• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Nullification Fails, Again (This Time in North Dakota)

    In another victory for common sense and the Constitution, nullification has died a deserved death in North Dakota.  Sometimes you really can’t win for losing.

    The originally proposed “Nullification of Federal Health Care Reform Law” declared the Patient Protection and Affordability Care Act (Obamacare) to be unconstitutional, and so “invalid,” “rejected” and “null” in North Dakota.  Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who tried to enforce that law would be guilty of a felony; any state officer or employee who tried to enforce the law would be guilty of a misdemeanor.

    The first round of amendments wisely cut out all of that nullification nonsense. What is left is a piece of legislation that is a weak version of the Healthcare Freedom Acts passed by several states in recent years (and defeated in North Dakota in 2010).  Call it what you will, but it’s not nullification.

    Unfortunately, the final legislation also watered down the constitutional statement against Obamacare: the final bill states only that Obamacare (along with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act) “likely are not authorized by the United States Constitution and may violate its true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.” Such indecisive legislative language leaves the matter in the hands of others (e.g., the Supreme Court), an odd case of timidity given that North Dakota has previously joined twenty-six other states in challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare in federal court.  Well, North Dakota, is it unconstitutional or not?

    If we are going to get rid of Obamacare and its assault on the Constitution we are going to have to remain focused and united. Loose talk claiming a state’s independent authority to declare federal law null and void at will not only confuses the situation but also undermines our constitutional credibility. States have the right–indeed, the responsibility–to push their own constitutional opinions about federal laws. They can go so far as to challenge those laws and “interpose” themselves (as James Madison advocated) between the federal government and their citizens. The objective is to change the objectionable law, stop its implementation and challenge it at every possible point. But an individual state (as Madison pointed out in 1798, 1800 and again in the Nullification Crisis of 1832) can’t take the law in to its own hands in violation of the U. S. Constitution and the rule of law.

    The American people—not the federal government or individual states—are the sovereign in our constitutional system.  Their sovereign opinions rule through elections expressing their will, at the state level and at the federal level and, if necessary, through the process of constitutional amendment.

    Despite its confusion, North Dakota is to be commended for joining several other states, following the lead of Idaho (and recently Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona) that considered and then rejected the unconstitutional and unlawful claim of state nullification.

    Posted in First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    40 Responses to Nullification Fails, Again (This Time in North Dakota)

    1. Joe Olson, Newtown P says:

      You are probably right, but what would ND have to do to 'interpose' itself between the federal govt and its citizens? and what would the challenges from the states look like?

    2. Wm Craig Barnard Ida says:

      Maybe it's time to do a top down review of the constitution and it's added amendments to really qualify their constitutionality. Do they actually properly align with the framers intent. The modification to the 17th Amendment certainly does not as it virtually removes states rights from the discussion.

      We should remove all changes to the original Amendments. Maybe and this is a real reach for a bite at the apple, we should do away with all amendments added after the original constitution was ratified to set the clock back and start over.

      Lets remove all the progressive crap out of the system and begin again.

      Lets not pretend though, the civil rights crowd will see it as racist, stop the dialog and end the discussion about the inalienable rights guaranteed in the constitution. Human rights. Rights that are equal for every man woman and child, that is except for white men over 40 years of age…LOL.

    3. Michael, Portland, O says:

      You are correct in your statement that individuals are the sovereign under the Constitution. It's amazing you understand that point, yet completely confuse Constitutional architecture.

      The American citizen is endowed by his or her creator with inalienable rights. The Constitution grants certain EXPLICIT powers to the federal government. It is not allowed to regulate or tax or do anything outside its explicit powers- which were intended to PROTECT life & liberty. When the federal government wants to impose a law (say, make alcohol illegal), it is the obligation of the federal government & its system of judicial review, to ensure that law is Constitutional. If the Supreme Court does its job, it rejects the law and the legislature has to appeal to the people or the states to change the Constitution (i.e. the 18th Amendment) to give it the authority to do so.

      It is true the Supreme Court has authority to be an arbiter of the Constitutionality of a law. It is not necessarily true that the Supreme Court is the ONLY arbiter of the Constitutionality of a law. As Thomas Jefferson argued in the Kentucky resolutions, when the Supreme Court is stacked and fails to do its job (i.e. the later ruled unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts), STATES can act as arbiters of the Constitution. Without this separation & balance of power, we fail to be the United States of America… we are the States under the Supreme Federal Government of America.

    4. Bill, Georgia says:

      This article makes no sense. All that stands between Obamacare being repealed is 38 Senators and one President of marginal intelligence. Every state that Nullifies Obamacare is sending a clear message to their Senators and the one with marginal intelligence that we don't want this damn thing. You shoved it down our throats after we told you that we did not want it.

      The Heritage Foundation should be insisting that states nullify Obamacare.

      The Heritage Foundation should be talking about secession.

      Yet you simply reject those Jeffersonian ideals of 1798.

      Why did Reagan like the Heritage Foundation?

    5. Vince C, New Jersey says:

      Are you kidding me? If the federal government passes laws that are not expressly enumerated by the Constitution in Article 2 Section 8 then it is not only the right of the state to nullify the unconstitutional overreach of the government but the duty of each state to do so. I think more states need to not only nullify these unconstitutional laws but if need be start to secede from this monster that thinks it can do whatever it wants.

    6. Kevin, California says:

      Well said Michael. If the law is not Constitutional, then it is not a Just law, which makes it null and void. Consult Judge Andrew Napolitano for more information on the topic. Thanks.

    7. West Texan says:

      I cannot overwhelmingly disagree with you more Matt. Legal scholars impress me as being too educated for anyone's good. Our country's basic blueprint was based on dual sovereign governance. Defense and foreign affairs were federal domain while all domestic concerns belonged solely to the individual states. For this reason, North Dakota rightfully called a federal program null and void as it trespassed on this domestic ground. Obamacare reaches far beyond foreign and interstate commerce making it unconstitutional. They have further overshot our founding base creating an evermore perverted and unstable top heavy structural calamity waiting to happen. Our republic will eventually fall because of this corrupted version of American government.

    8. MB says:

      Victory for the Constitution? Hardly. Nullification *is* constitutional. It is nearly unconstitutional nor unlawful. Learn your history. Both Jefferson and Madison put forth the idea of nullification.

    9. Steven Glenn Poyzer, says:

      Thank you Mr. Spaulding for once again demonstrating that you neither understand "nullification" or the 10th Amendment. You Sir are just another statist.

    10. Vigiland Patriot says:

      Our Founders would most certainly be embarrassed to see what We the People have allowed to take place in their beloved country. We are not more intelligent than they were..we just think we are and can redo what they stood and fought for. What a shame!

    11. Jake J, Salt Lake Ci says:

      Fortunately, Heritage readers seem to be smart enough not to fall for rubbish like this. Enforcing the constitution by declaring unconstitutional laws null and void would not confuse anything. The talk is not loose. I'm serious about enforcing the constitutional limits on government through nullification.

    12. freewethepeople.com says:

      No generation should encumber any other generation with laws and regulations. EVERYTHING that the statists in DC implement should have an expiration date and be reviewed by the next generation to determine it's necessity. Sovereign states must have the right to determine if a law jammed through the federal legislative process against the will of the majority of citizens of their state will apply in their state. What the legislature in DC creates should be looked upon as no more than a suggestion to the various states where it will be determined if the suggestions are implemented or not. The three branches of the federal government have ignored the 9th and 10 amendment for far too long.

    13. Mark, Indiana says:

      Mr. Spaulding,

      I am beginning to question whether the folks at Heritage (which until recently I greatly respected) have actually read any of the works on Nullification, or even the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and other source documents. ND wimped out!

      it would be very helpful if you would methodically lay out your (Heritage's?) argument as to why you believe Nullification is Unconstitutional. Dr. Thomas Woods and others have stated the case very clearly as to why it *IS* Constitutional. If you can articulate an similar defense of your position, then perhaps you will be respected.

      Of course, the question of whether explicite nullification efforts are strategically in a state's/community's best interest, or whether such efforts detract from a larger effort to eliminate Obamacare, are completely separate questions; political or economic questions, not a Constitutional one.

    14. DM, Baltimore MD says:

      "In another victory for common sense and the Constitution, nullification has died a deserved death in North Dakota. Sometimes you really can’t win for losing." Excuse me? The individual states are our last line of defense against the Federal Monster that has run amok for far, far, too long. Nullify, I say!

    15. RayZ says:

      There is a very simple argument that can be used against anyone who insists that states do not have the right to nullify federal law that is unconstitutional. States have their own constitutions. Every state. Why would a state need a constitution if the people of the individual states were all subject to any and all federal laws? Using the argument that states cannot nullify, since the SCOTUS is supreme is a fallacious position.

      If the intent of the framers and ratifiers of the General Government were to assure that each citizen had to follow the same rules, we would not have individual states, each with its own constitution. The individual states have their own constitutions for one simple reason: to protect their people from over-reaching federal laws and actions.

      Simple, simple, simple.

    16. Matthew Murphy says:


      Please spend a long time on this phrase: "which shall be made in pursuance thereof".

      "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…"

      Nullifying laws that are not in "pursuance thereof" is perfectly constitutional. Waiting on the federal government to limit itself is going to leave you really bored, unless you support all this big government in the first place.

    17. george seaver, catau says:

      What did the author of this article think about Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugative Slave act of 1852?

      Sometimes Imperio en Imperium requires that the States nullify.

      george seaver

    18. Austi H., Omaha NE says:

      Interesting because Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 seemd to recognize the null and void nature of unconstitutional meastures:

      "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that 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 authorise, but what they forbid."

      Bottom line: An unconstitutional act is null and void. Nullification is a form of interposition States are duty bound to engage in. Not to mention Jefferson's and Madison's thougts on the subjet. Heritage you get this one wrong.

    19. Roger S., Mass. says:

      Completely disagree, Mr. Spalding. Obamacare goes far beyond even the loosest construction hitherto applied to the Enumerated Federal Powers of Article 2 of our Constitution. –Judge Vinson's ruling of late was unequivocal on that point, and well reasoned.– If so, then the ultimate remedy prior to a decision by SCOTUS, would be the application of the provisions in the 9th and 10th amendments. By any logic this would give the states every right in the world –and probably also the duty with respect to their own residents– to declare nullification. In effect this would prevent provisions of an unconstitutional federal law requiring the states' cooperation from being implemented to the detriment and at the expense of such states' residents.

      "Sometimes you really can't win for losing."? Beg pardon, what's that supposed to mean? –Turn it around: You can never win by losing.– The whole of our Federal Constitution was designed to keep the Federal Government small, and honest, and to keep it firmly dedicated to accomplishing just a very small subset of all of the things which it might accomplish –for good or ill– had it been given the same sort of expansive powers which the British parliament of its time and their Monarch had. For the best of reasons. To change that on the rare occasions where it might be necessary was a matter for the designated Amendment Process. Even the longest history of negligence or abuse cannot be construed to nullify the Right inherent in this required process. You can never win by deliberately "losing" on this issue. You merely strengthen the false argument of those who would give precedential abuse the same standing as Constitutional rights.

      The fact that a whole century of legislative and judicial perversions and abuses designed to circumvent this "Amendment Requirement" have become a system of established statism no more justifies this latest abuse (Obamacare) than any previously committed. For precisely this reason and purpose, one may well imagine, were created the 9th and 10th Amendments. The only way for a state to assert its and its citizens' rights under these amendments IS the instrument of nullification: A statement by the legislators of a state that to preserve its residents' rights, as it is their sworn duty, they will decree it a matter of state law that such unjust provisions will neither be implemented nor enforced within the bounds of their jurisdiction. This is the one very definite handle which states DO have against Obamacare! Without it, provisions of the 9th and 10th Amendments have little if any meaning in the real world.

      Thank you Bill, Vince, Kevin, WestTexan , MB, and Steven and Jake for making these various points. States' Rights, of which Nullification would be an instrument, is one of the few real powers we have beyond an inscrutable SCOTUS and a deadlocked Congress to get us out from under the heel of a patently unconstitutional Federal law. Not to be used frequently, nor wantonly or seditiously, it has its place. This would be such a one!

    20. Herman A, Williamsbu says:

      This article refutes just about any argument that nullification is unconstitutional: http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-t

    21. cavalier973, MS says:

      Nullification is not a State taking the law into its own hands. In fact, nullification is a state adhering to the law more closely than the Federal Government. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not whatever the FedGov passes, so a state attempting to follow an unconstitutional law is actually violating the Constitution. And it's no good saying that a FedGov law isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court declares it so, especially since judicial review is a "right" that the SCOTUS arrogated to itself rather than one explicity granted it by the Constitution. A Federal law is unconsitutional whether the Supremes see it that way or not; it doesn't take a legal scholar to recognize the limits placed on the FedGov and when those limits have been breached.

    22. Pingback: Nullification Fails, Again (This Time in North Dakota) | The Foundry | North Dakota News

    23. Brian, Ohio says:

      Maybe I'm missing it. Is there even an argument put forth here? Not even a leftist-style reference to the surely-all-encompassing supremacy clause? Oh well, I guess we should just take Matt Spalding's word for it that nullifcation is unconstitutional. No need to research the history.

    24. Rock Cramer, Parker says:

      State nullification is about reclaiming FEDERALISM. It’s about states’ rights. Law scholars and present day legal pragmatists will dismiss it and point out that the ballot box is the only realistic venue for redress. They claim that the Civil War settled the issue of nullification. But the Civil War was about secession. The Confederacy’s case for secession rested upon the false premise that the social contract compromise embedded in the Constitution could trump the natural rights of slaves. Lincoln said that it could not because he believed, as the Founders did, in a hierarchy of rights. It is for this reason secession could not be tolerated, ergo the Civil War. The 13th and 14th Amendments as written and understood in the 1860’s are testimonial to the SUPRMACY of natural rights in the hierarchy of rights. To conflate Confederate secession with state nullification of unconstitutional federal mandates misses the point entirely. But there is one issue that every state so far in its struggle with nullification has failed to address.

      We are a nation of laws and must remain so or chaos becomes the result. As a nation, we cannot tolerate fifty different state interpretations of federal law. Any state bill that contains the word “nullification” or something similar needs to also have a statement accepting whatever the U.S. Supreme Court desides.

      Regardless of outcome, a barrage of state’s rights cases targeted and coordinated by multiple states would certainly help educate the voting public on our founders’ philosophy of governance and how important the appointment for life of U.S. Supreme Court Justices really is. It may be that the only place to check federal overreach is at the ballot box. But we’ll be learning a great deal in the meantime. We owe it to our kids to try.

    25. Jack, California says:

      Read Jefferson and stop supporting unlimited federal power. Your reasoning is counter to those of the Founders.

    26. toad says:

      Nullification is constitutional.

    27. Mel, California says:

      This piece was meant for April 1st, right?

      Or perhaps the author would rather continue propegating the typical federal government reply which either intentionally or ignorantly leaves out one critical part of the Constitution when quoting the supremacy clause.

      The ommission of the phrase "laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof" when citing the clause is a perversion of what clearly written and the perpetrators of such a despicable act, allegedly having obtained a degree of higher education, can no longer claim ignorance in the matter as they should have the Constitution readily available for reference. These persons need to admit their mistakes or if they choose to continue in their misrepresentation of the Constitution then we must shun them and their sponsers.

    28. Spiritof76, NH says:

      The 10th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states: "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"

      Mr. Spaulding, tell me where in the US Constitution the federal government is assigned the power to dictate medical care to the sovereign individuals? Pleae don't tell me it is in the General Welfare clause or in the Commerce Clause. Both of those were never intended to legislate at the federal government to affect the individual people, in spite of the distorted socialist pronouncements by the SCOTUS.

      The states have the right to declare that the communist inspired Obamacare is unconstitutional. Read the Amednment again. The reason that we are in this mess is becasue of the mountain of illiteracy and distortions piled on our students, deliberately I might add by the corrosive Progressives.

    29. Ed, Pennsylvania says:

      The 9th and 10th amendments are there for a reason. States and individuals asserting their constitutional rights under the 9th and 10th amendments are out there helping expand liberty.

    30. TT says:

      There was a time when I thought the Heritage Foundation was a place where Conservatives would gather to oppose the Leftist Leviathan. After reading this blog I can't tell the difference between you guys and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Was this a belated April Fools Joke?

      Convervative Values (family, church, economic freedom) only survive in small government. You're playing for the wrong team and you don't even know it. Big government destroys family (welfare), destroys Christianity (discrimination, tolerance, Politcal Correctness, really too much to name), and destroys economic freedom (taxes, "regulations", cronyism, etc). But here you are defending the Leviathan when we need to have power go back to the states where it belongs.

      It's obvious to me that the Heritage Foundation has become a Leftist group when they intentionally leave out the clause which makes this entire blog nonsense:

      "laws which sall be made in pursuance thereof"

      You're educated and therefore cannot claim ignorance on your part. If you do, you're not worthy defenders of our freedoms, history, and culture.

    31. ebb says:

      But an individual state (as Madison pointed out in 1798, 1800 and again in the Nullification Crisis of 1832) can’t take the law in to its own hands in violation of the U. S. Constitution and the rule of law.

      The keyword in this statement is a state can't violate the constitution. Nullification works by declaring a federal law unconstitutional within its territory. No one has proposed nullifying constitutional laws. Its actually because of the constittitution that nullification is possible.

    32. Jeff Matthews, Houst says:

      What do you expect, coming from a national foundation orchestrated to pitch for federal Republican control over the nation? When your life revolves around thinking and pitching "national" ideas, your mindset is necessarily that everything should be accomplished at a national level.

      D.C. is so far beyond repair, with its over-reaching and corruption, that nobody – NOBODY – should take it, or anything concerning it, seriously at all. All a person has to do is spend about a day or two looking at sources on the net for data, time lines and history, and it is painfully obvious that neither party on the national level will bring about any positive change. Bush was a liberal, and Obama is a conservative. And all these liberals are conservatives, and all these conservatives are liberals. They merely fight over the 5% in controversy between them, and that, my friends, ain't shite! It couldn't be any clearer. It's a turf-war between two sides vying for funding by their king-makers. Everyone who is not a king-maker is a peon and must be siphoned by taxing, since they do not give so freely.

      The fact is this: Politicians, by nature, are beholden to king-makers. If you're not a king-maker, you're a peon. If you are a king-maker, what do you prefer? 50 brokerage houses to claim your turf – or one? Everything is for sale. That's life. The process of governing would be far superior if it was done at the neighborhood level, as opposed to a remote, national level. 98% of all governing should occur as close to home as possible – period.

      That's what the design of the Constitution intended. Only at that time, states were far less populous than they are now. The Constitution is outdated – for sure. But that is because, even construing state's rights properly, the state level has become too remote a level for good governance. But it would be better at the state level than the national level – no doubt about it. I will not rebut the erroneous arguments in the article above. The answers are really plain and not capable of rational debate. To gloss over those, which Heritage does, is the same thing Maddow does on MSNBC – pander to mindless party cheerleaders who wave flags for their side without having a clue as to what good government is all about.

      For all you who are disenchanted by this Heritage article, Heritage has imbibed in this top-down philosophy for a long, long time. How long has Heritage existed? Where are we now? Case closed. Same goes for everything that is D.C.

    33. Pingback: Nonsense – analyzing the Heritage position on nullification – Tenth Amendment Center

    34. Mary M says:

      Matt – After reading your opinion on 'Nullification' I cannot help but believe that you would totally disregard the 9th and 10th Amendments. The states formed the federal government. The federal government did not form the states. Each state is sovereign onto itself.

      The constitution was written to limit the authority of the federal government and to place limitations on the federal government as promulgated in Article 1, Section 8.

      The states have the complete right and authority to nullify when the federal government exceeds its realm of authority.

      I am shocked and disappointed with the statements you have made in this article.

    35. Jon, Meridian, ID says:

      Mr. Spalding,

      With all due respect, and little is due after your butchering of reality, you could not be more wrong about nullification. I will put it in simple terms that even the most indoctrinated statist can comprehend, and cannot argue against without exposing bias.

      Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution lists all powers of the federal government. The Constitution was designed to limit federal powers. The three clauses that are often cited as expanding the federal powers are the necessary and proper, general welfare and interstate commerce acts.

      The necessary and proper clause does not expand the powers of government in any way, it was written so that the federal government did not have to get approval for the purpose of carrying out those limited powers…nothing more.

      The general welfare clause also gives no indication whatsoever of expansion of powers, and because it is in the preamble, it also would not have any legal ramification anyway. It is an introduction to the Articles of the Constitution, not an Article of the Constitution.

      The interstate commerce clause is the most abused. The very idea that this somehow increases authority to the levels that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) have defined it is not only CLEARLY abuses by the federal government, but offensive to all common sense.

      Now, you would likely refer to the supremacy clause to say that the Supreme Court decides what is and is not Constitutional. But the fact is that the Supreme Court can ONLY be the final arbitrator over powers that are given the federal government. In other words, if it is not within the limited powers of Article 1 Section 8, the SCOTUS not only is without final arbitration authority, but without any authority whatsoever.

      So, if the federal government passes laws that are not within its authority, then they are not laws, thereby null and void. Your idea that states (which gave the federal government its limited power) have no recourse against federal power grabs that Thomas Jefferson referred to as EVIL, would create a government with absolutely no checks and balances. It would be a totalitarian government with control by the nine SCOTUS judges capable of doing absolutely anything that they choose.

      As a matter of fact, if the states have no authority here, then there is NO scenario that does not lead to a totalitarian government led ultimately by nine people.

      NO, Mr. Spalding, the states ARE the higher power except in those powers GRANTED by the states to the federal government. Even the most federalist of the founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, saw that and called nullification the legal and logical recourse of the states.

    36. Mike Peterman - Okla says:

      Tenth Amendment Nullification is the culmination of the powers reserved to the States to void unconstitutional acts of the federal government. The Supreme Court is the agent oif the federal governent, so why would we look to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional? The federal government derives is powers from the States under our Constitution. The States do not derive their sovereign powers from the federal governent. Nullification is not "nonsense" but actually the last resort of the States to rein in an out of control general government. All 50 states should be passing resolutions which nullify actions of the federal government which they determine to be unconstitutional. It is their duty under our system to police the monster they created under the U.S. Constitution

    37. Pingback: Heritage Foundation to Nullifiers: Drop Dead – Nullify Now!

    38. H. W. Welch, Massach says:

      I agree with Thomas Jefferson. I don't understand how Mr. Spaulding arrives at his conclusion if he is a student of the Constitution. The individual states were very jealous of their independent sovereignty which was obvious during the Constititional Debates. Why would they then agree to any thing that would ultimately deny them such sovereignty? That is not very logical. It is like saying that a Treaty supersedes the Constitution. Actually, any Treaty must be consistent with the Constitution. Otherwise, the Constitution loses all meaning. I would recommend that Mr. Spaulding go back do some more homework.

    39. Pingback: Heritage Foundation: Don’t Use The N* Word. – Pennsylvania Tenth Amendment Center

    40. Brent Morehouse says:

      Jon Meridian – a very well worded response. Matt, thank you for starting the topic. I would add to the discussion that Nullification is a symptom of a greater illness. It is both good and bad – as with medical symptoms, it alerts us of a problem (that is good). However, if the root problem is not corrected or healed so to speak in medical terms, then the symptom(s) are bad.

      If Nullification is a means to an end, then it is very good, in other words, the greater problem of a run away Federal Government is corrected, because of Nullification efforts by various States for various reasons. Good.

      If Nullification is the end in itself, it is bad, it is chaos. Some people have much fear and anger towards this Federal Gov't, understandably, however, a situation where any State can Nullify Federal Law at whim – will be destructive to the Union.

      Yes, the States do trump the Federal Government – however, it is a collection of States that trump/override the Federal Government – 3/4's to be exact, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution. Ah, yes the dreaded Article V. By the way, Matt is very fearful of an Article V Convention by the States – actually he's not alone in that, many people have fear about Article V.

      So, Matt is against Nullification – he is also against Article V. I guess he must be a statist.

      In Liberty,
      Brent Morehouse

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.