At this point, it is beyond debate – we the people are losing our grip on the reigns of self-governance. Congress passes bills without reading them. Judges use “interpretation” to invalidate our electoral choices. Federal law enforcement applies criminal law in ways never intended. This is not how a representative republic is supposed to operate.
Sir Isaac Newton’s 3rd law applies every bit as much to politics as it does to physics. “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” As applied to our republic, when the federal government stops behaving as intended, so do we.
Our executive branch has decided that protecting Constitutional liberties is optional. It has used social media to curtail free speech, law enforcement to surveil religious observance, and regulatory overreach to infringe on our property rights and right to bear arms.
Our judicial branch has decided that the Constitution isn’t literal – it doesn’t say what it says. It has used the creative application of penumbras and emanations to “interpret” new definitions for words. Such interpretations allowed the Supreme Court to decide that interstate commerce isn’t limited to commerce which crosses state lines (the very definition of “interstate”). Just like that, with a stroke of a Justice’s pen, state rights disappeared.
Those who swear an oath to enforce our laws, have decided that enforcement is discretionary. Immigration law can be ignored if politically expedient. Enforcement of the FACE act (which applies to abortion clinics and churches) can be selectively applied to benefit a preferred voting bloc. Laws can even be applied in ways never intended – as they were to prosecute the January 6 protesters.
Any petty dictator wannabe with a robe and a gavel can defy the will of the voters by constraining our elected leadership from fulfilling campaign promises – the promises we elected them to keep. Yet, court decisions are infringing on everything from troop deployment to construction of a ballroom.
It shouldn’t be surprising that when the federal government stopped behaving as intended, local jurisdictions have as well. After all, the federal government established the precedent – laws aren’t laws, merely suggestions.
Now juries are nullifying criminal law if they rather like the defendant. Getting a conviction for government corruption in Washington D.C. – the center of our government universe – is a near impossibility.
Sanctuary cities are nullifying immigration and firearms laws, simply because they can.
States are nullifying controlled substance laws by legalizing cannabis, and decriminalizing other forms of illicit drug trade.
District Attorneys are nullifying “equal justice under law” by selective prosecution. They are prosecuting political enemies, and excusing political benefactors with impunity.
At both the federal and state level, these are instances of officials deciding that the laws of the land are optional. But it is also a breach of our most sacred contract.
Our Constitution, and the laws enacted under its Article I authority, is our pact of self-governance – a contract of civil behavior. As long as our government applies duly enacted laws as intended, we agree to obey those laws. But when the government fails in that duty, an equal and opposite reaction, such as nullification, is our inevitable response.
The Constitution is not an à la carte menu where we can order state rights and freedom of speech, but skip the right to bear arms and due process. As any attorney can explain, contracts violated in part, are breached in total. A great many Americans are beginning to view the Constitution in that way – breached in total. Don’t force us to pay taxes, while refusing the enforce the Bill of Rights.
All forms of nullification are violations of our Constitutional contract, and the more prevalent they become, the more we move away from an agreement of civil behavior, and towards something decidedly less civil.
The last time nullification became the preferred response to the federal government, over 600,000 Americans died to restore Constitutional order. We can debate whether the federal government or the local jurisdictions started this trend, but the debate is irrelevant. If not corrected, such contract violations lead to a very dark place. When darkness descends on our republic, it won’t matter who started it.
In recent months, Minnesota Governor Walz declared his state at war with the federal government over immigration law. He even threatened to mobilize the national guard. Walz isn’t the only governor defying federal authority. He’s just the only one dumb enough to make such an outright declaration. Such wanton disregard of our Constitution is flirting with bloodshed to resolve our differences.
But what if there were a Constitutional way for nullification to happen – a way for states to tell the federal government “No,” without violating our contract? If the states could force the federal government to “play by the rules” would local jurisdictions be inclined to do so also? It’s hard to say, but continued breaching of our contract of civilized behavior is not sustainable. Maybe we should enact legal nullification, as a safety valve to prevent an explosion. But how?
The second clause of Article V provides the states with a means to amend the Constitution without the consent of Congress. In 2024, Convention of States Action conducted a simulated Article V convention to see how the states might reign in an out-of-control federal government. The simulated convention was attended by delegates from 49 of the 50 states – making it a valid test of the process.
One of the proposals which emerged from the simulated convention, was a Constitutional amendment which would allow a simple majority of states to nullify any federal law, regulation, or executive order. Were such and amendment to be ratified, a mere 26 states could prevent Congress or the President from enacting anything contrary to our rights or security (firearms restrictions, environmental regulations, immigration enforcement, etc.). We just need 34 states to call for a convention, and 38 states to ratify proposals from the convention.
Opponents of an Article V convention say that we don’t have the wisdom to mess with the Constitution. On the contrary, the delegates to the simulated convention demonstrated that our states are fully capable of appointing representatives with ample wisdom. It is the opponents of a convention who are displaying a shocking wisdom deficit. Their refusal to take corrective action moves us closer to complete invalidation of the Constitution, and the “equal and opposite” uncivil response. That isn’t wisdom – it is denial.
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, The American Spectator, Convention of States Action, and American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/u