No, James Madison did not Reject Nullification

Tenth Amendment Center, January 4, 2014

For some reason, some conservative commentators keep propagating the historical lie that James Madison “rejected nullification.” James Madison did no such thing.

Even while opposing a bastardized proposal for nullification created out of thin air in South Carolina, he still supported nullification as a “natural right.”

SOUTH CAROLINA

In Madison’s “notes on nullification” during the later days of his life, he explicitly rejected a very specific doctrine of nullification proposed by South Carolina. But during the same time period, he referred to “nullification…as a natural right”

Madison’s arguments against this doctrine are hard to dispute. Here’s what he wrote:

This brings us to the expedient lately advanced, which claims for a single state a right to appeal against an exercise of power by the government of the United States decided by the state to be unconstitutional, to the parties to the constitutional compact; the decision of the state to have the effect of nullifying the act of the government of the United States, unless the decision of the state be reversed by three-fourths of the parties.

The distinguished names and high authorities which appear to have asserted and given a practical scope to this doctrine, entitle it to a respect which it might be difficult otherwise to feel for it.

If the doctrine were to be understood as requiring the three-fourths of the states to sustain, instead of that proportion to reverse the decision of the appealing state, the decision to be without effect during the appeal, it would be sufficient to remark, that this extra-constitutional course might well give way to that marked out by the Constitution, which authorizes two-thirds of the states to institute and three-fourths to effectuate an amendment of the Constitution,  establishing a permanent rule of the highest authority, in place of an irregular precedent of construction only.

But it is understood that the nullifying doctrine imports that the decision of the state is to be presumed valid, and that it overrules the law of the United States, unless overruled by three-fourths of the states.

See that?  READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE!

December 15--Bill of Rights Day, 222 Years

Celebrate it by learning to enforce the whole constitution.  Advice from James Madison.

The Tenth Amendment Center, December 15, 2013

222 years ago today, the Bill of Rights was given "life."  But it has no meaning if we just talk about it one day each year.   For us at the TAC, Bill of Rights Day is every day.  And our goal is to educate people on how to enforce the entire Constitution.

Today, we encourage you to read, learn and share - James Madison's wisdom:

A good place to start in determining how to enforce the Constitution is with the guy who’s commonly referred to as the “Father of the Constitution.”  While there’s some debate that James Wilson was actually far more fitting of that title, Madison was obviously quite influential.

The essential question: When the federal government violates the constitution, what do you do about it?

Here’s what Madison had to say in Federalist #46. The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared:

“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

CONTINUE READING:  http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/15/james-madison-on-how-to-enforce-the-constitution/

The NDAA: A Tale of Two Cities

By Jeff Lewis, National Director, Patriot Coalition (Oct. 15, 2013)

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…” - Charles Dickens.

Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) founder Michael Boldin apparently sees League City, Texas and Oxford, Massachusetts, both of which passed anti-NDAA resolutions, through two different lenses.

In a March 28, 2013 TAC article titled, “Resolution to Nullify NDAA Indefinite Detention Passes in League City, Texas,” Boldin is quoted as saying,

“This is a big step forward. Since this country was founded on the principle that “we the people” are supposed to be in charge, it makes sense that the most effective activism would start out on a local level. I congratulate all those who worked hard to get this resolution passed in League City.”

TAC’s League City article also states,

“The key clause of the resolution is the one calling for full noncompliance 

with the federal government:

“Instruct all our public agencies to decline requests by federal agencies acting under detention powers granted by the NDAA that could infringe upon residents’ freedom of speech, religion, assembly, privacy, or rights to counsel”

I've not been able to find any TAC article celebrating adoption of their “noncompliance” resolutions as being merely “opinion,” yet, when Boldin writes about the recently adopted Albany, New York and Oxford, Massachusetts resolutions, he spends a considerable amount of time marginalizing both the resolutions and the proponents of it, citing “home rule” as a reason the Albany and Oxford resolutions are just “opinion.”

After declaring earlier this year that PANDA’s Dan Johnson was his “enemy” for not supporting the Michigan Warm Fuzzy Act (HB-4138) promoted by Boldin, it would seem that TAC feels threatened by anyone who isn't drinking his “nullification through non-compliance” koolaid.

Boldin’s thinly-veiled criticism of the Oxford, Massachusetts resolution is in actuality an attempt to marginalize and discredit People Against the NDAA (PANDA) and its youthful founder, Dan Johnson. His tone and rhetoric are condescending propaganda at best, and demonstrate his ignorance of, and disregard of the Constitution.

The oath of office required by the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 includes supporting the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land,” as it was ordained by the people to be, in Article VI, Clause 2.

Boldin’s hypothesis erroneously posits that only after a “law” is adopted are oath takers required to uphold the Constitution, and that “ignorance of the law” is an excuse to not protect the rights and liberties of the people, stating:

“Certainly, a constitutionalist would hope that peace officers, under their Oath to the Constitution, would agree with such a view in principle. But, unfortunately, claiming that a non-binding resolution expressing a Council opinion would have the effect of legally causing all who take an Oath to “know this is unConstitutional” is a stretch, at best. In order to change the policy and actions of the Albany Police department, specific legal mechanisms (or a lot of one-on-one education of peace officers) will be required.”

That is absurd at best.

While it is hardly conceivable that Boldin isn't aware of the source of the Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) resolution and model legislation, he erroneously states the Oxford RCG Resolution was “drafted by PANDA.”

While PANDA has certainly been, and continues to be a prime partner and well-informed advocate for our Restoring Constitutional Governance (RCG) legislation and local resolutions, the RCG was drafted as a part of The Intolerable Acts ACTION CENTER project after hundreds of hours of research by me, Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry, a constitutional attorney, and Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, a Yale Law grad who specialized in the application of military law on civilian populations.

TAC’s “noncompliance” model simply tells state and local actors to “not do” something the law in question doesn't require them to do, that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the feds can’t do, and can’t make the states help them do. Also, there is nothing to “nullify” since the 2012 NDAA, Section 1021 was nullified from inception as it was not written “in Pursuance thereof” to the U.S. Constitution, as per Article VI, Clause 2.

It is worth noting that League City, Texas, falls under the “home rule” classification as well, so are we to presume that the League City noncompliance resolution’s “Instruct all our public agencies…” clause is merely a “request” based on the “opinion” of the council?


What the Tenth Amendment Center has promoted and celebrated in California and other states this past year is little more than smoke and mirrors borrowed from the worthless Virginia bill. It solicits legislators to ignore their duties of “allegiance and protection,” and encourages them to violate their Oath to support the Constitution by advising them to “stand down” instead of “stand up” and “interpose” themselves between the people and rogue federal agents violating their rights.

The “feel good” legislation adopted by California, Alaska, and Virginia is worthless. It gives legislators a pass for not protecting the rights of the people, and gives the people a false sense of security that the state, in passing this legislation, has restored or preserved their God-given, inalienable Rights. I’d hardly call any of them victories.

The Warm Fuzzy Act, aka “Liberty Preservation Act” borders on of “treason to the Constitution” according to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who, in 1821 said,

“We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution."

-SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US 264 (1821)

If I heard it once, I heard it a dozen times from state legislators across the country, “We just need something we can pass.”

What they are really saying is: The natives are restless, and we need “feel-good legislation” that doesn't really do anything to solve the problem, but that will get them off our backs. 

What PANDA reported in their recent press release is accurate. 

“The tide is now turning against the NDAA’s detention provisions. Oxford’s Resolution states: “

…it is unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful for any person to: 

a. arrest or capture any person in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, within the United States, with the intent of “detention under the law of war,” or 

b. actually subject a person in Oxford, to “disposition under the law of war,” or 

c. subject any person to targeted killing in Oxford, or citizen of Oxford, 

within the United States;…”

As Boldin stated in the article above, “we the people” are supposed to be in charge…” In Oxford, Massachusetts, the people ARE in charge, and the people have unequivocally resolved that what the feds are doing is unconstitutional. 

The Restoring Constitutional Governance Resolution of Oxford, Massachusetts removes “plausible deniability” that public officials don’t know better, and most likely, the traditional “immunity” that public servants enjoy in the performance of their duties will not shield them from a jury’s scrutiny should the feds attempt, and the locals assist or refuse to interpose as their oath requires. 

You don’t need a local “law” when you have the “supreme Law of the Land” on your side. We will never restore constitutional governance by enabling and rewarding public servants who refuse to actively defend our God-given inalienable Rights. 

We the People need to do as the Founders advised during their “age of wisdom,” and grow out of what Dickens referred to as the “age of foolishness.” 

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “nullify,” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, penned by Madison as adopted by the Virginia Assembly? ZERO. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, penned by Jefferson as adopted by the Kentucky Legislature? ZERO. The Kentucky legislature “rejected” the language which most nullifiers deploy as “the rightful remedy.” You will only find it in the draft. (Notice the link to the actual language at the top in small print as “this version,” which at first glance appears to be the version on the page they call “The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798.”) This is also the version TAC erroneously promotes “were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798…” 

Honest mistake? Perhaps, but if your objective is to market a concept the Constitution doesn't support, and the duties of “allegiance and protection” don’t permit, but you’re looking for validating a position that’s an easy sell, the draft version sounds great. 

How many times will you find the word “nullify” or any variation of it in his Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? ONCE, and it was past tense (nullified), denoting not an action to be taken, but rather, the “status” of the Sedition Act.

How many times did Madison, Hamilton, or Jay use the word “interpose” or any variation of it in the 85 essays comprising the Federalist Papers? FIFTEEN. 

How many times will you find the word “interpose” or any variation of it in Madison’s 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions? TEN. 

The Framers, including James Madison, understood that a law not written “in Pursuance” of the Constitution was no law at all. They understood there was nothing to “nullify.” They also understood their duty was to stand between rogue federal agents and the people. 

The duty is to “interpose.” Under the oath, and duty of “allegiance and protection,” actively defending the rights of the people is neither optional nor a form of nullification. 

In “Correcting a Common Tenth Amendment Center Misunderstanding of ‘Nullification,” Patriot Coalition general counsel Richard D. Fry addressed the concept of “allegiance and protection,” stating in part, the following: 

“Never heard of Allegiance and Protection? It is noted at least three times by the Apostle Paul, three times in the Declaration of Independence and it is the "allegiance" you refer to when you say " I pledge allegiance to the flag . . ." and has been recognized by the Supreme Court in many cases.” (Read full citations here.) 

James Madison, in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, recognized the states’ right and duty to stand between rogue federal actions and the people by including this: 

“that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

The duty of a state to “interpose” on behalf of its citizens existed long before the Constitution. By adopting the Constitution, the states did not surrender or negate their duty to “protect” the folks within their respective jurisdictions; they added another layer of protection.


The Virginia, California, and Alaska “nullification” legislation is “non-compliance” legislation at best. What does that accomplish?

Imagine this. You’re in an alley, about to be mugged and kidnapped. A policeman happens to pass by, but instead of stopping (interposing) the mugger, the policeman doesn't help the mugger rob you. He just stands by and watches.

Don’t get excited or upset. Everything’s going to be just fine. The policeman won’t help the mugger tie you up, and he won’t let them use his police car to escape in, and won’t allow the mugger/kidnapper to hold you hostage indefinitely at the local police station. Feel better?

That’s what the NDAA “nullification” bills such as Tenth Amendment Center’s “Liberty Preservation Act” do. This is what they convinced Virginia, California, and Alaska to pass.

The 2012 NDAA violates over 14 provisions of the Constitution, including over half of the Bill of Rights. If that doesn't fit Madison’s definition of “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers,” I don’t know what does. If that doesn't require what Madison recognized as requiring the states, “who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil,” I shudder to think what would.

The battle against the ‘intolerable acts’ the 2012 NDAA authorizes should end the way Charles Dickens ended “A Tale of Two Cities,”

‘It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done;

it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.’

Warm-fuzzy do-nothing legislation is not the “rightful remedy.” In fact, it is a recipe for disaster.

Both directly and indirectly, we've attempted to do as Jefferson advised, to “inform their discretion.” We are not their enemy, and neither is PANDA, but truth delayed is truth denied.

James Madison, in Federalist 40, said the following:

“If, according to the noble precept, it be lawful to accept good advice even from an enemy, shall we set the ignoble example of refusing such advice even when it is offered by our friends?

The prudent inquiry, in all cases, ought surely to be, not so much from whom the advice comes, as whether the advice be good.”

If Boldin and TAC won’t take our advice, or Madison’s, perhaps they will take their own.
Their motto is: “The Constitution. Every Issue, Every time. No Exceptions, No Excuses.”

We couldn't agree more.

Download here: http://patriotcoalition.com/docs/Tale-of-Two-Cities.pdf

Get the RCG Act for your state at: http://theintolerableacts.org 

Contact: Jeff@patriotcoalition.com

Smashing Myths: Southern States and Nullification

Slavery was a morally corrupt and abhorrent institution that should have never existed.

No question. No debate.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s talk about nullification’s history in the Southern states prior to the Civil War.

Over time, a Paul Bunyan type myth has grown suggesting that the Southern states were strong advocates of nullification as a means to protect their institution of slavery. In 2011, Rachel Maddow presented a news segment on her show about nullification. She stated that John C. Calhoun was a proponent of both slavery and nullification, more than implying the two are linked.

If that was the case, it would be pretty gross.

But it’s not.

Southern states never attempted to nullify anything in defense of slavery.

There is no dispute that Calhoun defended slavery. He was a slaver. In that sense, he’s a reprehensible character. And he also advocated for nullification.

However, Calhoun didn’t suggest using nullification as a means to maintain slavery. During the Nullification Crisis, Calhoun advocated the nullification doctrine as a means to protect Southern states against high tariffs that were impacting the Southern exports. Again, he advocated nullification against tariffs not for the promotion of slavery. During her televised segment, Maddow never mentioned the word, “tariffs.” Not once.

To demonize nullification because a slaver advocated the principle for something unrelated to slavery is nothing more than a textbook ad hominem attack.

If you bought into that false narrative, you should be forgiven. After all, conventional wisdom links the two. But now you know the truth. And if your mistaken perception that nullification was all about slavery led you to abhor the doctrine, the actual history of nullification should lead you to embrace the principles with abandon!

Leading up to the Civil War, Northern state Senators and Representatives stood up for the due process rights of their black citizens and passed Personal Liberty Laws, effectively nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

This act counts among the most evil pieces of legislation in American history. The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 made a farce of due process, allowing for the arrest of a suspected runaway slave based on the word of the “property owner.” He simply had to swear an affidavit attesting to his “ownership” of the person in question, and he was allowed to drag that man or woman back South into slavery. The accused wasn’t even allowed to present evidence in his own defense. The act was meant to protect the “property” of slave holders, but many free blacks found themselves accused of escaping slavery and faced the prospect of living out their life on a plantation. Kidnapping of free blacks was not unusual. And northerners understood that even an accused runaway should remain innocent until proven guilty, and enjoy basic due process rights.

Instead of simply submitting to federal authority and quietly participating in constitutionally dubious and morally repugnant fugitive-slave roundups, northern lawmakers aggressively resisted the fugitive slave acts. Officials in these states did everything within their power to thwart enforcement, including denying federal agents the use of jails, and even impeaching state officials who lent support to fugitive-slave claimants.

The Michigan legislature passed a law guaranteeing habeas corpus rights and a jury trial to any accused runaway, all in defiance of federal “law.” Michigan also prohibited the use of state or local jails by slave catchers. The Wisconsin’s Supreme Court even ruled the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional in the wake of the Joshua Glover case.  Vermont passed a “Habeas Corpus” law requiring state officials to aid captured slaves, defying provisions in the Fugitive Slave Act.

Southerners were not pleased. They needed northern submission to central authority to maintain slavery. The idea that southerners were all about “states’ rights” is something of a myth. They were for state sovereignty when it suited them. But when it came to slavery, they were the ardent nationalists, pleading for strong federal action. It was the northern states were asserting their sovereignty and nullifying an unconstitutional act.

Virginia Governor John B. Floyd warned that Northern nullification efforts of the Fugitive Slave Act could lead to the South to secede.

It did.

South Carolina  lists Northern nullification as one of their reasons to secede in their Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Caroline from the Federal Union:

The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis added]

CONTINUE READING:  http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/smashing-myths-southern-states-and-nullification/#.UgJ4_WR4YTg

Nullify Now! in Raleigh

October 19, 2013

Nullify Now! in Raleigh is THE event to learn about what Jefferson and Madison advised as the rightful remedy to unconstitutional federal acts.

Since September 2010, the Tenth Amendment Center has been hosting events around the country to educate and activate people on the topic of Nullification. At a Nullify Now! event, you learn nullification’s constitutional basis and when it has been used in history – plus much more.

AT NULLIFY NOW! YOU WILL LEARN:

1. The Constitutional history of Nullification. Jefferson and Madison’s basis for states rejecting, nullifying and interposing against unconstitutional federal acts.

2. How Nullification was used in early American history - against attacks on freedom of speech and more.

3. Nullification vs Slavery. The mainstream wants you to believe that Nullification was used to support slavery. This is either ignorance or a lie. Hear the heroic story of nullification being used to reject federal slave laws in the 1850s.

4. How Nullification is being used today. right now, across the country, dozens of states are implementing nullification bills. They’ve already been very successful pushing back against the feds and you can use this lesson as a blueprint in your own state, on issues important to you.

5. About Nullification as a Tool for Protecting Liberty. Nullification is a powerful tool to protect your right to keep and bear arms, stop “indefinite detention,” protect your health freedom – and more. You’ll learn about model legislation that can be used on a state OR local level – and effective methods to get nullification bills passed.

6. What YOU can do right now – you won’t leave Nullify Now! with just a bunch of great information. You’ll also be provided with a practical, actionable plan to do something today. The time to act is now, not next year and not next week. Today, not tomorrow, now.

YOU MUST GET TICKETS HERE: http://www.nullifynow.com/

NULLIFICATION: AN OVERVIEW OF ITS MANY FORMS

January 27, 2013 By Benjamin W. Mankowski, Sr.

In the nullification movement, there are varying degrees and methods of nullifying certain federal acts. One who has been with the movement a while could forget and hyper focus on one, leaving someone new to the movement to think of nullification as a very narrow spectrum.

To eliminate that thinking, it is good to go back to the Tenth Amendment Center’s definition of nullification, which is: “any act, or set of actions, that results in a particular law being declared unconstitutional and rendered null, void or even just unenforceable…”

There are so many opinions on nullification, if I listed every article and opinion piece written on it in the past week, I’d probably be finished with this entry sometime around next Christmas. This is not a bad thing. If others are talking about it, it means the message is being heard and cannot be ignored.

This is intended to be a general review, so while there is a time for everything under the sun, there is no time to include links and sources today, just a quick refresher. There is, however, a time when a certain forms of nullification may be more applicable than others.

CONTINUED:  http://bwcentral.org/2013/01/nullification-an-overview-of-its-many-forms/