Nullification

I love Mark Levine. He's so angry. Just like me.

But sometimes he misses the mark . I was listening to him yesterday, and he was ranting—again— about how terrible and dangerous Nullification is.

Of course, Mark is big on a Convention of the States to propose more amendments to the Constitution to make the government behave itself.

The problem as I see it is that we already have a perfectly clear Constitution, and the government is ignoring it. Why does Mark believe that more amendments will force the out-of-control government and it's evil minions to obey it?

Don't see the logic.

Mark seems to thing that nullification is something that states DO.

I reject the idea that nullification is something people DO. I submit it is an inherent condition of unconstitutional laws.

A law is not nullified because someone says it is. A law is nullified by virtue of the fact that it does not meet the necessary standard of constitutionality.

Nothing has to be done. The condition exists independent of action or opinion.

When a law is passed that is constitutional, it is incumbent on all citizens to obey it.

When a "law" is passed that is unconstitutional, it is by definition nullified, and need not be obeyed by anyone.

SCOTUS having proved that they are insufficient to the job of determining constitutionality of anything, it is reasonable to leave it to the States, Counties and Municipalities to see to it that they and their citizens are not burdened with "laws" passed by the out-of-control Central Government that are clearly and demonstrably unconstitutional.

It's messy, but it's not crazy. Locally is where we establish freedom...and then work from there.

And "freedom" in America today means nothing more or less than freedom from the intrusive talons of the pernicious, titanic, rapacious wildly unconstitutional Central Government.


/gun