Nullifications & Constitutional Amendments
Copyright © 2015. All Rights Reserved. | Paid for by Anderson4theconstitution
The solution is simple: Our elected representatives must follow their oaths.
Dick’s Proposal for Nullification of Unconstitutional Federal Laws & Regulations 10-20-2017Rev12-03-17
The Supreme Court of the United States was nowhere given the power to reverse the laws legally made by Congress or to make law.
It was only given the power to decide individual cases. Presently, the only means of declaring a Federal Law or Regulation unconstitutional is by the Supreme Court, which has illegally given itself this power (it appears nowhere in our Constitution).
Further, as the Federal Government was created (as a “Servant”) by a Compact between the Free, Individual, Sovereign States (its Masters), for their mutual Protection and protection of the Rights of The-People, with limited, specifically enumerated, powers (only those written in Article-1, Section-8 of the Constitution), the Servant has No Right to tell its Masters how to interpret the Constitution that the Masters created. The Servant cannot dictate nor control its Masters in any way not specifically authorized by its Masters in the Federal Constitution. To do so is equivalent to putting the Fox in charge of the hen-house. This is clearly declared and written into the 10th Amendment, which is largely being ignored.
Over the past 200 years, the various branches of the Federal Government have been guilty of TAKING ON Powers not given or allowed them in the Constitution, and the Congress has passed many unconstitutional laws, as well as ignoring its responsibilities & obligations by creating Agencies (many unconstitutional) and allowing them to dictate Regulations (which are essentially Laws), and unconstitutionally passing on or delegating its Power to make Law, which have greatly reduced the Powers of the States.
Unfortunately, there is no clear way for the States to Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws, Regulations or Actions.
It is not proper that the Federal Government, any more than any other person or group, should be able to judge ITSELF.
It is only right & proper that the Federal Government should be judged by its creators - the States & We-The-People.
So, I propose the following Amendment to the Constitution to enable & clarify the States’ Rights to Nullify Unconstitutional Laws or Regulations.
Within a State:
(1) By an Initiative and Referendum mechanism as used in many States. Petitioners wishing to challenge an existing Federal Law
or Regulation (the “Issue”) collect signatures of the State's citizens on a petition to the State legislature. The State legislature
determines the petition signature & voting time requirements. When the signature requirements are met, the State legislature
MUST Vote, within a reasonable time (as it shall have determined), on its Constitutionality.
(2) OR: The State Legislatures may of their own volition decide to vote on the unconstitutionality of the Issue.
(3) If more than 2/3 of each State House votes the Issue is unconstitutional, it issues a Declaration that the Issue had been found
to be Temporarily Unconstitutional by that State.
(4) OR: If more than 50% of each State House votes the issue unconstitutional it is forwarded to that State’s Supreme Court to decide, by a
2/3 Vote for that State, that the Issue is Temporarily Unconstitutional by that State.
(5) Once Decided by a State, by either cases 1 or 2, and 3 or 4, above, that the Issue (Federal Law or Regulation) is considered
Temporarily Unconstitutional, it will be Declared Temporarily Null & Void in that State until the other States have the
opportunity to review the issue,
(6) AND: Any person convicted of this Temporarily Declared Unconstitutional Federal Law or Regulation, within that State, is
immediately released and exonerated of the crime and cannot be re-tried for this supposed crime.
(7) If 1/3 of the State Legislatures Declare the Issue (Federal Law or Regulation) Unconstitutional (this means far less than 3/4 believe it to
be Constitutional), the Law is Declared Permanently Unconstitutional in the entire United States and immediately Repealed.
Any person, in any State of the Union or its Territories, previously convicted of this crime will be immediately released and permanently
exonerated of the crime and cannot be re-tried for this supposed crime even if the Law is later reversed and Declared Constitutional.
Dick’s Proposal for a 3rd Way to Make Constitutional Amendments
What if we had a 3rd method of making Constitutional Amendments to give us with a means of restricting such legislation to one or more specific issues & bypass Congress so as to eliminate the almost certain danger of a Constitutional Convention that might go out of control?
If 3/4 of the States (rather than the 2/3 required under the existing Constitutional procedures) propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, we could bypass the present Constitutional Requirement that "Congress propose the method of Ratification" and allow Direct Ratification by the States themselves, the method of which shall be decided by each State’s Legislature, either by Ratification by 3/4 of that State’s Legislature or by
3/4 of their Citizens by a direct, Popular Vote.
(1) If 3/4 of the State Legislatures propose an Amendment to the Federal Constitution, each State Legislature shall decide its manner of
Ratification, by either a 3/4 Affirmative Vote in each State’s Houses or by a 3/4 Affirmative Vote by their Citizens in a Direct, Popular Vote.
(2) When 3/4 of the States Vote Affirmative for the Amendment it is Ratified and becomes an Amendment to the Federal Constitution and
part of our Supreme Law.
Many Americans today believe our Government is out of control, not following the Constitution, that "present day politics" are a mess and that the Constitution has several "deficiencies" that need to be fixed. So, they are calling for a Con-Con (Article-V Constitutional Convention) to fix it.
The question is: "Is it Wise?" Some of us believe it would be The END of LIBERTY! Read more...
James Madison's Thoughts
about Interposition & Nullification
And, he even changed his position a a bit over the years.
An Impartial Tribunal to resolve Unconstitutionality of Federal Laws was proposed in 1809 by the Penn. Legislature.
Beware: The proposed Regulation Freedom Amendment would force Congress to "properly" deal with Regulations (at least the Bad ones).
"Whenever one quarter of the Members of the U.S. House or the U.S.
Senate transmit to the President their written declaration of
opposition to a proposed federal regulation, it shall require a
majority vote of the House and Senate to adopt that regulation."
But, its a TRAP - it would Legalize Rulemaking by Federal Agencies!
Administrative laws could be made by unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats in the Executive Branch (the same branch that accuses, prosecutes, and judges violations).
The executive agencies would make whatever Rules they please!
The explains the Details & Politics of this Resolution/Act.
Nullification By the 10th Amendment
“The States” Have De Facto Control Of Their Employee ~ The Federal Government. Tom Woods explains that States can nullify (invalidate) unconstitutional federal laws, even if they are endorsed by the Supreme Court. In 2005, one State made a law that the federal government opposed and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. But this State simply ignored the Supreme Court edict because there was so much public support in favor of the State law. Public opinion and support make it easier to resist federal tyranny.
James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers
An Essay by Publius Huldah
This is, without a doubt, the best, most complete essay , that looks in
depth into EVERYTHING ever written by ALL of the eminent Founders, which includes the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution.
What are the Two Conditions Precedent for "Nullification"?
The deniers seem unaware of the two conditions our Framers saw must be present before nullification is proper and possible. These conditions are important - you will see why!:
♦ The act of the federal government must be unconstitutional - usually a usurpation of a power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution; and
♦ The act must be something The States or The People can “nullify”- i.e., refuse to obey (the act must order them to do something or not do something), or otherwise thwart, impede, or hinder.
What is “Interposition"?
A State “interposes” when it stands between the federal government and The Citizens of the State in order to protect them from the federal government. Interposition takes various forms, depending on the circumstances. Hamilton refers to interposition in Federalist No. 33 (5th para):
“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” Download the Essay
Click here.. What EXACTLY are Federal Vs State-People Powers?