The incompetence of President Joe Biden is becoming more evident, and it poses a significant problem. However, some view it as a singular issue that can be resolved if the Democrats replace him with another candidate this fall or if the Republicans defeat him and gain control of both houses of Congress.
The current federal government is not just a mere disaster, but a catastrophic one. It is a clear reflection of the widespread and deliberate disregard for the true intent of our nation’s founding documents. One glaring example of this mentality is the complaint made by Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that adhering to the First Amendment would greatly hinder the federal government’s actions.
The Progressive political movement has been on a steady rise since the late 1800s. As a result, power has increasingly centralized in the federal government and a select group of individuals who are not accountable to the public through elections. This has been made possible by a political Uniparty that is dedicated to expanding executive rule. Consequently, we now have a regime that claims an unlimited authority over the people.
The principle of federalism, established in the nation’s founding documents, dictates that authority over matters not explicitly assigned to the federal government belongs to the states and the people. However, progressivism has challenged this principle, leading to a century of unconstitutional actions in Washington, DC. As a result, opposition to these actions has grown, not only among the public but also among state governments.
One prominent response to the central government that stands out is the growing support for nullification of federal laws and regulations. This involves states asserting their authority to refuse enforcement of federal decisions within their borders.
In recent years, the states have taken the lead in defying federal marijuana laws, marking a significant shift in attitudes that has not been fully acknowledged.
For the past two centuries, nullification has been regarded as a threat to the credibility and stability of the national government, with virtually every political faction in the United States in agreement. However, in recent times, several states have chosen to legalize or decriminalize marijuana possession and sales, despite it being against federal law. Surprisingly, the federal government did not intervene and allowed this nullification to occur, with the Obama administration actively cooperating in this regard.
In recent times, states have been growing more assertive, with Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s actions to protect the state’s border with Mexico being a prime example. Despite the president’s objections and direct involvement, Abbott remains resolute in his stance.
A bill currently under consideration in the Tennessee legislature, dubbed SB 2775, aims to establish a clear protocol for nullification. This proposed legislation would grant the power to declare a federal law or policy null and void to the governor, any state court, or any individual member of the legislature. Additionally, nullification could be triggered by a petition from the executive or legislative branches of at least ten local governing authorities, or by a group of 2,000 registered voters. As columnist Daniel Horowitz highlights in The Blaze, this bill seeks to restore state sovereignty through the formalization of the nullification process.
According to Horowitz, the process of nullification challenges the notion of federal supremacy by questioning the validity of laws that fall outside the federal government’s enumerated powers. He argues that judicial supremacy is a “dangerous myth” because elected officials, both at the state and federal level, are obligated to uphold the Constitution and cannot enforce court rulings that contradict its principles. In doing so, Horowitz emphasizes the importance of adhering to constitutional limitations and preserving the integrity of the democratic system.
According to Horowitz, Thomas Jefferson eloquently expressed the argument for nullification in his 1798 Kentucky Resolution. In it, Jefferson emphasized that the government established by the Constitution should not be the sole or ultimate arbiter of its own powers. He believed that giving such authority to the government would make its discretion, rather than the Constitution, the determining factor in the extent of its powers.
Nullification plays a crucial role in the framework of the U.S. government, which can be best described as granting veto power to all. The Constitution ensures that each branch of the national government has the authority to veto the actions of the other branches, whether through congressional votes, presidential veto power, or judicial review. Moreover, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments further extend this veto power to the states and the people.
The federal government’s power is explicitly limited by the Constitution, which assigns the authority and responsibility to ensure that the government operates within those boundaries to all three branches, as well as the states and the people through the Bill of Rights.
Every branch of the federal government, as well as the states and the people, possess the authority to veto actions taken by the federal government. In order for any action by the federal government to become law, it must be unanimously agreed upon by all parties involved, in accordance with the Constitution.
The U.S. government has amassed a tremendous amount of power under the principles of unbridled federal and judicial supremacy. However, this concentration of power has hindered the government’s ability to carry out its fundamental duties, let alone fulfill all of its promises. Throughout history, we have witnessed that an excessive concentration of power has been detrimental to the longevity of civilizations. In fact, the recent report from the Congressional Budget Office highlights that the federal debt is projected to reach unprecedented levels in relation to the national economic output. This alarming trend not only undermines the economy but also severely limits the available policy options. Consequently, we find ourselves hurtling towards the inevitable collapse of the government.
Now, state governments that have been duly elected are rightfully advocating for decentralization and a resurgence of the rule of law, asserting their prerogatives as outlined in the nation’s founding documents. This represents a silver lining amidst the widespread devastation caused by the current regime.
