Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smackdown The Constitution

In response to an article in the National Review by Allen C. Guelzo, a nullification denier and history professor at Gettysburg College, and two responding letters to the Editor,1 one “Celticreeler” posted an astute rebuttal you can read here.

The issue in the National Review article and letters is this: Guelzo denies that States have any right to nullify unconstitutional laws made by Congress. He looks at Art. VI, clause 2, U.S. Constitution (the “supremacy clause”) which reads,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land… [emphasis added]

and concludes that any law made by Congress is the “supreme” law of the land; and everyone must obey, unless & until five (5) judges on the supreme Court say they don’t have to. He claims that only judges have authority to nullify unconstitutional acts of Congress.

In her rebuttal, Celticreeler correctly points out that the phrase, “in Pursuance thereof”, “limit[s] the federal government’s supremacy to laws that were made pursuant to the Constitution…”

She also reprints Guelzo’s reply to her letter to the Editor. And what he says in his reply is so at odds with the words of our Framers, that I am compelled to respond.

We will look at four Founding Principles which Guelzo rejects and reverses.

1. What does “In Pursuance thereof” Really Mean?

Guelzo says in his reply,

“In pursuance thereof ” was intended only to recognize that, at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, no body of legislation had yet been made under the Constitution…

What? He presents no proof – though he does throw in the factoid that “The supremacy clause was written by an anti-Federalist, Luther Martin, whom we might presume to have entertained a few anxieties about an overmighty federal government”.

Actually, Luther Martin said the clause he proposed was “very materially different from the [supremacy clause] clause adopted by the Constitution” 2; but I will not quibble.

In any event, it is The Federalist Papers which are authoritative as to the genuine meaning of the Constitution 3 – not speeches of delegates to the Federal Convention (thou they can shed light). And this is what The Federalist Papers say about Art. VI, clause 2, and “in Pursuance thereof”:

In Federalist No. 33 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:

…But it will not follow …that acts of the large society [the federal government] which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies [the States], will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such… [T]he clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union … EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION … [capitals are Hamilton's]

In the next para, Hamilton says that a law made by Congress which is not authorized by the Constitution,

would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution…. [boldface mine]

In Federalist No. 27 (last para), Hamilton says:

the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members [the States], will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS… [capitals are Hamilton's; other emphasis mine]

And in Federalist No. 78 (10th para), Hamilton says:

…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. [emphasis mine]

Do you see? Federalist No. 33, 27, & 78 are clear: Acts of Congress which are not authorized by the Constitution are “void” – they are “mere usurpations and deserve to be treated as such”. They are not made “in Pursuance” of the Constitution and have “supremacy” over nothing. 4

2. Who is Supposed to Look to the U.S. Constitution for Permission: The Federal Government, the Member States, or the People?

Guelzo says (in his reply):

If the Founders had wanted to grant nullifying power-to the states or any other body-they would have had more than sufficient opportunity to include it in the Constitution. [boldface added]

Guelzo thus asserts that the States [i.e., the Members of the Federation] don’t have any powers unless “the Founders” said they could have them and wrote it into The Constitution! He demands that the States look to the Constitution to see what they are permitted to do! According to Guelzo, if the Constitution doesn’t give States permission, they can’t do it.

Guelzo has it backwards – our Founding Documents refute his words. The second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence says that Rights come from God and to secure these rights, 5

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

So, governments have only those powers “the governed” permit them to have! In our Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE, acting through our Representative States, decided what powers WE would delegate to the federal government.

Accordingly, WE THE PEOPLE created the federal government when WE, acting through our States, ordained & established the Constitution for the United States of America. In the Constitution, WE itemized the powers WE granted to each branch of the federal government. No Branch of the federal government may lawfully do ANYTHING unless WE authorized it in the Constitution. WE are the Creators; those in the federal government, are merely our “creatures”. In Federalist No. 33 (5th para), Hamilton calls the federal government our “creature”; and points out that it is up to THE PEOPLE to smackdown the federal government when it “overpass[es] the just bounds of its authority and make[s] a tyrannical use of its powers”. 6

In Federalist No. 32 (2nd para), Hamilton says,

…the State governments …clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not… EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation …of State sovereignty would only exist in three cases… [caps are Hamilton's, boldface mine]

The Tenth Amendment says:

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. [emphasis added]

Do you see? Guelzo reverses & perverts the whole point of Our Declaration of Independence, Our Revolution, & Our Constitution.

It is each of the three branches of the federal government (Legislative, Executive, & Judicial) who must look to the Constitution to see what powers WE THE PEOPLE, acting through our States, allowed them to have. All other powers are reserved to The States or The People.

3. Who Has Authority to Nullify Unconstitutional Laws Made by Congress?

Guelzo says, respecting the power to nullify a law made by Congress,

…That determination lies in the hands of the courts, under the principle of judicial review laid down in McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819…

McCulloch v. Maryland? In McCulloch v. Maryland, the supreme Court decided [wrongly] that Congress has power under various of the enumerated powers listed at Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, and the “necessary & proper clause” (Art. I, Sec. 8, last clause) to incorporate a national bank. That case is not about “judicial review”.

Perhaps he meant Marbury v. Madison (1803). Even so, Hamilton had already “laid down” the principle of judicial review in Federalist No. 78 (8th -15th paras) some 15 years earlier.

And in the Constitution, WE did not delegate EXCLUSIVE authority to federal judges to nullify unconstitutional laws! Furthermore, the Oaths of Office at Art. VI, cl. 3 & Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause, impose on all who take them an obligation to uphold the Constitution against usurpations by the federal government. Thus, nullification is both a Power retained by the States & The People as well as an Obligation imposed by Oath.

And REMEMBER! Our Rights pre-date & pre-exist The Constitution. Thus, nullification of usurped powers is a natural right – it is the remedy against insupportable oppression by the federal government. 7

4. In Our American System, WE Do Not Take Oaths To Obey Persons, Institutions, Or Judges.

I have proved elsewhere that nullification of unconstitutional laws, executive orders, supreme Court opinions and treaties is required by the Constitutional Oaths of office. That Oath requires that all who take it swear or affirm that they will support the Constitution. In our American system, we do not take Oaths to obey persons, institutions, or courts. Here are two papers explaining the legal & moral imperatives of nullification: Why States Must Nullify Unconstitutional Acts of Congress: Instructions from Hamilton, Madison, & Jefferson and The Oath Of Office: The Check On Usurpations By Congress, The Executive Branch, & Federal Judges 8

Guelzo’s Statist Vision.

Guelzo’s vision is this: Every law made by Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] is “supreme”; and the Member States & WE THE PEOPLE must obey, unless & until five (5) judges on the supreme Court [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] say the law is unconstitutional. In other words, Guelzo holds that only the federal government may question the federal government.

His words are poison. Under his vision, the federal government created by the Constitution is the exclusive and final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it; and the opinion of five judges, not the Constitution, is the sole measure of its powers. It is an evil ideology. And, as I have proved herein, it is antithetical to our Founding Documents and Principles. 9


1 Celticreeler states that Guelzo’s original article appeared in the February 21, 2011 issue of National Review. In response, she submitted a letter to the Editor, and Guelzo replied. Celticreeler reprints Guelzo’s reply in her linked rebuttal. Guelzo’s original article is available to subscribers only.

2 You can read Martin’s actual comments (March 19, 1788) here: Luther Martin’s Reply to the Landholder.1

3 The Federalist Papers were written during 1787-88 to explain the proposed Constitution to The People and to induce them (through their States) to ratify it. For this reason, The Federalist Papers are authoritative on the genuine meaning of the Constitution. And at a meeting attended by Thomas Jefferson & James Madison of the Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia on March 4, 1825, the following resolution selecting texts for the Law school was passed:

…on the distinctive principles of the government of our own state, and of that of the US. the best guides are to be found in 1. the Declaration of Independance, as the fundamental act of union of these states. 2. the book known by the title of `The Federalist’, being an authority to which appeal is habitually made by all, and rarely declined or denied by any as evidence of the general opinion of those who framed, and of those who accepted the Constitution of the US. on questions as to it’s genuine meaning…. (page 83) [emphasis added]

Someone! Show Professor Guelzo the on-line edition of The Federalist Papers so he can learn the genuine meaning of the Constitution! Salvage the minds of the young people who the administration of Gettysburg College places in Guelzo’s care.

4 Using The Federalist Papers as Proof, I explain the “Supremacy Clause” here: The Arizona Illegal Alien Law & The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: Exclusive & Concurrent Jurisdiction Explained. Guelzo mentions “preemption” [it does sounds "grand, doesn't it?]; but in this paper I explain the interplay between constitutional federal & Reserved State powers.

5 It is impossible to understand The Constitution without acknowledging the Principle set forth in Our Declaration of Independence that that our Rights are granted to us by The Creator God; they thus pre-exist & pre-date The Constitution, and are unalienable by man. WE do not look to The Constitution for our Rights! I explain our Rights here.

6 Here are Hamilton’s actual words:

If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify. (Federalist No. 33, 5th para) [emphasis added]

7 In his writings on Nullification, our beloved Thomas Jefferson distinguishes between [mere] “abuses of delegated powers” and the assumption of powers “which have not been delegated”:

…in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General [federal] Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis,) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:.. [boldface added]

I.e., if Congress merely abuses a delegated power [e.g., makes silly bankruptcy laws (Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4)], then the proper remedy is to vote the Representatives out of office and replace them with sensible ones who will repeal the silly bankruptcy laws.

But if Congress assumes a power which has not been delegated to it – e.g., control of the Peoples’ medical care – then each State has a natural right to nullify it within their own borders. It is outside the compact the States made with each other – the States and the People never gave their “creature” (the federal government) power over their medical care! Without Nullification, the States and the People would be under the absolute & unlimited control of the federal government.

8 Remember! We expect the lowest-ranking soldier to refuse to obey an unlawful order even when given by a commissioned officer. See “A Duty to Disobey: The Forgotten Lessons of My Lai“, by military lawyer Robert S. Rivkin. And do not forget the Nuremberg trials – defendants claimed they were “just following orders”. The Court properly rejected that defense.

Do we ask less of ourselves and our State & federal officials than we do of 18 year-old soldiers when we are confronted with unconstitutional acts of the federal government? The three branches of the federal government have connived against us – THE PEOPLE. So smack them down! Can we live up to our Framers’ expectations as set forth throughout The Federalist Papers? See also, What Should States Do When the Federal Government Usurps Power? for advice from James Madison.

9 Does Professor Guelzo understands the poisonous import of his words? Or did he uncritically accept, and does he unthinkingly recite, what he has been told? What he says is the prevailing dogma of our time – most lawyers believe it because it is what they were told in law school. Theirs’ are minds which have never been trained to think, and they are ignorant of the concept of “objective meaning”. I address the problem of inability to think and our moral & intellectual corruption here: How Progressive Education & Bad Philosophy Corrupted The People & Undermined The U.S. Constitution

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah

26 thoughts on “Nullification: Smacking Down Those Who Smackdown The Constitution

  1. Fascist-progressive democraps like this over-educated idiot "professor" have a way of interpreting (re-interpreting) things that have been understood and accepted for hundreds of yours now in a totally perverted way--because it doesn't support their anti-American agenda.

  2. Robert Gunther says:

    We need to stop this now, it seems local, State and Federal Government
    believe The People no longer run this country.

    All constitutionalists, Patriots and gun owners need to take
    a stand now.

    We need to bring a class action suit on any branch of
    government or individual elected which took an oath, state local and federal
    which believe the constitution no longer applies for negligence, (The Federal
    Tort Claims Act) start at the federal level and work our way down giving
    local governments a chance to repeal the tyrannical laws place upon The People.

    How many politicians feel the Constitution is irrelevant? Every
    elected official need to keep the oath they have sworn to as they entered
    office. If they don’t they should immediately be removed from office and lose
    all future benefits that are provided by the taxpayers. If they took the oath
    of office intending to disregard or go against the Constitution, they are
    guilty of perjury and should go to prison for the standard 5 year sentence. If
    they are trying to usurp or destroy our constitutional government, they should
    be put on trial for treason. This is what the law of the land prescribes. It
    should also be what the American people demand.

    Congressional Oath of Office

    I (name) do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the
    Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and Domestic; that I will bear
    true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely
    without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
    and faithfully discharge the duties of office on which I am about to enter;


    It seems the Supreme Court, Congress and the Senate can’t or
    won’t stop the insanity, our future and Americas future seems to be a game to
    most politicians in office today.

    There are lawyers out there who are constitutionalist,
    Patriots and gun owners that can start the process. Start a petition web site
    so the administration knows we are serious.

  3. Thanks for this! Bookmarked for future online constitutional dustups 😉

  4. Publius Huldah: "What does “In Pursuance thereof” Really Mean?"

    A more important question is: What does "supreme law of the land" mean?

    "...The framers were fully cognizant of the word 'supreme' and its meaning when they declared the supremacy of the Constitution. In so doing, they made the law of Yahweh subservient to the law of WE THE PEOPLE.

    'Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me
    with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.' (Matthew 15:6-9)

    "The framers, and today’s political leaders and Constitutionalists pay homage to the traditions and commandments of men as the supreme law of the land. Even the Pharisees
    of Jesus’ day weren’t so brazen as to call their man-made traditions supreme...."

    For more, see online Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 9.

    • Davy Crockett says:

      The argument that because the U. S. Constitution says it is the “Supreme Law of the Land” thus it tries to nullify the Bible is both shallow and legalistic. To say this boldface is to show little effort in understanding the founded and intended structure of government, power, and authority as began by our Christian Founding Fathers. For the argument to be correct, the U. S Constitution must be supreme wholly and completely over all, yet it is not whatsoever. It is both subject to the states and the free men of this country “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.” 10th Amend.

      An additional example is religious tests. They were not allowed at the federal level (Art.6), but the states had a higher authority still, as Art. 1 Sec, 2 shows they could test representatives to the House. And the states themselves did have such tests in their state constitutions and laws. Was this in defiance of an over reaching, humanist federal government? No, the very men who wrote and signed our federal constitution were party to these state constitutions. They understood the sovereignty, power and authority of the states was higher than the federal government. Each state was not a vessel or lower level of government to the Federal government as is the false mindset today, but a free state that voluntarily entered into this Union with other free states. They hold authority and rights that cannot be legally violated or infringed upon.

      The free citizen of this nation and each state also is superior in authority and rights over the U. S. Constitution. As the a member of the legal party We the People, we enacted this very Constitution, by the power and authority invested in us by God to have “dominion over all that is in the earth” (Gen. 1:26), just as we have power over the states.

      Just as God has granted us power, He is the source of this authority and power. Thus He is above the U. S. Constitution, the Free States and the free citizen. He has ordained each of these entities with their power, both directly (Rom. 13, Gen 1:26) and indirectly through His agents here on earth, that is His children; Christians. This is why the Christian Founders said for this government to work, it must be run by such agents of God. Because it is they who carry the power and authority to rule, correct, tear down or build up.

      So why does the U. S. Constitution say it is the “Supreme Law of the Land”? It has to in legal speak to avoid appeals to arbitrary powers and authority seemingly over it by lawyers and other legalistic minded people (such as the Koran, Admiralty Law, another nation‘s law, the United Nations etc). You can’t just set the Bible over top of the U. S. Constitution, because it leaves no one to interpret and judge. The Bible is over top of the U. S. Constitution. It is the source of the law, authority and power that granted and established it, both from God directly (Rom.13), by the Sovereign States and by each Free Christian Man who holds the Bible and judges each matter from top to bottom, from legislation, to court cases to matters of state, to each candidate running for office. As long as this nation and government is dominated by Christians, then the Bible, God’s Word, is the true Supreme Law of the Land.

    • The flaw in all of this is that where the two are not in agreement (in literally dozens of places), one must take precedence over the other. Guess which one it is (as proven thousands upon thousands of times over the last 225 years)?

      "Constitutionalists who claim to be Christians will predictably add 'under God' or 'under the Bible' [as David is attempting to do] to the declaration in Clause 2. But their authority to do so is not derived from the Bible or the Constitution. This is another futile attempt to make the Constitution a Christian document and a classic case of trying to serve two masters. Either the Constitution must be rejected because it never was subservient to Yahweh’s law, or Yahweh’s law must be rejected because it demands any inferior constitution be subject to and in concert with its supreme law.

      "If you choose to promote the Constitution on its own merit, that is your prerogative. However, if you choose to promote the Constitution as a Biblically based document, that is deception and subterfuge. Anyone who chooses the former becomes an idolater; anyone who chooses the latter attempts to provide Biblical sanction for his idolatry."

      For more, see online Chapter 9 "Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 9.

    • Davy Crockett says:

      Ok folks lets examine Ted’s argument. Well actually he doesn’t have one. All he said was I am wrong and the Constitution is not Biblical. He didn’t offer a shred of proof, while I put forth a detailed, scriptural defense. You be the judge folks, who is right?

      The only way this non argument he presented could be correct is if we are to have a theocracy, which he has also yet to prove this. But I will give him another chance to do so by answering the following questions:

      Please provide answers for these questions. Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age?

      Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible?

      One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in changing what we can still fix.

    • David, thank you for but another opportunity to share with others these vital truths from Scripture. Theocracy is inherent in the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). Consequently, unless you don't believe the First Commandment is still relevant under the New Covenant, theocracy is not only mandated
      but unavoidable.

      When one understands that the principal means by which we keep the First Commandment is by observing Yahweh's other moral laws (of course, under the New Covenant, through Christ as Lord and Savior, motivated by love) and that idolatry is not so much about statues as it is statutes, it becomes evident that all governments are theocratic in practice, serving either the true God or some false god, demonstrated by what laws they keep and consider the supreme law of the land (e.g., Article 6).

      Furthermore, all non-existent false gods (1 Corinthians 8:4-6) always have been and always will represent we the people in one form or another. All other theocracies are, in practice, autocracies in defiance of Yahweh, His morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments.

      Provided these Biblical principles are not rejected, it then becomes apparent that theocracy is also inherent in Romans 13:1-4, 1 Corinthians 6:1-4, 2 Corinthians 10:4-6, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, etc.

    • Ex. 20:2 states “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” No disagreement there, but that is not speaking to form of government, rather to who one worships. Seeing as you are not the writer of our dictionary, you can’t play word games to change their meanings just to suit your doctrines. We are discussing FORM of government. There are many forms. We are not ignorant peasants, we know all laws are someone’s morality, that is not the debate here.

      Rom 13 is addressing Christian conduct and relationship under any government we happen to be under. There is not a word about what form of government we should establish. 1st Co. 6:1-4 is addressing Church government for Christian communities under whatever government they happen to be, especially for ungodly governments. If the government was godly that they were under, they would not need these provisions from Paul. So still no mandate for theocratic form of government. 1st Co. 10:4-6 is primarily addressing self control of your mind. It is also about apologetics and preaching the gospel. It is does not in anyway mandate a theocratic form of government. 1st Tim. 1:8-11 has nothing to do with form of government either, but the good New Covenant application of God’s Law in our lives. So having gone through your response, I find no satisfactory answers to my questions and not answer to the last question.

      Where in Scripture does it mandated we set up a theocracy in this New Covenant age? Why a theocracy form of government over the other types of government God ordained in the Bible? One of your main premises is that it will work better than the government set up by the Christian Founding Fathers. How is this true when this theocracy, when enacted by ancient Israel fell, was invaded, enslaved, and or conquered over and over. Not staying free for more than 40 years at a time, while the government founded and intended by our Christian Founding Fathers has remained free for over 200 years. How will you do better than such great men as Joshua, Caleb, Ehud, etc.?

    • David, we both know that no matter how I answer any question of yours, you will never find it satisfactory. We'll just have to let the others here decide by their own study of the issue which, if any, is supported by what the Bible teaches.

    • There you go folks, he does not have an answer. If one believes a doctrine, one should be able to readly defend it, especially one as big as this.

    • I am no expert on God's laws or the Constitution, But when I swore my oath upon entering the service I took it to mean, God,Country,Family and that is the way it is for me ! I am only speaking for myself as I have no right to speak for others and have no right or ability to impose my beliefs or thought's or understanding of either upon others. In MY opinion our Constitution only affirms God's laws and our God given rights, It does not give me or you or our government anything our creator did not give to us, Nor does it take away anything God or nature gave to us as free willed beings. We will do what we will do here on earth and answer for our crimes now or in the future. All we can do is try and be the best we can, And quite often fail at that, At least I have {failed that is}. Treat others as you would have them treat you and God bless all and America !!

    • Wayne, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I would love to send you a free copy of the "Primer" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." If you will take our Constitution Survey, I will be pleased to get one right off in the mail to you. Click on my name, then our website. You'll find the survey in the right-hand sidebar.

    • Ted, I will happily read your info ! I am alway's glad to try and understand others info ! And just so you know here is my REAL Address and name so you can send it to me if you please. I will read what you have to say and compare it to what I believe and we can go from there OK ! No name calling or other BS > Best wishes Wayne A Ogilvy / 30609 6th Ave.Ct So Roy,Wa 98580

    • Great! I've taken down your name and address, so you can delete your post to maintain your privacy. Lord willing, I'll have the "Primer" in the mail to you no later than tomorrow. Blessings!

    • Thanks Ted, I cannot tell you that I will agree with you but I will try and have an open mind OK ? I am looking forward to recieving your material and will read it and consider all aspects { Yours and Mine } I believe we will talk later to discuss these topics, Whether it be on the internet or phone or in person ! I will never try and impose my beliefs or opinions upon anyone else ! I believe in the 2nd ammendment ! And all other God given rights. I believe you and all others have the right to disagree with me ! I will never tell you how to live or what you can own, or where to live, Or what to believe or whether to protect your family or let them die or be raped or molested. That is not my call, It is yours ! I will defend My Family and Country with my life, and yours if asked or needed. Be well my friend and prepare for what is to come, The future does not look too good from where I'm standing !!

    • That's all I ask. I cannot and have no intention to impose my beliefs on you either. Your book (as well as a CD containing an interview Gun Owners of America's Executive Director Larry Pratt conducted with me about a year and a half ago) is ready for this morning's mail.

      In the meantime, you may want to check out the following two blog articles on our website: "Rights, Rights, Everyone Wants Their Rights" and "You Can't Win Bringing a Knife to a Gunfight" (in that order) to get a better idea of where I'm coming from. Click on my name, then our website. Go to our blog and scroll down to the first title (Go all the way to the bottom of the page and click on "Older Entries." "Rights, Rights..." should be the top article.)

      May God guide both of us as we seek first His kingdom and His righteousness in everything!

  5. In a Constitutional Republic, the Three Branches have a small amount of power-I carry my Constitution, and Declaration of Ind. around in my shirt pocket;
    All power not granted on that piece of Paper, is given to the individual States.
    The attacks[labor pains] have increased for a reason; this is the "Generation of the Fig Tree".

  6. I absolutely love this site, I learn a ton of information each time I read a new article. As a Criminal Justice student this is quiet helpful to me.

  7. The name should give you a clue. Some foreigner telling us what our constitution say's or don't say. That is our biggest problem.

  8. It never ceases to amaze me that professors like Guelzo can attempt to instruct others on a subject they cannot understand.

  9. TheTexasCooke says:

    It's even more important to note that the need to nullification would have been minimal during Jefferson's time because the United States Senate was elected by the State Legislatures or the several States. The reason that Senators have a longer term than members of the House is that any Senator that went against the desires of the State Governments had to face a State Governor, who could call a special session of their Legislature, recall the Senator and replace him/her at the drop of a hat. This is also why the Senate had to ratify treaties and approve each Presidential appointment because their States had final say over any action by the Federal Government. Today Senators represent the parties rather than their States, which is to say, they represent the United States Government itself. Getting the Federal Government under control starts with the repeal of the 17th Amendment which was Teddy Roosevelt's way of bypassing the States so that progressive/liberal/socialist laws could be passed, which he couldn't get done when the Senate represented their State's Governments.

  10. Mark Harkless says:

    The last line of defense. Is jury nullification. Stated as follows.


    "The jury has a right to judge
    both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

    "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

    "the jury has the power to
    bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

    "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be

    "The pages of history shine on
    instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard
    instructions of the judge..."
    John Jay,
    1st Chief JusticeUnited States supreme Court, 1789Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice,1796, Signer of
    the unanimous DeclarationOliver
    Wendell Holmes,U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief JusticeU.S.
    supreme Court, 1941U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd
    113, 1139, (1972)

    Let the government bring somebody in the court when I'm sitting in the jury. If the law is unconstitutional or I know it to be wrong it's simple. Not guilty, Not Guilty, Not Guilty and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

  11. this will answer your questions about the Constitution

    copy and paste on you tube

    2ThLwfwKZlc list

  12. I think it is so clear that these people like Guelzo or John Yoo (the guy who wrote the same kind of horrific stuff for the Bush administration) know they are shills for The State. They know their job is to rewrite history and legal/economic/political theory to sell the ideas collectivist, centralist, elitist agendas to The People, in an (so far VERY successful) attempt to turn them into The Sheeple. So these intellectual "individuals" who are, basically, trading truth & morality for money & prestige have no way of making a legitimate living. Or they don't think they do, anyway. So they twist the data & history and sell out the Progress of Humanity to fit the needs of their sources of violence- and fraud-based money, power & prestige.

    Yet this is an ages old problem and just one more reason why one of the primary messages of the Old Testament was to get The People to STOP allowing for ANY governmental structures that give elitists like this the opportunity to destroy The People. That means, not just no more kings, emperors or pharaohs, but no more presidents with legislatures, either.

    (I know that's too libertarian for some conservatives, but that IS the message from the OT, as far as *I* can tell. *God,* or the *Laws of Nature & Nature's God* *might* be who or what puts the kings or elected authorities in place, but *He* warned us what would happen if we keep asking for that and do not repent from that compulsion we have. Whether you believe in *God* or not, or in what form, the relevance and accuracy of this 3,000 year old message cannot be denied.)

    Since "We The People" have not learned this lesson yet, we WILL continue to suffer the fate of transferring power to a centralized system. ... This is also why followers of the Bible ought to be libertarians. I see the bible as a primary source document for libertarians. But you have to read from a Jeffersonian mindset.