WHY DON’T OUR SORRY POLITICIANS OBEY OUR CONSTITUTION?
There’s a lot of confusion in the world of politics and purposeful misinformation regarding the meanings of the words: NULLIFICATION and SECESSION. Talking heads on TV, radio, and in the cyber realm love to assure us that the words mean essentially the same thing, and are “dangerous concepts” that must be avoided if free nations are to survive. If you believe that, I’ve got a beautiful, “slightly used” bridge presently located in Brooklyn, N.Y. that I’ll sell you real cheap. Yeah, I really will!
To begin this foray into truth and accurate thinking, let’s define the two words:
NULLIFICATION: 1-the act of nullifying; the state of being nullified.
2- the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary.)
SECESSION: the act of becoming independent and no longer part of a country, area, organization, etc.(Cambridge Dictionary).
Thus, if you can understand plain English words and phrases, you must obviously conclude that the two words do NOT mean the same thing, nor have they ever done so. So why, we must ask, is there so much confusion regarding both of these old and well-used concepts? Why, we must also ask, are some who claim to be “Constitutionalists” and “Patriots” putting forth either well-intentioned arguments or surreptitious misinformation to pursue their long time goal of persuading Congress to declare a new ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? That IS a “good question”, isn’t it?
WHAT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AND WHO CALLS FOR IT?
So then, let’s examine, first, what a “Constitutional Convention” is, and WHO calls for it. The LEGAL DICTIONARY of March 9, 2019, explains it thusly:
1-a gathering of individuals for the purpose of creating a NEW constitution or MODIFYING an existing one.
2- a constitutional convention refers to the meeting of individuals who are interested in either creating a new constitution or making edits to the one currently in existence.
A “Constitutional Convention” is authorized in the 1787 U.S. Constitution, which says, in Article V:
“The CONGRESS, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for PROPOSING AMENDMENTS, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, OR by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by THE CONGRESS……….”
It plainly specifies that IF the required two thirds of the “several states” (34 being the presently required number) submit applications/requests TO CONGRESS for it to call for and establish a CON-CON, it is CONGRESS, NOT THE STATES, THAT SHALL CALL A CONVENTION for proposing amendments. Also quite plainly, ONLY CONGRESS can call for a CON-CON. The STATES have NO authority to set up a CON-CON once their submissions of applications to call for a CON-CON are sent to Congress. Congressional authority rules this process thereafter---NOT any version of “State Authority”, e.g. “A Convention of States”, the protestations by the advocacy group—CONVENTION OF STATES ACTION, to the contrary, notwithstanding.
IS THE ADVOCACY GROUP: CONVENTION OF STATES, ACTION A GROUP WE CAN TRUST?
The advocacy group, Convention of States, Action (usually referred to as COS ACTION), headed by Mark Meckler, who co-founded this group in 2013 (taking over the reigns as President of COS Action in 2017), has been trying to convince gullible or “trusting” American Patriots (and MOST who are calling for a new CON CON ARE patriots who perhaps have been too trusting of the real motives of the leadership of COS Action) that COS ACTION is NOT a “Constitutional Convention” that could authorize a totally NEW constitution, but rather is “merely” a “Convention of States” that will only be called (by themselves??) for the purpose of proposing one or two “Amendments” to our basically ignored U.S. Constitution, i.e. a “BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, and perhaps a “TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT”, and will “not be allowed” to propose and adopt a NEW Constitution! BELIEVE THAT AT YOUR GREAT PERIL!
I assume we all know the epic tale—perhaps based in true history or perhaps legendary—about a certain large “gift” given by the Greek besieging army to the King and people of TROY, because the Greeks had supposedly given up their long siege of Troy, leaving a huge and hollow wooden horse at the front gate of Troy. Supposedly it was a tribute to brave adversaries, the Trojans.
According to Wikipedia, “After a fruitless 10 year siege, the Greeks at the behest of Odysseus (Ulysses) constructed a huge wooden horse and hid a select force of men inside, including Odysseus himself. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back to Troy under cover of night. The Greeks entered and destroyed the city of Troy, ending the war.”
Knowing history as I do, and as many of you, my readers surely do also, we must acknowledge that there have been other “Trojan Horse” deceptions that fooled people over the ebb and flow of that history. The story of The Trojan Horse was always meant to be a WARNING to “BEWARE OF GREEKS (OR PRETEND PATRIOTS OR “DEFEATED” ENEMIES) BEARING GIFTS”. That has always been good advice. It still is such.
COULD OUR COUNTRY BENEFIT FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, OR DO EXTREME DANGERS LURK IN THE SHADOWS?
We’ve heard much heated rhetoric over the past decade or two about a “scheme” that has taken on virtually “a life of its own”. The official name of this proposal, which has its genesis in the original 1787 Founding Convention in Philadelphia, is ARTICLE V CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, or Con-Con for short. Perhaps in order to “deceive the elect” it is referred to by its proponents as the Convention of States, or COS Action. In the past it has also called itself Compact for America Initiative, Citizens for Self-Government, and even John Hancock Committee for the States.
By whatever name this modern “Trojan Horse” calls itself, its supporters (some quite wealthy and some very left wing) and proponents are deadly serious in their quest to open the FIRST CON CON since 1787 which, as you may know from history, was NOT AUTHORIZED by the thirteen state legislatures of that time, and that became a “RUNAWAY CONVENTION”, all delegates having been originally tasked by their respective legislatures to only “fix” the increasingly unworkable “Articles of Confederation” but NOT TO REPLACE IT! The goal of COS ACTION today, so they assure us, is merely to put forth amendments for “Term Limits” and a “Balanced Budget” (for starters) by their so-called “Convention of States”, which as you can see from a reading of Article V, would be Unconstitutional, because the words, “Convention of States” is only an attempted “camouflage “ for what, in actuality, would be considered as an Article V CON CON IF Congress had called for it. Is that WHY Mark Meckler has consistently denied that his so-called “Convention of States” is NOT the same thing as an Article V Constitutional Convention? BUT IT IS THE SAME THING, and only Congress can authorize it!
The proponents of a new CON CON assure us that it would be “impossible” for “big money interests” (mega-billionaires like George and Alex Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckererg,, Elon Musk, etc. etc. to take over and control this new “Convention of States”, i.e. an Article V CON CON, despite what Mark Meckler assures us. Do YOU truly believe that these Globalist Oligarchs would have NO interest in proposing new amendments via their paid lackeys in Congress, or would not already have entirely NEW constitutions waiting in the wings? Well, they do and I’ve seen a few of them!
COS ACTION also loves to NOT stress to their followers that IF ALL OF OUR LAWMAKERS IN WASHINGTON, D.C. WOULD ACTUALLY OBEY OUR PRESENT CONSTITUTION, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR A NEW CON CON. If they did, it has been estimated that the federal government could be downsized by as much as 80%. A federal government as our Founders envisioned it! Something NONE of us alive today have ever experienced. Wouldn’t that be something to behold?
WOULD ARTICLE VI NULLIFICATION REALLY WORK?
The COS Action proponents like to badmouth the long established concept of NULLIFICATION, often equating it with SECESSION and as some of them assure us, nullification caused the “UNCIVIL WAR”, as Mike Scruggs accurately calls it. NULLIFICATION is an established Constitutional principle, used (or threatened) throughout our history. It basically means that whenever the federal “leviathan” usurps power that has not been delegated to it by either the original 1787 Constitution or its ratified amendments, our State legislatures can act to protect the interests of their state’s constituents, enact corrective legislation or issue Executive Orders by the Governor, and render the UNCONSTITUTIONAL law, regulation, or Executive Order NULL AND VOID!
Doubters claim that “Nullification: is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but the concept—the Constitutional mandate for it—IS firmly grounded in the text of ARTICLE VI, which states:
“This Constitution and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF…SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.”
Does this not very clearly imply that ANY laws, regulations, or executive orders that are NOT in accordance with the U.S. Constitution are NULL AND VOID and must be legislatively OPPOSED by state legislatures or by a state’s Governor? Our Constitution delegates ONLY specific enumerated powers to the federal government (17 of them as I remember). Our states, according to our Constitution (which admittedly has been increasingly ignored for over a hundred years), have always RETAINED the majority of political powers. It has always been the fault of our devious Democrat and timid Republican legislators in D.C. that they have allowed the federal leviathan to UNCONSTITUTIONALLY USURP POWERSs NOT GRANTED TO IT, and operate almost totally contrary to the expressed powers granted to it by our Founders!
Nullification was used less than a decade after our Constitution was finally approved. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote, in 1798 and 1799 respectively, the KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, which NULLIFIED the unconstitutional ALIEN AND SEDITION ACT, pushed by President John Adams, which imposed harsh criminal penalties on anyone who published any criticism of the U.S. government. Had I lived in those times I’d still be in jail, I guess.
Also, uninformed detractors of nullification often equate it with “secession” and defending the evil institution of human chattel slavery, but this is NOT TRUE. In actuality, Wisconsin and several other Northern states used nullification to refuse to enforce the scurrilous FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT of 1850, thereby assisting runaway slaves to escape into a free life (most often in Canada, since many Northern states hypocritically refused to accept runaway slaves into their populations). Interestingly, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered Wisconsin to obey the Fugitive Slave Act (to catch and RETURN all fugitive slaves they apprehended to their southern owners), the state’s legislature and supreme court NULLIFIED that decision by the U.S. Supreme Court!
WHAT ABOUT THE “SUPREMECY CLAUSE” IN ARTICLE VI?
Article VI, Clause 2 of our U.S. Constitution says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance ther3of; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, 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.”
The legal ramifications of this clause are too many to discuss in this article. Essentially, the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic rulings regarding “nullification” and determining (rightly or wrongly) the relationships between state authority and the authority of the federal government, have been ongoing almost as soon as the “ink was dry” on our 1787 Constitution. . The Court has constantly upheld what is calle4 The Doctrine of Judicial Review, going all the way back to an 1803 case—Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall (who was ALWAYS a proponent of a strong federal government) claimed that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This case did “apparently” establish the U.S. Supreme Court as THE final arbiter of constitutional interpretation, thereby rejecting the idea that one or more states could, on their own, determine the constitutionality of federal law, thereby contributing to the old and ongoing battle between those who support and those who oppose the doctrine of nullification.
Needless to say, this doctrine has caused bitter dissension between the ever-more-powerful (and UNCONSTITUTIONAL) growth in the power of the federal government and the ever-more-subservient state authority. Essentially the Supreme Court has given a ‘green light” to almost all federal laws, including laws which are plainly unconstitutional. Our Founders wisely granted the new federal government only VERY LIMITED powers, and the states had most of the political powers. This was the Doctrine of Federalism, and was wisely made part of our Constitution, which today is still, in theory but NOT in practice, the cornerstone of American liberties. However, our States STILL have the right, and the duty, to express their opposition to federal laws that are patently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The judiciary still claims to be the ultimate arbiter of “constitutionalism”, even though our Founders made the states the most powerful of the three branches. And when the federal leviathan passes obviously unconstitutional laws, it is STILL the states that must take action to resist them via nullification of one form or another.
Secession is NOT the same political principle as nullification. Secession involves one or more states voluntarily (but, sadly, not necessarily “peacefully”) leaving the American Union. Some opponents of nullification, including one of COS Action’s Regional Directors, David Schneider, conflate it with secession and charge that it will result in “national destabilization”. Back in 2021. Schneider railed against a South Dakota nullification bill, claiming that nullification helped cause the 1861 Civil War;, saying, “Wholesale nullifying leads to anarchy and nullification of the Constitution itself.” Which was total claptrap then, and still is!
Let’s all recall that nullification and secession are totally DIFFERENT political principles. Instead of agitating to withdraw from the federal union OR to reject the authority of our embattled Constitution, NULLIFICATION reinforces both our Federal Union and our Constitution, just as our Founders intended. Even today, nullification IS being used by both state and local governments, including 15 states that have passed legislation or had executive orders signed by their governors to PREVENT, in varying ways, the enforcement of federal firearm control laws. What many American citizens don’t know is that over 60% of ALL U.S. counties have passed “SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY” measures.
NULLIFICATION is a Constitutional Principle that has been, and still is being, used to protect all of us from the ravages of a huge and almost uncontrolled federal monster, which has been growing like a malignant weed since early in the 20th century. Nullification suffers from “a bad press”, so to speak, but it MUST be utilized by American Patriots and by their elected state representatives if we are to have any realistic hope of resisting the authoritarian rampages of “Big Government” and the despicable globalists who not so secretly are trying to destroy the form of LIMITED FEDERALISM that was set up by our Founders.
It’s great that President Trump has assigned Elon Musk the task of greatly reducing wasteful federal spending, and “make our government much more efficient”. To avoid national bankruptcy this is mandatory. However, we’d all be equally, or even MORE well served if our President and his Cabinet would concentrate on making the huge federal “monster” a much smaller, tamed and well-behaved, and faithful to our constitution political “critter”. We’d ALL be much safer, and much better off financially, if “our” government practiced “friendly licks” rather that snarly bites. Don’t you agree?
