Nullification: 1: the act of nullifying : the state of being nullified 2: the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States (merriam-webster online dictionary). There are a couple of types of nullification – that mentioned above and also jury nullification. Jury nullification is use of the belief that the jury should be able to judge not only the facts of the case, but the justness of the law being enforced as well.
Nullification and State Militias go hand-in-hand. Have you ever noticed that a bully will continue to bully until he is stood up to. Some bullies, all it takes is to tell them to stop their actions. This is not the usual; however. Most of the time, the bully will not stop until physically restrained or until he understands that physical harm is possible if he continues his aggression. From the trajectory of the current federal (and some state) governments, the need to be able to back up words with actions (the militia) should be obvious. With the push for national gun legislation and the purchase of a huge number of weapons and ammunition by the Homeland Defense apparatus, the need for some teeth to back the words is apparent.
Thomas Woods, Jr. has written a very powerful book concerning nullification – the cover is shown on this page. He gives the history of nullification from the founding to the present and busts myths like that it was used to justify slavery and that it is not necessary. You can get the book on amazon.com.
Does anyone remember the bailouts, how that the phonecalls to Congress were 10:1 against those bailouts. Now, we all know that if 99.9% of the people want something (say, your house), but the Constitution does not authorize it, then they can’t have it. In this case, however, what the people wanted WAS Constitutional and what the Congress was about to do was not. What if the states had nullified the Congress by withholding taxes for that year from the federal government, standing up for the people? That would have caused Congress to back off (possibly). How about the legislation going through many states now protecting the people from mandatory health care? Again, states standing for their people.
Some say it is not right, that the Supreme Court should decide these matters, that they are the experts. It is fallacy to believe that the federal government is going to police itself. The states already lost their seat at the table with the passage (some say railroading) of the 17th Amendment, electing Senators popularly rather than having them appointed by the state legislatures.
I wish to leave you with one thought before I end this first installment: if Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment to become law, and required a Constitutional Amendment to be removed, why are drugs not treated in the same way? Is there something that can be done to correct this without an amendment?