Nullifying Tyranny

By George C. Leef

Campaign for Liberty, March 17, 2011

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century


by Thomas E. Woods Jr. (Regnery, 2010); 309 pages.

One of the big mistakes made by the drafters of the Constitution was their omission of any provision that says what is to be done if the Congress or president acts unconstitutionally. Although the Constitution places limits on their authority, nowhere does it specify the course or courses of action open to citizens or states who want to block the offending action. That omission has plagued the nation almost since its beginning.

Americans are used to one course of action available to challenge the legitimacy of government action, namely review by the judiciary. There is no language in the Constitution stating that courts have the power to declare laws unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, much less that judicial review is the remedy.

Why shouldn't state governments have at least as much authority to overturn unconstitutional acts as the courts? The states, after all, came together to form the compact called The United States of America. Moreover, state governments are more accountable to the people than are judges serving lifetime appointments on appellate courts. (Government accountability is a weak reed, but at least it is possible to vote out governors and state legislators.)

Does it make any sense to have one branch of the federal government be the sole judge of the legality of acts of the other branches of the federal government?

CONTINUED:  http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1371