Dec 19, 2016 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
Harold Pease, Ph. D
American cities are in rebellion. Since the election of Donald Trump, mayors have lined up by the dozens and announced that they will not assist the federal government in the deportation of illegals. Universities followed, declaring themselves off-limits to federal law. None of this is protected by the Constitution. But now California is using the Tenth Amendment, the nullification doctrine, to become a sanctuary state and defy federal law as well. Is it constitutional?
Sanctuary cities defying federal law are nothing new. They did it under President Barack Obama with his encouragement. Estimates of illegals with criminal convictions released to the streets during the Obama tenure range as high as 68,000. Probably most hang out in sanctuary cities that seemingly plan on preventing their deportation. More than 600 of these were released back into the public more than twice. On August 19, 2015, 193 with homicide convictions and 426 with sexual assault convictions were released by the Obama Administration. One, 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, with seven felonies and having been deported five times, murdered Kate Steinle, July 5, 2015. More than 340 cities have laws shielding illegal aliens from federal law.
Two constitutional problems exist: as mentioned, the Constitution does not give cities any right to defy the laws of the land emanating from Congress (the only law making part of the federal government), nor should cities or states follow law made solely by the president, as for example executive amnesty. Every mayor has taken a solemn oath “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The existence of sanctuary cities is as clear a constitutional violation as exists.
But a state is exempted from federal law that is not constitutionally based by two parts of the Constitution: Article I, Section 8 and Amendment 10. The first, known as the enumeration clause, lists the areas where Congress can make law. Any extension of this list requires an Amendment to the Constitution as all other power remains with the states. Amendment 10 clarifies this relationship more firmly. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So states can refuse to obey federal law and should do so to keep the federal government from absorbing the jurisdiction left to them, “powers not delegated” to the federal government. Remember our Founders created a system of dual governance between the states and the federal government with neither being master or slave.
Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were each especially vocal with respect to states having the authority to “Just Say No!” to federal law not enumerated. Such was used in 1798 in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves, in 1832 in the Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, and more successfully with the northern states, especially Wisconsin, in 1854 over the highly unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act.
More recently the 10th Amendment, and resulting Doctrine of Nullification, first strongly implied in the Constitution and then more firmly stated in the 10th Amendment, is being used by states to prevent the federal government’s overreach of enumerated powers. Thirty states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form, usually medical, openly defying federal law and on November 8, California, Massachusetts, and Nevada joined Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Colorado completely legalizing marijuana for recreational use as well. Whether my reader views this as good or bad, the fact still remains that without a new amendment to the Constitution this issue remains a state issue. States’ refusal to implement the Real ID Act, passed in 2005, which established new federal standards for state-issued drivers licenses, is a form of nullification as well.
When enough states say no, the feds back away. In 2013, nine State Sheriffs’ Associations put the Executive and Legislative Branches on notice that they support the traditional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and 336 elected county sheriffs inferred that they would protect their people on this issue—even against federal agents coming into their counties. Barack Obama and the Justice Department backed away.
The use of marijuana, and the ID Act are not within the scope of enumerated powers and thus belong to the states. President Obama’s reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment rightfully was ignored by the states. Health, education, and marriage, or anything remotely like unto them, can not be found in the Constitution as federal powers and thus, as per Amendment 10, remain state functions only—regardless of what five rogue justices on the Supreme Court may rule. Any other interpretation would lead the federal government to legislate any thing it wished, end federalism (dual government), and in time destroy all the other checks and balances in the Constitution.
Now California is using the doctrine of nullification to defy federal law on immigration, as it rules itself a sanctuary state. The problem is immigration is clearly constitutionally left to the federal government alone. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives the federal government the right, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” It has and thus states cannot defy it. Moreover, eight of the 18 clauses listed as the powers of Congress deal with national security and border security defines even the existence of a nation. The Constitution puts an end to the issue in Article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 25, 2016 | Constitution, Globalism, Healthcare, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Liberty Under Fire has examined the candidates for president as to their intention to give first consideration in problem solving to the Constitution. Many of the problems now facing this nation and the expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to bring the Barack Obama administration in line with it, are due to his not following the Constitution. Our current constitutional crisis is more serious than any other concern, including ISIS.
Our readers in Iowa and New Hampshire, who will be expressing themselves very soon in the first two presidential primaries, should know that defending the Constitution must be first priority in this Presidential election. Constitutional integrity will solve our problems very nicely. Another four years without such may leave the Constitution so defiled as to not be recoverable.
To our many Democrat friends, your party has provided much historical strength especially in upholding Amendments 1, 4, 5, and 8 of the Bill of Rights. In the 20th Century your greatest contribution was in extending equality to blacks. Today most blacks support your party in appreciation. But in four Democratic sponsored presidential debates not one of your candidates (Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley) even spoke of our present constitutional crisis. Not one of them gave any indication that it would be considered in problem solving. Indeed, more taxes and more government—even government by decree—was always their remedy.
Unfortunately, the Republican solution to problem solving is only mildly better. They too problem solve with high taxes and unlimited government. They too abandoned the concepts of a republic and federalism years ago. They too pay no attention to the list of appropriate areas of legislation in Article I, Section 8 and Amendments 9 and 10 that gives all power not identified in the Constitution to the states. Republican presidents too, with their executive orders, usurp the powers of Congress as the only lawmaking body. A President Trump’s executive orders would differ from a President Hillary Clinton’s only in that his would be “good ones rather than bad ones,” as Trump explained.
On Second Amendment issues all the Republicans candidates are better than any of the Democratic candidates. Remember, Amendments cannot constitutionally be changed by warping its original meaning or by any law made by Congress or by executive order. If it needs to be changed that can only happen by another amendment and that requires 3/4th of the states to approve as per Article V.
On abortion issues Carly Fiorina has the most constitutional response, it should be returned to the states. There exists no language in the Constitution giving the practice national authority and as such constitutionally falls under the 10th Amendment. Ted Cruz, however, has the most actual experience in court with respect to preserving constitutional integrity on the subject. All others say that they are pro-life but would use national power to enforce that view.
With respect to the management of our currency, constitutionally given only to Congress with no authority for them to hand it off to the banking elite who most benefit by its management, most republican candidates are critical but in favor of the Federal Reserve. Only Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio demand that the books be opened to Congress, Cruz and Rubio cosponsoring Paul’s legislation to do just this.
There exists no constitutional language whatever giving the federal government any say in health issues. As such it is a state issue as per Amendment 10. All Republican presidential candidates say that they oppose Obamacare but what they would do about it as president differs. Least likely to do anything about it is Jeb Bush. Most likely to work to have it totally repealed is Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. Trump and Rubio would repeal and replace. Replace means a Republican version of the same thing, which would be just as unconstitutional as that of Obama’s healthcare.
Candidates most likely to reverse Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty order are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Candidates least likely to do so are Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie. Only Cruz and Trump have the correct constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment dealing with immigration.
On the Trans- Pacific Partnership Treaty most Republican Presidential candidates are in favor with Marco Rubio referring to it as being “a pillar of his presidency.”
Trump calls it as a “disaster” and “pathetic.” Rand Paul opposes it because it was done in secret and was unavailable to the people. Only Ted Cruz talks about opposition to it on constitutional grounds.
With respect to 4th Amendment issues of privacy and NSA surveillance on Americans, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz each sponsored legislation in opposition to it or limiting of its practice. Ben Carson and Mike Huckabee think spying on our own citizens without a warrant is unconstitutional. Others support or at least do not voice opposition to the practice.
In these instances, and many more, the presidential candidate presently defending the Constitution, and most likely to use the Constitution in problem solving as president, is clearly Ted Cruz, with Rand Paul a close second. Least likely include Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich and Marco Rubio.
Jan 7, 2016 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
“We cannot wait for Congress to act on this,” so said President Barack Obama Tuesday in his first address to the nation in 2016. In essence he will now make the laws dealing with the 2nd Amendment himself because Congress refused to make law the President wanted. Mostly the executive orders (new laws) expand required background checks and the number of those requiring a sales license to sell guns (which requires tremendous paperwork, expense, and about a year to obtain). This Congress refused to pass three times during the Obama administration, once when the Democrats were in charge. Even gun exchanges between family members come into question. Potentially this means that people who violate the law made by the president alone will go to jail or be otherwise punished as with kings and dictators.
This is reminiscent of a statement made by the White House just two years ago on executive amnesty. “We’re not just going to sit around and wait interminably for Congress. We’ve been waiting a year already.” In this instance, some in Congress had worked on what was called the Dream Act that would extend amnesty and place illegal immigrants on a course toward full citizenship. Lacking popularity, twice it failed to get the majority vote of both Houses of Congress required by the Constitution, thus leaving long-standing existing immigration law unchanged. Obama, failing to get a favorable vote from Congress, openly defied Congress and the Constitution by ordering a like measure to that defeated, implemented anyway. It has since rightly been blocked by the Judicial Branch as having been an overreach by the President, thus unconstitutional.
Executive amnesty was outright contempt for Congress and the Constitution and the President knew it. Twenty-seven times prior to his doing the order he argued that it would be unconstitutional were he to do it. As for example, on March 28, 2011, he said, with respect to the idea of nullifying Congress on the deportation issue. “The notion that I can just suspend deportations just through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed.”
Indeed, by executive order Obama has changed existing law at least 30 times, most notably in the Affordable Care Act, which today is not the bill passed by Congress in 2010. In doing these, and the new parade of executive orders on gun control, the President is replacing Congress as the only federal lawmaker of the land.
There is nothing more clear nor basic in the Constitution than the separation of federal power into three branches, one to legislate, another to execute that law, and a third to adjudicate possible violations of that law when contested—a division of power held “sacred” until the last few decades. The Constitution reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives”(Article I, Sec. I).
The Executive branch has NO authority to make law—any law!!!! Nor does it have constitutional authority to alter existing law. Executive Orders are constitutional only when they cite a single, recently passed law of Congress, where that law needs a statement of implementation by the executive branch. Originally they were but interdepartmental directives.
A president can only suggest a need for new law in his State of the Union Address, and either sign or veto a law passed by Congress, which then, if vetoed, must be overridden by a vote of 2/3rds of both houses to become law. That is it.
I warned my readers when Obama blatantly violated the Constitution on executive amnesty that “if not challenged by Congress his alterations would become existing law by practice without the consent of the peoples’ representatives, voiding the role of Congress, and that he, upon finding a weak Congress, would repeat the practice of making law by decree.” He has!! Some have used the word dictatorial to describe the practice. I renew this warning, not just for Obama but also for presidents who follow from either party, as they will use past practice to justify desired practice and the trend to nullify Congress as the only federal lawmaking body will continue. Executive Orders that have the force and effect of law must stop to preserve liberty.
Obama’s present override of Congress on 2nd Amendment issues is an even more blatant abuse of his oath of office, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” To protect the separation of powers and end Obama’s threat to the Constitution, Congress must publically renounce all his new executive orders and fast track immediately to impeachment. Yes, the Constitution requires that he be retired in twelve months anyway but a bill of impeachment reestablishes the precedent that the people will not tolerate the defilement of the Constitution thus discouraging constitutional rogues of the future. Failing to do so weakens Congress’s sole role as the federal law-making branch of government, the clarity of the 2nd Amendment, and the integrity of the presidential oath of office.
Democrats must see that their failure to insist on a retraction of all law-making executive orders forever weakens the sole power of Congress to make all law and places us on the road of government by decree or edict of one man. We must choose the Constitution over party. The Constitution is there to protect all parties and all citizens from arbitrary and caprices rule as just announced. Please let it work.
Jan 3, 2016 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The December 15, 2015, Republican Presidential Debate featured a stark clash between the only two Hispanics running from either party, both also the sons of immigrants to this country. A successful bid would make either our first Hispanic president. But on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and the Bill of Rights they are on opposite ends, one opposing the other supporting.
A question with respect to the extremely controversial, largely on constitutional grounds, NDAA should have been a top news item in the presidential debate for three reasons: first, it had just been approved by both houses of Congress and was then on the President’s desk for his signature, second, a new president (presumably one of the debaters) would inherit the power to detain indefinitely and without trial American citizens he or his military suspected was a terrorist threat, and finally, all this in light of the ISIS terrorist attack in San Bernardino by one of our own. It wasn’t. Amazingly no commentator in any of the debates has asked about the NDAA.
It would not have come up at all had not Senator Marco Rubio accused rival Senator Ted Cruz of having voted against it every year since its inception in 2011 and accurately assumed that Cruz would veto it were he the president. Senator Cruz responded, “I oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process. I have repeatedly supported an effort to take that out of that bill.” Rubio countered, “If you’re an American citizen and you decide to join up with ISIS, we’re not going to read you your Miranda rights. You’re going to be treated as an enemy combatant, a member of an army attacking this country.” Senator Rand Paul attempted several times to have input in support of the Cruz position but was not allowed.
So why is this an issue? It is the word “suspected.” In the United States you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. And there is also the damage to the Bill of Rights.
In the NDAA is a provision authorizing the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial, and hold indefinitely, American citizens thought to “represent an enduring security threat to the United States.” Simply stated it defied Habeas Corpus (your constitutional right not to disappear at the hand of government) Article I, Section 9, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (preventing the military from having a law enforcement function in the United States), and essentially gutted large portions of the Bill of Rights especially amendments 4, 5, and 6 with secondary damage to 1, 2 and possibly 8. It is the single most dangerous law passed by Congress in U.S. History. No freedom or constitutional advocate should be supportive of punishment without trial.
Many seem not to understand that a non-specific definition of terrorism, such as that noted above, can easily be turned into a revolving definition of terrorism and used to wipe out either an opposing party or philosophy. Imagine being arrested, kidnapped, and secretly shipped to Guantanamo Bay (or some other undisclosed location) for defending the Constitution. Such is possible under the NDAA. Republican President Richard Nixon used the IRS to persecute his political enemies in the 1970’s, as has Democratic President Barack Obama in the last seven years. Neither political party is without fault on this issue.
Perhaps Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz said it best when he proudly told his constituents: “Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process. The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial.” We agree and that is why the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 is still dangerous, still unconstitutional and still unacceptable in a free country!!
Republican Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain pushed NDAA through the Senate in 2011 and Democrat President Barack Obama, promised to veto it, then reneged on the promise and signed it. It largely nullifies the Bill of Rights for those accused. No freedom or constitutional advocate should be supportive of punishment without trial. In the 2016 presidential race only Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, from either major political party, have voiced opposition to it. Presumably all other candidates favor it. Senator Rubio consistently voted for it and is probably the most outspoken 2016 presidential contender, from either major political party, advocating it. As such it is unlikely that, if elected president, he could fulfill the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Dec 26, 2015 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
The establishment media is baffled. They have influenced presidential elections since Woodrow Wilson by how they cover candidates—even more so with the advent of television. First, by limiting coverage to but two political parties of normally many offering presidential candidates in every contest. Essentially, if they do not give coverage you or your party does not exist. Second, the media shows preference by time given, comments supporting or not, questions asked or not, and placement in debates (whomever gets coveted center stage automatically gets more spotlight coverage) and etc. The first election is always the medias as they alone define serious candidates.
Collectively the establishment media has attempted to show Donald Trump as, a joke—certainly not a serious candidate, not a real conservative, a flip-flopper on the issues, anti-women, anti-immigration, insulting to everyone, a braggart, only into himself, least likely to beat Hillary Clinton, only attractive to white males, and not in touch with reality with respect to the Middle East, and more. They may be correct in some or all of these assumptions, and the constant barrage of but a third of these charges would have easily destroyed previous candidates. So why not Trump?
The establishment (sometimes prefaced by money or eastern) is likewise baffled. For over a hundred years, since William McKinley they, with the help of the media that they largely own, have propelled into power politicians sympathetic to their interests in both parties so that their interests get attention no matter which of their two political parties, Democrat or Republican, gets elected. Control of foreign policy is never out of their hands.
They oppose nationalism favoring coalition governance. Problem solving is much preferred on the world level, as in the UN, or in regional governments, NATO, the European Union and eventually the American Union. They push for international trade agreements that reduce U.S. sovereignty (NAFT, GATT, and most recently the Trans-Pacific Partnership). Perpetual war feeds the “Industrial Military Complex” President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us to avoid. They benefit from increased power and money. They universally oppose an audit of the Federal Reserve, which they have controlled since 1913, and their support for foreign aid has never faltered, regardless of which party is in power. They destroy anyone not supportive of these things. So again, why not Trump?
The answer to why not Trump is almost too obvious. In the items mentioned above both parties look too much alike. Most Americans know that something is wrong—really wrong. Today Independents, those refusing to align Democrat or Republican, is about 40%, stronger than either party. Most Americans feel lied to by both parties and the media. Presidents from either party are strongly disliked by the time they finish their second term. The people feel deceived when they elect politicians to restore the Constitution and the economy and these same politicians appeared to join the other side as soon as they arrived in Washington D.C. Many have wondered the value of their vote outside “the lesser of two evils” philosophy.
Enter Donald Trump who mostly says what others were afraid to say, beginning with illegal immigration. Our Mexican friends have indeed invaded our country and taken, not just the jobs Americans did not want, but the ones that they do want as well. They have entered every field and their illegal children, being bilingual, are now favored in most other jobs. When a politician says that he will build a fence to help preserve their jobs almost no one believes him. Trump is a builder, has built magnificent structures, and is believed.
Simply put the media, the establishment, and the political parties have lost their credibility. The more the establishment or media gang up on Trump the more his following grows. He even tells off the media. His bravado is even somewhat refreshing from the Bush’s, Clinton’s, Boehner’s and McConnell’s. To return to yet another Bush, even though he is loaded with establishment money and has placed more television ads with that money than all others of both parties put together, is not going to happen. Nor is it likely for others favored by the establishment like Chris Christie, or John Kasich. The establishment has recently switched from Jeb Bush to Marco Rubio but even he, having run the second most number of television ads, has not gained the trust and traction equal to the money spent.
The establishment opposition to Trump certifies another factor in his favor. He is not one of them. He will not be control by them, as have his predecessors from both parties. Nor will any special interest group control him, as he takes no money from them. This may be the first time in 120 years that this is the case. Only the Constitution should guide and restrain him—not the moneyed establishment.
This brings up another factor in his favor, also not mentioned by the press. Most Americans believe that the economy is on a crash course. No country can long endure when more money is spent than taken in. No candidate understands the economy better than Trump having worked successfully with it for decades. He has the most incentive to get it back to a sound base than any other candidate, or even you or I; we lose hundreds when it goes, he loses billions.
The Trump phenomenon is essentially a rebellion against the media and the establishment by a population tired of being manipulated every four years into staying with the same failed internationalist foreign policy presented by establishment candidates of both parties.
Nov 24, 2015 | Constitution, Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
More than half of the states, as of last report, have placed restrictions on Syrian Refugees entering their states until the federal government can show a better screening program to insure that our Muslim sympathetic president has screening programs in place to screen out potential radical Islamic extremists. Most of the states came on board after the tragic slaughter of French citizens on November 13, 2015, by radical Islamic extremist terrorists, at least one a Syrian refugee. Can they do so? Seemingly all establishment media “experts” say no but a deeper understanding of the Constitution, in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, says yes.
Those who say no primarily center their argument on a Supreme Court ruling and a 1980 law. Hines v. Davidwitz reads in part: “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” Proponents next use the Refugee Act of 1980 which gives the President power to accept refugees facing “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” into the United States. This is even more so in an “unforeseen emergency refugee situation.”
Yes, national powers are left with Congress and the President operating together. The problem is, the president has a history of refusing to enforce existing national law on illegal immigration and to consult with Congress on this matter operating entirely unilaterally, even going around Congress on executive amnesty. Confidence in this President to defend our borders is at an all time low—much lower than any prior president. Yes, when the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed it was a procedural process that Congress gave to the President allowing him to initiate action when these circumstances exist without coming back to them, but this time such is complicated by several factors. The enemy of the world today is radical Islamic extremists. These people cite the United States as their number one enemy and our intelligence community tells us that they may have infiltrated the Syrian refugee population that would come into the states. The real question than is do states have the right to protect their people from a Muslim sympathetic president who refuses to do so?
The most proper response from Congress is to immediately rewrite or rescind the Refugee Act of 1980 returning this power to them, as it is not a presidential power listed in the Constitution under Article II. Predictably a veto would follow. If an override is not successful then the House of Representatives could use the purse powers, Article I, Section 7 to defund immigration from Syria.
Failing these measures the States, under Federalism, the concept of dual sovereignty upon which our republic is based, could constitutionally use the Doctrine of Nullification to refuse compliance to obey this ill-advised mandate. This is normally suggested when the federal government exceeds the listed powers in Article I, Section 8 thus forcing the states to use Amendment 10 which identifies powers not listed in the Constitution as belonging to them. In this case it is suggested when the federal government seemingly intentionally refuses to protect our borders and the states believe they must do so to protect their citizens. It becomes a matter of national survival.
The Doctrine of Nullification has several historical precedents. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison attempted to nullify The Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 created by their Federalist Party predecessors. These authors penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves objecting on the basis of the unreasonable empowerment of the president and the attack on the First Amendment, particularly freedoms of speech and press. The bill was designed to last only until 1801, (Federalists did not want it used against them should they lose the next election) thus the issue died naturally assisted by resistance of these states.
Next to use the Nullification Doctrine was South Carolina with respect to the 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” believed by them and neighboring states to be unconstitutional. Opponents to it declared it to be “null and void” within their border and threatened to take South Carolina out of the Union if Washington attempted to collect custom duties by force. President Andrew Jackson prepared to invade the state. A compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually lowered the tariff to acceptable levels and the issue faded away.
The third attempt was with respect to The Fugitive Slave Act of 1854 just prior to the Civil War. Several northern states, led by Wisconsin, refused to accept the portion of the Compromise of 1850 requiring them to return to the South fleeing slaves. Enough states followed and the federal government lacked the will to fight its own. That is the secret. More recent uses of the Doctrine of nullification include: Federal medical marijuana laws are openly defied by many states. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia currently have laws legalizing marijuana in some form. States’ refusal to implement the Real ID Act, passed years ago, is a form of nullification. When enough states say no, the feds back away.
Yes a deeper understanding of the Constitution does justify the use of the Doctrine of Nullification but there exists other resistance measures that are more common and that first should be tried.
