States' Rights and Nullification?

Are you kidding me. Of course I'm for it. Why? Well for one thing it was paramount in establishing "limited" government so that we could enjoy what so eloquently was stated in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." 

This of course was just a pretext leading up to even more "limitations" upon the government as the Constitution outlines in Article I Section 8.  So how then with the supreme law of "limited" government so expressly written by the founders could so many have such difficulty in understanding it? "Limited" and government. Granted those two words define irony. Fortunately though these statesmen came up with these amazing amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. Now these aren't your rights. These are "restrictions and limitations" put upon the government so that you could enjoy the "unalienable" Rights mentioned above. But wait. It gets even better. To make sure, as if it wasn't clear enough that government was to be "limited" to the extent that the states and the people were to be "sovereign," they included the ninth and tenth amendments which in a nutshell says, Article I Sect. 8 is ALL the powers you are granted and that if it isn't in that bad Jack--the power is retained in the States and or the people.

You really only need a grade school education and a little common sense to vindicate this side of the rule of law. But the declaration above cannot survive the atmosphere of big government that we have today. Steven Conn was correct in his commentary in todays Opinion section of the Xenia Gazette when he said "Lincoln was really the first "big government" president. And he was correct in pointing out the irony of the tea party folks holding a rally in front of a memorial of a president who shredded the "rule of law" which is what the tea party folks are supposedly championing-limited government, states rights, individual liberty, free markets and a limited foreign policy based on our charter documents.  I guess in today's mental climate the above stated declaration and the rule of law is just some "blank piece of paper" according to a recent executive and too many others.  All three branches have been treasonous at worst and both major parties are guilty at best of crimes against the very documents they swore to uphold. But, Mr. Conn is wrong in that "states rights" aren't an avenue worth exploring. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 proved the threat of nullifying or interposing unconstitutional laws gave the states-and the people the last say-so. Thomas Jefferson put it plain and simple when he said, "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks of one government upon the other, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from what we separated." 

Folks, what makes America unique is are uniqueness. We are not a "one-size fits all" people. Human nature will never allow it and until we accept the fact that what may be good for you, might not be good for me, government is going to continue to enslave us. States' Rights and Nullification is a tool that brings power back to the people. It has worked in several states issues such as Real ID, Firearms Freedom Acts, Medical Marijuana Acts just to name three. You as an individual wouldn't come onto my property and threaten me with force to live and do as you see fit. So why then would you appoint a group of people-government to do what you cannot or would not do as an individual? That is tyranny. Which even a fifth grader understands is the opposite of liberty.

Andy Myers is a resident of Jamestown and is a policy analyst for The Ohio Freedom Alliance


    That's a good observation of old "Honest Abe," whose federal reign was the very antithesis of States' rights. We may not be far from having that scenario repeated. After all, if the State of Arizona cannot act, seeking to enforce existing federal law the federal government refuses to enforce, without receiving a backlash from Washington, imagine how bent out of shape Washington would get when a State opts to secede. You will note I did not say if.
    Your man Jefferson also stated that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Both groups water the tree. The tyrant dies because his tyranny becomes unacceptable, and he does not relinquish his despotic rule sans death. The patriot bleeds because he resists what the common man has already accepted, i.e. temporary safety in lieu of essential liberty.
    Were there no tyrants, there would be no need for a patriot or two. But our current circumstance is hardly novel; that foul stench blowing down from Washington has been a long time reeking.

Google Videos Like This