Michigan the Latest to Chip Away At Federal Supremacy

Last week while most continued to enjoy Christmas with family and friends, the Michigan state legislature enacted significant legislation.  It nullified part of an act of Congress.

Michigan targeted section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act which provided for indefinite detention of US citizens.  Governor Rick Snyder, while signing the legislation, noted that even a warrant for detention could not be enforced in Michigan.  Supporters say that the Michigan legislation reaffirms both 5th Amendment rights of due process and 10th Amendment protections of state sovereignty.

This follows on the heels of a South Carolina bill annulling Obamacare within that state.  It passed major hurdles this month and is expected to land on Governor Nikki Haley's desk in January.  There is no doubt that she will sign the legislation.

Nullification has returned from the history books into the undercurrent of state politics.  The doctrine originated with arch slavery defender John C. Calhoun, but was applied to a destructive tariff in the 1830s. Northerners resurrected the ideal while searching for ways to strike down the notorious Fugitive Slave Act in the 1850s.

It was never stricken down by any court of law or force of arms.  Congressional action repealing the Tariff of Abominations in the 1830s placated South Carolina, which suspended the nullification acts.

The main obstacle to nullification lies in the Supreme Court case of McCullough v. Maryland.  This case placed broad limits on the authority of well-established state governments to curtail the actions of weak federal agencies.  After 200 years of federal growth and state weakening, cases arising from nullification acts may be vital to defining down this landmark ruling and carving out a stronger state position.

Acts of nullification generally attack federal authority assumed under the commerce clause. This covers anti-drug actions, the Environmental Protection Agency, and almost any other regulatory part of the Executive Branch. The Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce and has adopted the broadest possible interpretation of it.  Defining down this interpretation is also essential.

The year 2014 will start off with debt crises, foreign crises, and presidential speculation.  Coming up fast, however, is the showdown between federal and state power.

States Need to Plan For Sovereignty

Obama's federal government plans to steamroll over any obstacle, including Congress, the state governments, and the people, to implement its global warming policies. He has baldly stated that if Congress does not act, he will simply have the Environmental Protection Agency implement regulatory law.

Here's the rub on federal regulatory law and executive orders for that matter. They flatly violate the Constitution. The very first words of the Constitution, after the preamble, state that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ." Not the president, not the Environmental Protection Agency, but Congress alone. This means that federal regulations and executive orders not passed by Congress technically and Constitutionally are not laws at all.

Then why do states fall in line with them? Because they are addicted to federal funding for schools, highways, social services, and who knows what else. Cross the government and Congress might take away your federal funding. So far, Congress has only directly threatened to take away funding if states defy that branch. It remains to be seen what might happen if states assert their Tenth Amendment rights solely against executive branch encroachment upon their rights.

States need to ask at this point, what is the worst that could happen if their legislatures voted and decided that the new EPA regulations did not apply to mining or manufacturing operations within their state boundaries. Would federal police or troops enforce the laws? Likely not, because California has quietly voided marijuana laws in their state in certain circumstances for many years. Advocates for federal agencies will argue that the Marshall Court's McCullough v. Maryland protects their actions against state action. However this case applied to a federal agency independently doing its job, not a federal agency compelling action on the part of others.

The cost of meeting federal mandates and obeying regulatory law probably costs states more in the long run than they receive from the federal government. Texas is opting out of federal funding of education because of that very circumstance. States that void regulatory law and executive orders to create a freer environment for business will reap more tax revenues because they suddenly get a competitive advantage over other states for business.

Does this mean we advocate the repeal or ignoring of all environmental law? Certainly not. However, if it is worthwhile, the people will demand it of the states and of the Congress. We do not need a dictatorial executive branch running off to create its own law without reference to the Constitution or the people.

States looking to reclaim their constitutional rights should start now and craft a "Plan For State Sovereignty." This means that they need to look at every dollar they get from the federal government and find ways to do without it. Compare the money they get to the total cost of what the feds expect, and find creative ways to make up the difference if there is any. In this way we can restore balance to the system and check the monstrous power of the federal government over the lives of people and the rights of the states.

West Virginia and Other States Can and Should Nullify This Law

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obama-gives-Interpol-free-hand-in-U_S_-8697583-80291137.html

The above link takes you to a Washington Examiner story that should scare the heck out of any good American of any party.

First of all, what is the purpose of allowing Interpol more authority and latitude than we would allow the FBI? Why do they get full police power within our nation when they are accountable to no one? Regardless of Obama's reasoning, state governments need to move fast and nullify this unconstitutional and dangerous Executive Order by Il Duce.

How can states nullify an executive order? First of all, presidents do not have any constitutional basis for issuing them in the first place. In the past they were seen as expedient ways to handle important issues, but have in recent decades grown into presidential directives with the force of law. Constitutional regulation of such orders needs to happen, but until then, they have no basis in law except for the fact that people needlessly obey them.

Granting sweeping powers to Interpol also violates states rights. An international police authority that is completely unaccountable can arrest American citizens and remove them from the country now as far as Obama is concerned. The Tenth Amendment, among others, forbids the president from cededing away these powers that belong to states first and foremost.

How can states retaliate? First they need to pass a law specifically nullifying Obama's action. Federal agencies are protected by the Supreme Court decision McCullough v. Maryland, but not Interpol. States have no limit on the legislation they can pass to hinder or outlaw Interpol. Second, all Interpol agents should be required to register with the state police, city or town chief of police, and county sheriff depending on where they want to operate. Their actions should be subject to supervision by local magistrates and circuit court judges. They should have no powers of arrest or transport. Any Interpol agent that breaks these laws would be subject to criminal prosecution and a minimum term of imprisonment in a state facility. In other words, they can do what any other foreign visitor can do, just under more strict supervision from state and local authorities.

Finally, Interpol agents would be subject to Castle Law provisions. Come into someone's house and you get shot. Period.

Obama's action was unconstitutional and will be unpopular. Even worse, it is inexplicable and highly dangerous. It is an end run around our rights as Americans. States need to assert their rights on this issue by telling Obama and Interpol that their violations of the Constitution shall not be tolerated. Obama has no constitutional basis for his action. His incompetence in not even securing window dressing for this action demonstrates his contempt for our country, its laws, and its traditions.

The "N" Word

Federal action against coal operations in West Virginia has put hundreds of men and women out of work and denied the state its share of potential revenue. The Environmental Protection Agency has initiated a War on Coal to destroy mining operations. Right before Christmas, an EPA action resulted in the layoff of five hundred in Clay County.

What can the State of West Virginia do in response?

This may seem painful, but a way might exist to constitutionally void federal regulations. That is nullification.

Nullification doctrine first emerged in the 1830s from the mind of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina. Federal import taxes raised prices on manufactured goods, crippling farmers. Calhoun suggested that the state legislature pass an ordinance nullifying the tariff within the boundaries of the state. President Andrew Jackson met this action with a military deployment. Since then, nullification of a law passed by Congress has been seen as unconstitutional.

What about state legislative nullification of a federal agency regulation or executive order? The Constitution does recognize Congress's right to pass binding legislation. It does not recognize regulatory law or presidential executive orders. State governments are under no obligation to abide by these so called laws. In fact, the Tenth Amendment protects states from many of the laws that Congress uses to bind their actions today.

All states have to do to regain their sovereignty is to swear off of federal funds for anything. At that point, Congress has very little authority over what a state can or cannot do. West Virginia cannot arrest federal officials inspecting or making reports, but it can pass acts preventing the enforcement of executive branch regulations. Swearing off of federal funds does mean a huge drop in money for roads, schools, and other items. However, the drop in money is offset by the fact that the state no longer would have to spend countless resources on paperwork and unfunded federal mandates.

Nullification is a last ditch tactic because it will provoke a serious contitutional crisis. Thousands will gather soon in Austin, Texas to ask their governor to do that very thing. In the name of freedom, strong steps may have to be taken. The election of 2010 will go a long way towards moving back to a Republic, or forward to crisis.