the advantages we may reap from the late reform, if we avoid bringg. it into danger. The last loan in Holland and that alone, saved the U. S. from Bankruptcy in Europe; and that loan was obtained from a belief that the Constitution then depending wd. be certainly speedily, quietly, and finally established, & by that means put America into a permanent capacity to discharge with honor & punctuality all her engagements. I am Dr. Sir, Yours”

Now what are the solutions to ALL of our Nation’s problems? I have to ask this simple question, because the proponents of these modern day constitutional convention calls do a very fine job laying out the problems. To which I whole heartily agree to being our problems that must be corrected. To map out just a small percentage of issues plaguing our nation, let me cite Utah House Representative Merrill F. Nelson’s constitutional convention resolution (H.J.R. 3) lines 37 through 50.

37          WHEREAS, the United States Congress has, at times, exceeded its delegated powers
38     and otherwise passed laws injurious to the states and the people;
39          WHEREAS, the President of the United States has, at times, exceeded the executive’s
40     constitutional authority and taken actions injurious to the states and the people by issuing
41     certain executive orders, failing or refusing to enforce certain laws duly passed by Congress,
42     issuing waivers from compliance with federal statutes, and directing federal administrative
43     agencies to impose rules and regulations contrary to federal statutes;
44          WHEREAS, federal courts have, at times, exceeded their authority by issuing decisions
45     not grounded in the United States Constitution, by issuing decisions on public policy matters
46     reserved to the states in violation of principles of federalism and separation of powers, and
47     otherwise issuing decisions injurious to the states and the people;
48          WHEREAS, federal administrative agencies have, at times, issued rules and regulations
49     beyond their statutory authority and have otherwise issued rules and regulations or taken other
50     actions injurious to the states and the people;”

The Solution

The solution to all of our problems is the same solution that lifted up our Nation out of our problems in the very beginning. That being the enforcement of the US Constitution. Our problems are not a problem with the Constitution, but a violation of the Law. We are in a sense have become a lawless society because neither the republicans nor the democrats are adhering to the the Law. Now you may be asking yourself this question. “Wouldn’t calling for a Constitutional Convention be adhering to the Law?” Technically yes, but is is wise to execute this principle in our currently dangerous political climate?  With so much of the general populace being ignorant as to what is Lawful vs Lawless? Calling a modern day constitutional would only bring chaos and confusion to our society! The solution is and has always been what James Madison and Thomas Jefferson referred to as Nullification. Which is the States raising the barriers against the unconstitutional nature of the federal government, enforcing the Law being the US Constitution, and declaring that a law, edict or court opinion is Null in void. In fact I find it prudent to cite lines 31-36 as well as lines 65-71 of Mr. Nelson’s Con Con resolution which reaffirms what exactly Nullification is.

“31          WHEREAS, all governing power under the United States Constitution originates from
32     the people and the states;
33          WHEREAS, the United States Constitution delegates certain limited powers to the
34     legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government;
35          WHEREAS, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves all
36     non-delegated powers to the states and the people;

65          WHEREAS, a Countermand Amendment to the United States Constitution would
66     authorize the states, upon a vote by three-fifths of the state legislatures to override and
67     invalidate a congressional statute, executive order, federal court decision, or administrative
68     agency rule, regulation, or other action deemed injurious to the states and the people;
69          WHEREAS, the states, by adopting a Countermand Amendment, properly exercise
70     their constitutional authority to check federal power, preserve state sovereignty, and protect the
71     rights of the states and the people”

I know you might be saying that the Supreme Court has deemed Nullification unconstitutional. Or that the founders never discussed the topic. Well done below is James Madison’s quotes regarding Nullification taken from his speech on the floor of the Virginia and Kentucky State House.

“The resolution, having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, “that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.”

“It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal, superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the. parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

“In the existing Constitution, they make the following part of Sec. 8, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”

“This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters, might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood to be either a general grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application of money by the old Congress to the common defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present Constitution, it can never be supposed that when copied into this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be attached to them.”

“In the existing Constitution, they make the following part of Sec. 8, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.”

“This similarity in the use of these phrases in the two great federal charters, might well be considered, as rendering their meaning less liable to be misconstrued in the latter; because it will scarcely be said, that in the former they were ever understood to be either a general grant of power, or to authorize the requisition or application of money by the old Congress to the common defence and general welfare, except in the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and limited their meaning; and if such was the limited meaning attached to these phrases in the very instrument revised and remodelled by the present Constitution, it can never be supposed that when copied into this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be attached to them.”

“The paragraph in Art. I. sect. 8, which contains the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excise; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare, having been already examined, will also require no particular attention in this place. It will have been seen that in its fair and consistent meaning, it cannot enlarge the enumerated powers vested in Congress.”

Lastly he concludes with this.

“The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.

Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the Constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed, the next inquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not. Congress cannot exercise it.”

In order to address the concerns regarding the constitutionality of Nullification. Let me post what this researcher has addressed in his legislation titled “What to do about same sex marriage ruling”.

I stated this.

“In the area of federalism, the States have an unequivocal right to have their own State Constitutions which coincides with the Federal Constitution, and the people of the individual States have an unequivocal right to amend those individual state constitutions. The US Constitution declares this statement to be a fact. In the tenth amendment we read:

“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.”

and the Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution reads:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

One of the duties of the Federal government is to protect the right of the State and of the people to govern the individual States accordingly. As we read in Article Four Section Four:
“The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
With this being said on December 20, 2013 a Federal court Judge Shelby pinned his opinion that Utah’s amendment three was unconstitutional. Which violates these three clauses with in the US Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land. As laid out in Article Six Section Two, which reads:

“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
They also violated their Oath of office as well, as mentioned in Article Six Section Three:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

With these blatant attacks by the Federal government upon the Law, it is the Duty of the States to Enforce the Law. Since it was the People that created the States and the States that created the Federal government.”

I go on to say this.

“Since we are Nullifying a Court opinion in order to enforce our own State Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution. I find it prudent to mention these comments from the opinion of the Supreme Court in the renown court case Marbury vs. Madison which reads.

“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”

In that same court opinion we read.
“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Now you are most likely saying to yourself that this idea of Nullification may just work, but you still have questions of it working? Or else you are being negative as to it not working at all. Let me simply point out the the instances in modern history of this working with out ramifications from the federal government. That list includes:

1.In MontanaLR-122 is an act “prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance.”  It also prohibits the imposition of “penalties for decisions related to the purchase of health insurance coverage.” The measure passed overwhelmingly, 65%-34%2. In Colorado

Section 3 allows the “personal use and regulation of marijuana” for adults 21 and over. Section 4 addresses legal commercial cultivation, manufacture, and sale. The intent is that marijuana be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol. Colorado, after Washington State (info below), is the 2nd state in the country to have passed full legalization, and one of only a handful in the entire world. The measure passed by 54%-46%

 3. In Alabama
This legislatively-referred amendment frees Alabama citizens from any requirement to participate in Obamacare, or any other compulsory health care program. The ballot language reads as follows: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. It passed, 59%-41%4. In Washington State

Whatever you call the plant, Washington DC considers it dangerous and illegal. Laws on the books in Congress – illegal. The executive branch – aggressive about enforcing those laws. The supreme court – in 2005 ruled against the idea of states legalizing for any purpose. But yet, 18 states have been standing up and defying DC on this issue by legalizing marijuana for limited medicinal purposes. Washington’s I-502 takes it a step further. It ends marijuana prohibition and treats pot in the same manner as alcohol. People are allowed to grow, produce, sell, buy and consume the plant – in direct defiance to all three branches of the federal government. The Initiative passed, 55%-45%

 5. In Wyoming

Wyoming voters passed a health care freedom amendment to the Declaration of Rights in the state constitution. The Wyoming Constitution now guarantees citizens of the state the right to make their own healthcare decisions with minimal governmental interference. Article 1, Section 38 – Right of Health Care Access (a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.  The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person. (b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so. It passed by a huge margin, 76%-24%

6. In Massachusetts

A YES VOTE  on Question 3 enacted “the law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.” The 18th state to nullify federal laws on weed did it in a landslide. The final tally was 64%-36%

7. The Real ID Act under Bush Jr. has been nullified in about 16 States and growing.

Here are a list of topics where the rest of the States are Nullifying including in the State of California, where they have Nullified the usage of drones. This list continues to grow.

For more information as to which State is doing what regarding to Nullification please see the Tenth Amendment Center, which by the way is opposed to calling for one ambiguous Constitutional Convention. In closing I end just like I began, which is the same advice for our great Nation as these States United. The solution is, as it has always been to enforce the Constitution.

Nullification of Obamacare

Introductory Statement Declaring the Historical Context of Nullification and the Intent of this Resolution:

Those who loved the Americanist concepts of a national government whose powers are limited, few, and defined (constrained by the specific powers enumerated in the United States Constitution to operate only within the jurisdictional scope granted by the Constitution) were appalled with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the United States Congress in 1798. The Congress and the Executive ignored the limits and bounds of the national government as established within the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their passage and signing of that act. Some States decided to exercise their right of refusal to this usurpation. Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, and James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” collaborated in assisting Virginia and Kentucky in their effort to protest and nullify this egregious act by the national government.

The Kentucky Resolution was adopted by the Kentucky Legislature 10 November 1798, and the Virginia Resolution was adopted by the Virginia Senate 24 December 1798. Those resolutions were abbreviated and collated together to preserve the language and intent expressed by Jefferson, Madison, and the Kentucky and Virginia Legislatures in the following modern resolution protesting against and expressing the intention of the State of Utah to nullify the current usurpation attempt by the national government in regards to .

The language of this resolution is the language of Jefferson and Madison—as expressed in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, applied to the modern usurpation. It eloquently clearly explains, justifies, and expresses the constitutionally-sound doctrine as the original intent of those principle founders who established the United States of America. As enunciated in the following resolution, the doctrine of nullification was a sacredly-held power of the States to check and balance a national government that violated the charter which established it. The logic is concise, clear, and unassailable. The States which created the national government retained the constitutional right of refusal when faced by a usurping government. The doctrine of nullification was considered in many instances by several States during the founding era, and was taught in Constitutional Law classes at the United States Military Academy at West Point in the early decades after the Academy was established.

Many examples of nullification exist in the history of the United States. Some occurred because some States simply refused to comply with a federal directive (such as the “Real ID Act”), others when the courts ignored the directive, and others when individual juries refused to convict when faced with an individual who violated federal law (such as often occurred in cases involving the “Fugitive Slave Act”). In light of egregious usurpations of recent modern congresses and the executive branch, it is time reinvigorate the understanding and application of the sound doctrine of nullification!

The so-called “supremacy clause” of the United States Constitution (Article VI, clause 2) only grants supremacy to the national government in the area of jurisdiction established within and by the United States Constitution. It does not create an overarching power to usurp power not granted within the Constitution. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments explicitly reiterate this fact:

Amendment IX:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Amendment X:

“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.”

Appropriate Constitutional processes by which un-Constitutional acts may be corrected include:

1. Repeal of the offending matter in the national Congress via the normal process defined in Article I, Section Seven of the United States Constitution.

2. De-fund the offending act to assure that it may not be carried out. Article I, Section Seven requires congressional approval of all funds to be expended by the national government, and Article I, Section Nine, clause 7 requires that no monies be drawn but in consequence of a legislative appropriation. Congress controls the nation’s money, not the Executive.

3. Seek relief through the courts.

4. Nullification by State Legislatures.

Reprisals by the Federal Government?

States which nullify an unconstitutional law or refuse compliance with an order from an unlawful agency naturally fear reprisal by the national government. This could take the form of denial of federal funds (that is how conformance is often assured in the first place) or even imprisonment of token individuals. Thomas Jefferson proposed the solution to challenges such as this, saying:

“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.

“This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power…” (Bergh, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 15, page 278)

Nullification is a valid Constitutional solution to a usurping national government.
An Act of the Legislature of the State of Utah to nullify The Affordable Care Act

RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Utah, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

Resolved, That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it’s existence and the public happiness.

Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress specific, enumerated powers; and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the th day of , , and entitled, “ ” is altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to act in this matter is not granted to the United States Government by the United States Constitution.

Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Utah doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former Articles of Confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy their meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the States by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings, including recent acts of the national legislative, executive and federal court decisions) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles call for immediate redress.

Resolved, That this Legislature doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the case of the “ Act” passed at the last session of Congress; which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; additionally, the act exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by two of the amendments thereto.

Resolved, That faithful to the United States Constitution, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore the State of Utah is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, the State of Utah, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the act before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Act, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits, Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to. In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That the State of Utah does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the aforementioned act, plainly declaring whether this act is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with the State of Utah in considering the said act as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this act void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this act, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shalt be exercised within their respective territories.

Resolved, That the good people of the State of Utah, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other States; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the Legislature of the State of Utah doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this State in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the act aforesaid, is unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this State, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

Resolved, That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolution to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this State in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to: —Date—