Several States Assert Their Sovereignty And Talk Of "Nullification"

As a "friend" of Lincoln, the Republicans for the National Interest Chairman Michael Erickson retains a certain reserve towards recent efforts within several of our States to declare their sovereignty or to nullify federal laws. Indeed, active opposition to “state nullification” of federal laws is a greatly cherished hallmark of first the American Whig, and then the Republican, Parties and one with which we have had to contend already in the cauldron of our Civil War. Still, there is merit to be found in this growing sentiment, if properly focused.

 

New Hampshire Throwing Down the Gauntlet to the Federal Government

 

Here is a copy of House Resolution 6 being discussed by the New Hampshire Legislature.

It certainly sets some limitations on the Presidency and the Congress.


STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles...

...That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government...

 

State of Washington Declaring Sovereignty

 

State of Washington 61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session

By Representatives Shea, Klippert, Condotta, Kretz, Anderson, McCune,

and Kristiansen

Read first time 01/30/09.

Referred to Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs.

1 TO THE HONORABLE BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND

2 TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF

3 REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE

4 UNITED STATES, IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED, AND TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE

5 SENATE AND SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF EACH STATE'S

6 LEGISLATURE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

7 We, your Memorialists, the Senate and House of Representatives of

8 the State of Washington, in legislative session assembled, respectfully

9 represent and petition as follows:

10 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

11 States specifically provides that, "The powers not delegated to the

12 United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,

13 are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."; and

14 WHEREAS, The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal

15 power as being those powers specifically granted to it by the

16 Constitution of the United States and no more; and

17 WHEREAS, Federalism is the constitutional division of powers

18 between the national and state governments and is widely regarded as

19 one of America's most valuable contributions to political science; and p.1 HJM 4009

1 WHEREAS, James Madison, "the father of the Constitution," said,

2 "The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined.

3 Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and

4 indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external

5 objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The

6 powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects

7 which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties,

8 and properties of the people."; and

9 WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not

10 "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are

11 "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. The one is

12 the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government. ";

13 and

14 WHEREAS, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that "the people

15 will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium

16 between the general and the state governments. " He believed that "this

17 balance between the national and state governments forms a double

18 security to the people. If one [government] encroaches on their

19 rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed,

20 they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional

21 limits by [the] certain rivalship which will ever subsist between

22 them. "; and

23 WHEREAS, The scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means

24 that the federal government was created by the states specifically  to

25 be limited in its powers relative to those of the various states;  and

26 WHEREAS, Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as

27 agents of the federal government; and

28 WHEREAS, Many federal mandates are directly in violation of the

29 Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; and

30 WHEREAS, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in New York v.

31 United States, 112 S. Ct.

2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply

32 commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the states;  and

33 WHEREAS, A number of proposals from previous administrations and

34 some now being considered by the present administration and from

35 Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States;

36 NOW, THEREFORE, Your Memorialists respectfully resolve:

37 (1) That the State of Washington hereby claims sovereignty under HJM 4009 p.2

1 the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all

2 powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government

3 by the Constitution of the United States; and

4 (2) That this serve as a Notice and Demand to the federal

5 government to maintain the balance of powers where the Constitution of

6 the United States established it and to cease and desist, effective

7 immediately, any and all mandates that are beyond the scope of its

8 constitutionally delegated powers.

9 BE IT RESOLVED, That copies of this Memorial be immediately

10 transmitted to the Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United

11 States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the

12 House of Representatives, the President of the Senate and the Speaker

13 of the House of Representatives of each state's legislature of the

14 United States of America, and each member of Congress from the State of

15 Washington.

 

RNI Chairman Michael Erickson Writes To Several Friends

Thank you for sharing these articles. Several questions come to mind: First, will any of the States actually refuse funds from the federal government, in order to help with the funding of their own services or financing of their own indebtedness? This is an important question, as otherwise Resolutions like these are no more than symbolic fodder for the masses. If there is a resolve to refuse federal "support" for their own programs, and as such at least to move in the direction of becoming more self-sufficient, then we may view a substantive assertion of federalism. Secondly, will any of the States mentioned start to reverse their trend towards the Obama Democrat Party? As we know, Washington has been a solid "Left Coast" State for awhile, and New Hampshire definitely has been trending Democrat in recent years. Now, it is very true that the "big government" Republicans are not much better in this regard and as such may not deserve any new consideration at this point. Nevertheless, trending Democrat, or remaining solidly Democrat, works against the idea that they are serious about federalism, since the modern, Democrat Party is so entirely focused on concentrating socialist power politics in Washington. Statements, even if purely symbolic, are good and necessary first steps; but the focus of all friends of liberty must be on what happens next. In my mind, those who are behind said Resolutions must work to take over the Republican Party organizations in these States, if they have not done so already, thus making the Republican Party there a true voice for an energized and renewed assertion of liberty in our politics. Then, they must elect politicians who will be committed to cutting taxes and spending, dissolving programs and government agencies, and most importantly refusing largesse from the federal government which most clearly rests outside of the purview of the federal Constitution. Incidentally, the last point is not the same as "state nullification" of Constitutionally permissible federal laws, which we Republicans fought a Civil War to prevent from recurring and which I, as a “friend” of Lincoln, would oppose; but certainly the people may and should resist unconstitutional laws.