Donald Hank
State-level civil disobedience
By Donald Hank
The difference between the Article 5 convention and nullification is like the difference between a pop gun and a machine gun.
Nullification has stopping power. Article 5 is a genuflection to the federal power. It is simply writing more amendments for the Fed to ignore, absurdly pretending that the federal government is made up of sincere individuals who will obey the will of its citizens.
On the other hand, when a state nullifies a federal law, it is not asking the feds for anything or treating them as a body of sincere individuals. It is demanding, with a gun to the head of the unruly federal government. And that is the only way the fed can be made to back off.
Now some have reasoned that there are legal limits to nullification. However, if individuals have the right to civil disobedience, thatn so do the states. This goes further than mere nullification of a law by a state court. This is one step before insurrection, and judging by their actions in the past, particularly the way they backed off in the Bundy ranch standoff, the feds would not dare to go into a state and enforce their law at gunpoint because they know that such would lead to a new American revolution.
The Feds would then no doubt do what they are doing to Russia, ie, impose sanctions. But the state that used the "civil disobedience" approach could also fight back by withholding funds to the feds, much in the way that Russia is imposing sanctions of its own. They could, for example, temporarily release their citizens from the obligation to pay federal taxes, enjoining them to pay the funds to the states instead but reducing the overall amount.
There is no doubt that this would work, though causing some temporary hardship. It is all up to the American people. They need to wake up and realize that Washington is the enemy, by definition, and that desperate times demand desperate measures.
One very important use of civil disobedience would be for states to man up and refuse to admit anyone into their state who entered the US illegally, regardless of federal laws to the contrary. Initially, this would constitute nullification in the original sense, where the state would decide, on the basis of Article 4, Section 4, that the federal government was acting unconstitutionally to award legal residence to invaders.
The argument is straightforward and logical: The Constitution was a contract signed by the state representatives. By analogy with contract law, both parties must comply with each clause under penalty of dissolution or partial dissolution of the contract. The state could rightfully argue that it was induced at the founding of our nation to enter into a contract that provided protection but that the protection had been unlawfully withheld, thereby leading to dissolution of all or part of the contract.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution enjoins the federal government to protect the States against invasion. By refusing to allot sufficient funds and manpower to the protection of the southern border and by restricting the ability of the Border Patrol to arrest lawbreakers, by releasing apprehended illegal border crossers back into the US, by releasing convicted illegal alien criminals back onto the US streets after they have served their time rather than deporting them, and by rewarding lawbreakers with temporary or permanent residency using a variety of tricks such as allowing them to serve in the military in exchange for residency, the federal government has not only failed to protect the states from invasion as mandated by the Constitution, but has in fact aided and abetted the invaders and has thereby rendered itself an outlaw government that need no longer be obeyed but must in fact be resisted.
In case any reader should doubt that the massive immigration from the southern border constitutes an actual invasion, they need only read the article in Business Insider showing that of the 13 most dangerous street gangs in America, a full 10 are Hispanic. The most dangerous and violent of these is Mara Salvatrucha. To get a graphic portrayal of this gang's behavior, you need only view this video. But be forewarned. It is brutally violent and not for the weak hearted. And what you see there is a direct result of unconstitutional federal policies.
If the Supreme Court decided that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (only a smattering of which is presented at the linked sources), the massive influx of illegals does not meet the definition of an invasion, and that this was a wrong interpretation of the Constitution by the state in question, then it would be up to the state to implement "state-level civil disobedience," averring that, in this decision, the Supreme Court represents only the federal government, a narrow interest group – thereby denying the states and their citizens equal protection under the law – to the detriment of the states.
State borders would become sovereign again, as they should have been in the first place.
© Donald Hank
April 22, 2015
The difference between the Article 5 convention and nullification is like the difference between a pop gun and a machine gun.
Nullification has stopping power. Article 5 is a genuflection to the federal power. It is simply writing more amendments for the Fed to ignore, absurdly pretending that the federal government is made up of sincere individuals who will obey the will of its citizens.
On the other hand, when a state nullifies a federal law, it is not asking the feds for anything or treating them as a body of sincere individuals. It is demanding, with a gun to the head of the unruly federal government. And that is the only way the fed can be made to back off.
Now some have reasoned that there are legal limits to nullification. However, if individuals have the right to civil disobedience, thatn so do the states. This goes further than mere nullification of a law by a state court. This is one step before insurrection, and judging by their actions in the past, particularly the way they backed off in the Bundy ranch standoff, the feds would not dare to go into a state and enforce their law at gunpoint because they know that such would lead to a new American revolution.
The Feds would then no doubt do what they are doing to Russia, ie, impose sanctions. But the state that used the "civil disobedience" approach could also fight back by withholding funds to the feds, much in the way that Russia is imposing sanctions of its own. They could, for example, temporarily release their citizens from the obligation to pay federal taxes, enjoining them to pay the funds to the states instead but reducing the overall amount.
There is no doubt that this would work, though causing some temporary hardship. It is all up to the American people. They need to wake up and realize that Washington is the enemy, by definition, and that desperate times demand desperate measures.
One very important use of civil disobedience would be for states to man up and refuse to admit anyone into their state who entered the US illegally, regardless of federal laws to the contrary. Initially, this would constitute nullification in the original sense, where the state would decide, on the basis of Article 4, Section 4, that the federal government was acting unconstitutionally to award legal residence to invaders.
The argument is straightforward and logical: The Constitution was a contract signed by the state representatives. By analogy with contract law, both parties must comply with each clause under penalty of dissolution or partial dissolution of the contract. The state could rightfully argue that it was induced at the founding of our nation to enter into a contract that provided protection but that the protection had been unlawfully withheld, thereby leading to dissolution of all or part of the contract.
Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution enjoins the federal government to protect the States against invasion. By refusing to allot sufficient funds and manpower to the protection of the southern border and by restricting the ability of the Border Patrol to arrest lawbreakers, by releasing apprehended illegal border crossers back into the US, by releasing convicted illegal alien criminals back onto the US streets after they have served their time rather than deporting them, and by rewarding lawbreakers with temporary or permanent residency using a variety of tricks such as allowing them to serve in the military in exchange for residency, the federal government has not only failed to protect the states from invasion as mandated by the Constitution, but has in fact aided and abetted the invaders and has thereby rendered itself an outlaw government that need no longer be obeyed but must in fact be resisted.
In case any reader should doubt that the massive immigration from the southern border constitutes an actual invasion, they need only read the article in Business Insider showing that of the 13 most dangerous street gangs in America, a full 10 are Hispanic. The most dangerous and violent of these is Mara Salvatrucha. To get a graphic portrayal of this gang's behavior, you need only view this video. But be forewarned. It is brutally violent and not for the weak hearted. And what you see there is a direct result of unconstitutional federal policies.
If the Supreme Court decided that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (only a smattering of which is presented at the linked sources), the massive influx of illegals does not meet the definition of an invasion, and that this was a wrong interpretation of the Constitution by the state in question, then it would be up to the state to implement "state-level civil disobedience," averring that, in this decision, the Supreme Court represents only the federal government, a narrow interest group – thereby denying the states and their citizens equal protection under the law – to the detriment of the states.
State borders would become sovereign again, as they should have been in the first place.
© Donald Hank
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
