Alex,
You are truly living up to your nom de plume in your defense of centralized power. Statists always gloat that the Supreme Court has found nullification to be unconstitutional, illegal, etc, which misses the whole point. Nullification isn't about what the Supreme Court thinks or says or wants. It's about how the sovereign states choose to use their power under the Tenth Amendment to refuse obedience to laws that violate the compact between themselves and the federal government they created. By the way, who ultimately won out on the slavery issue, the Northern states, or the federal government? How much longer can the U.S. afford to fight the War on Drugs against its own citizens? My point exactly. In the end, logic wins over flawed legal precedent. You can be assured that no matter how much power the Supreme Court declares itself to possess, that will always be the ultimate outcome.

@Anonymous (JC),

Please see the final paragraph of the original post. You seem unable or unwilling to comprehend the fact that the growing number of people who disagree with your point of view fundamentally do NOT believe the Supreme Court legitimately possesses the authority you so blithely assert.

And your only response is to keep repeating things like Marbury v. Madison or Cooper v. Aaron, as if repeating the precedents often enough will make us all forget that Supreme Court case law represents nothing more than the compiled opinions of federal agents on the scope of their own power.

That may be good enough for you, but it's not good enough for me, or for millions of other Americans.

Allow me to modify my initial comments slightly. It is true that, in his excellent piece at TNR, Patrick correctly made the essential point that, before we can get back to constitutional basics, we must first win in the court of public opinion. He is probably even correct that states enforcing their own laws would be seen as "aggressors" by those unfamiliar with the issues at stake.

However, if a state like New Hampshire were to pass a law such as the Firearms Freedom Act with no intention of enforcing it, or of defending NH citizens against illegal federal attempts to ignore the FFA, of what good is the measure? It quickly becomes, like current Supreme Court interpretation of the Tenth Amendment itself, simply a toothless "truism" that can be discarded at will by federal courts.

To avoid simply being overruled or rendered moot by more tortured ignorance of the Supremacy Clause, the states must take some sort of a stand in defense of their sovereignty measures. Whether that involves police power or the power of the purse is up to them.

In the long run, as Patrick also mentioned at TNR, effective enforcement could potentially be achieved through fiscal means such as the withholding of federal income taxes by the states subject to constitutional review of federal activities. But, as this is the age of entitlement, I am inclined to think that public opinion would judge more harshly a state that started out by denying the feds the money they need to write welfare checks than one that simply enforced its own laws using its rightful police powers.

Thom,
That's great, I'm so glad to hear you're using the Tenth Amendment to fight against DOMA. It's amazing how many issues that seem so intractable on the national level could be dispersed to the people of the 50 states and resolved at that level if we can just join forces across the political spectrum and demand that the feds stay inside their constitutional box.

Well said, as usual, Mr. Rockwell. Amazing how such a simple concept has been utterly lost over the course of American history.

We have become so preoccupied with our own importance (or "national greatness") that we have forgotten the only thing that made America and her success possible in the first place was the courage of an oppressed minority to withdraw its consent from a tyrannical government.

@Monoprise,

I take your point and sympathize with it. I also wish it was not necessary to explode the Lincoln myth.

But if we don't understand the history of the struggle in which we are engaged, we will be doomed to repeat its mistakes.

I have just read a book called "Why They Fought," which showed through the letters and diary entries of Union soldiers that they believed themselves to be fighting and dying for the principles of the American Revolution. In reality, by refusing to let the Southern States go in peace, the Union soldiers were playing the role of the occupying British Army. Yet this irony seems to have been totally lost on them, and on many of our fellow citizens since.

Now today we have those who believe the best way to restore the Constitution is by applying the same faulty logic, by worshiping a dictator who ignored every limit the document explicitly placed on government power in order to achieve something he believed was for the good of the collective.

Lincoln's myth must be exploded because it is the myth that the ends justify the means. In truth, the ends can never justify the means in a free society based on the rule of law.

Thanks for the encouragement, Bryce. We'll keep doing what we can out here so when California does finally slide off into the ocean, you and Michael will have a place to go!

Doug,
One thing at a time! Let's just get back to the point where we are actually operating under the federalist system designed by our founders (right now we have a nationalist system masquerading as federalist), and then we can debate whether to go the extra distance and push for anti-federalism again.

Monoprise,

Agreed. As soon as Beck recognizes the error of his actions, I would be more than willing to let bygones be bygones. But does anyone really think he is going to do that?

Until he gets his head on straight and his facts right, Beck is going to remain a thorn in the side of the Tenth Amendment movement because he misinforms and misdirects many people who would otherwise be receptive to the message of liberty.

Nathan,

Glenn Beck may have "birthed" the 9-12 Project, but he absolutely did not start the Tea Party movement. Although I'm sure he doesn't mind people like you spreading that rumor for him.

Interestingly, a link at LRC this afternoon unlocked the mystery behind who really started the tea parties (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalinte...

Here's a hint: They were Ron Paul supporters.

Maybe your "jackhole" was a bit premature?