The Path to Saving the Republic: Just Say ‘No’

The following article was originally published by American Thinker.

Our nation is in crisis. The Obama administration is centralizing power at a level unmatched in American history with grave consequences for our future liberty and freedom. Of that there is not much debate among conservatives. Conservatives, however, are always waiting for the next Ronald Reagan, wondering if Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan or someone will win in 2016 and save the country from Obama. This is a fool’s errand. Rubio and Ryan are fine men, good leaders and very important for our cause. But they can’t save our Republic. There is no “one” and we need to stop looking to the next federal election to solve our problems.

So, is there a way to restore the Republic? There is good news; the first salvos have already been fired in the battle to save America. And no, they weren’t fired from anywhere in Washington D.C., from members of Congress or from Republican Party headquarters.

The shots being fired, the first movements in a war to save our republican form of government are coming from the most unheralded of places. What is happening in Topeka, Austin, Ogden, Billings, Richmond and many other locales is just the beginning of a movement that will sweep this nation in the next four years. The people, in the form of their respective States and their State legislatures, are learning and relearning the lessons that Jefferson and Madison taught us over 200 years ago.

The lesson resides in one word: Just say “No.”

When the Democratic Governor of Montana claims that any Federal government ban on the right to bear arms will not take hold in his State or when the Republican Governor of Texas says that there are sections of the Obamacare law that will not hit the ground in his State, they are not espousing a new, radical and revolutionary theory of American self-governance. They are speaking from an over 200 year history that traces its roots back to the Founding of our great nation and codified by the pens of none other than Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They are the kernels of the coming restoration of America.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is hard to find a scholar alive that will find the Acts constitutional. In these resolutions, the authors, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, argued that “the states” have the right to interpret the Constitution and can declare federal laws unconstitutional when the federal government exceeds its delegated powers. Thus, we have the theories of nullification and interposition. Of this, there is little historical debate, but the rest has been left to the time of history, to Court challenges, the Civil War, and varying interpretations of what was meant, what was the impact and relevance of these theories espoused in 1798.

The obstacles come not just from the Left on this issue. The vast majority of constitutional scholars, on the left and right, are dead set opposed to the theory of nullification. The scholars say that not only is the theory wrong, dead and long since decided, but even a discussion of the theory is verboten. Raise the issue and you are guaranteed of one thing: you will be called some version of a “pro-slavery, neo-confederate, Jim Crow loving racist.” And that is if they are feeling charitable. The bottom line for legal scholars is that the debate over nullification ended in 1865.

The Civil War settled one thing for certain; that the attempt on the part of Southern States to secede from the rest of the United States failed. Everything that flowed from that, the freeing of the slaves, reconstruction and the future of the South, the centralization of power in the Federal Government etc., were consequences of the war. Why is that important in this debate? Because the theory of nullification, the discussion of the theory, the ideas of Jefferson and Madison, again, did not die at Appomattox, Virginia in 1865. If you are going to be honest, the theory of secession didn’t die in 1865 either, just the attempt at it did. Remember, secession was never put on trial to be decided in a constitutional court.

Further, to answer the critics, the theory of nullification was not created or used in defense of slavery; in fact it had been used by the anti-slavery cause. The great Nullification debate of 1832 in South Carolina was over the issue of tariffs. The most well-known Supreme Court case on the issue of nullification was Ableman v. Booth, the Wisconsin case that was notable for the State of Wisconsin’s resistance to the decision make in Dred Scott, the pro-slavery Supreme Court case of 1857. We are not arguing the legitimacy here, the Carolinians certainly seemed to overstep in saying that the passage of a tariff act violates the Constitution. But it is critical to restate this, nullification was not about slavery.

Granted, the legal arguments against nullification are long; the Supreme Court has repeatedly come down against the theory in numerous cases. Kentucky and Virginia were alone in their resolutions, no other States have ever signed up so explicitly as those two. Recent history, scholars, politicians and parties are all stacked against this theory.

But our history has often been moved by the people, not solely by scholars, political parties and their leaders. The purpose here is to simply open the debate. If one feels that our nation is facing a critical crossroads, that our very liberty is threatened and under attack, then don’t we owe ourselves to look at ideas from our Founders?

The historical interpretation of the American Founding has gone down two tracks. The Left, of course, couldn’t care less about the Founders; the Constitution is a dead letter that needs to be scrapped and made anew. This new “living” Constitution gives us one assurance; that we are being led down a path of tyranny and oppression. The American experiment is over.

But from the Right, when we speak of the Constitution and the Founding, we trap ourselves in a box. We won’t allow discussion of the theories behind the Constitution, we no longer listen to the fears that many had in the enacting of our Constitution and therefore the safeguards that were put in place. Lost in history are other theories, such as those espoused in the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions that may offer a way to fight the growing federal unconstitutional tyranny that is taking shape.

It is ironic, but we, and rightly so, call out the Left for its manner of shutting out debate through name calling. You raise an issue and you are a bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, you name it. But the Right, in discussing this issue does the same, hence the ridiculous “neo-confederate” charge over the issue of nullification. With all due respect to the great legal scholars on the right today, I won’t turn a deaf ear to the words and writings of Jefferson and Madison. Not under our present conditions.

Consider this hypothetical: what if five years for now, we are in either a third term of Obama (don’t discount it) or the first term of say, Hillary. Scalia and Thomas are long gone from the Court; we are dealing with seven Sotomayors against two of our holdouts. A case comes before the Court on the 2ndAmendment. The Court decides that the Amendment pertains, not to an individual right, but only to state regulated militias, and not even states in our federal sense, but the State, the national government. What do we do?

The law is clearly unconstitutional, no matter what the Court says. Do we have a redress? Do we take the streets and revolt? Maybe eventually, but our founding fathers gave us another way. It is not the clearest way, not every Founder believed in it, the history is sketchy. Scholars are lined against it. But there can be no doubt what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison meant when they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The States, therein the people, can, and must, say one word to the Federal government in this, and other, unconstitutional instances:


Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Gayle

    Interestingly, the Left seems to have no problems with nullification where legalization of marijuana is concerned. It'll be interesting to see if federal acquiescence toward that one issue will make any difference as far as the other issues (such as Obamacare, 2nd amendment rights, NDAA, etc) are concerned.

    An excellent tracking tool from an excellent organization:

    • TruthandFreedom

      The left has to keep marijuana illegal, they are the biggest sellers…. the profits from this is what helps them run many black ops within the shadow government! If it were to become legal they would no longer be in control of it! Currently they are the biggest drug runners in the world!

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "The law is clearly unconstitutional, no matter what the Court says. Do we have a redress? Do we take the streets and revolt? Maybe eventually, but our founding fathers gave us another way. It is not the clearest way, not every Founder believed in it, the history is sketchy. Scholars are lined against it. But there can be no doubt what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison meant when they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The States, therein the people, can, and must, say one word to the Federal government in this, and other, unconstitutional instances: No."

    I find it hard to believe this idea is even controversial. Of course we do. Of course it matters what we're objecting to. Trying to maintain slaves or slavery is not a legitimate reason to rebel against the federal government. Preserving our authentic constitutional rights is.

    • AdinaK

      IF there is one issue to coalesce around, which will save the Republic, this is it –

      Without doing so, all the rest is moot. Win this one, and the rest will disappear, in due time.

      Adina kutnicki, Israel –

    • Roger

      It's only controversial to the media and elite who would be rejected.

      The sane thinkers don't have much problem with it at all.

  • George

    What happens when a crowd of unruly students realize that they can simply ignore the teachers demands? They run loose, that’s what. Scary stuff for teachers, but awesome stuff for freedom lovers.

    Seriously, ignoring the federal government is the only hope we’ve got.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "What happens when a crowd of unruly students realize that they can simply ignore the teachers demands? They run loose, that's what. Scary stuff for teachers, but awesome stuff for freedom lovers."

      We're not talking about anarchy. There must be a legal basis for opposition at that level. Kids running around like anarchists might be more trivial, not it's not good.

  • bluffcreek1967

    The author makes some valid points, and I would be somewhat more hopeful if I trusted that our state governors and others in office would remain steadfast in saying 'No' to the federal government, but I don't think they will. I'm skeptical they won't bend and fall over themselves when the federal pressure is laid heavily on them. After all, they're politicians, right?

    All this talk about 'saving' the Republic sounds good and I want it to be true. But then reality smacks me in the face when I recall how divided Americans are; how we lack the collective will to regain any semblance of our former glory, morality and common purpose; how we have been flooded by a mass of third-world immigrants; I think of all the low-information voters we have; how immoral we have become; the massive welfare state; the contempt so many have for whites; and how fast we have deteriorated in the past 30 years! No, we will not 'save' our Republic. Things will only progress deeper into the filth we have covered our entire nation under. Isn't it beautiful?

    Hey, did you ever hear the story of the frog in the kettle?

    • Mary Sue

      man that just gave me an idea. A phrase to use on libtards. "Frog, meet kettle."

      • Rostislav

        I'm nearly sure that their answer would be "Frog yourself!" at best. Generally there is no answer at all, as far as all of them are deaf (to judge from my experience of arguing with our Soviet enthusiasts of Bright Global Future). But they are deaf to any "No!" either – it's very hard to hear anything while you are driving 100 mph ahead inside your roaring mighty tank. But then, one beautiful winter day in 1991 the last drop of petrol is finished, the tank stops, the deafened crew climbs out – and there is not a trace of USSR around, no Bright Global Future, no frogs, no kettles. Just snow and silence. And a very old rusty tank. Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

        • Fritz

          This is one issue where nobody seems to put 2+2 together, they write about massive centralization of Federal government power, or the fiscal cliff of massive government spending an borrowing, but never both. The fact is that with a $16 trillion dollar federal debt, $6 trillion of which added in the past four years, and likely another $4 trillion in the next four years if nothing is turned around, the "Mighty Roaring Tank" of Federal power will run out of gas. You can only buy votes and complacency IF you have money to buy with, and you can't pay unionized government employees with bread. At some point the Chinese and other lenders will stop buying U.S government bonds and treasury bills and the debate over Federal verses State's rights will become academic.

  • pierce


    • PhillipGaley

      Maybe that corporation or holding company in Spain, who counted the votes, 'counted' the votes against the Am. ppl, and in favor of B O'bama, . . . .

    • dmw

      …Meanwhile, while — what was it — 120-130 million voted overall, 90 million voting age "adults" DID NOT VOTE at all! So we have 51% of the first number that voted for Commandante Sub-Zero (about 64 million) plus 90 million non-voters, or half our nation which "DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER, OR THEY JUST DON'T CARE." What does this portend very soon?

    • objectivefactsmatter


      You miss the entire point and argue on the side of 0'Bama the tyrant. The president has a role, but is not the sole leader of the government. He was elected to that role only. He can't legally infringe on any one person's constitutional rights. But if he is able to manipulate the course of history, that minority that has legal rights will need a plan of action. A minority can have rights. Majority does not justify tyranny. You don't seem to understand that simple statement.

  • logdon

    'The Court decides that the Amendment pertains, not to an individual right, but only to state regulated militias, and not even states in our federal sense, but the State, the national government'.

    Oddly enough I'm just re-reading my 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History' and although written well before the 'Annointed One' assumed his power grab, presciently makes the following observation.

    'If the framers of the Second Amendment had intended it to apply to the right of a state to maintain a militia, they would have used the word "state" instead of "people". The rest of the Bill of Rights is very precise in using the word "people" when referring to individuals and "state" when referring to the states'.

    'There is no good reason to believe that the Second Amendment would be the sole exception'.

    Following Sandy Hook the, how many angels will fit on a pinhead, semantics of the Left is reaching warp-speed and these gouls are in effect dancing on the graves of dead children in order to get their cherished way.

    If in reality they cared about the dead they'd address the real centres of the great American homicide wave, those liberal controlled cities where gun culture has replaced the church as the object of veneration and worship.

    Instead of the angels and pin heads maybe their question should be, how many Glocks will fit on a crackhouse table?

    • PhillipGaley

      What if "militia" refers to not professionally trained, but simple unregimented irregulars, . . . vis-a-vis the "regular" army troops—the only groups available when there is no "regular" army of any state, . . .

    • Soylent Green

      The REAL cause of the hundreds of deaths in cities like Chicongo, Ill. shall NOT BE MENTIONED!

  • Pat C

    No one wishes it

  • Pat C

    No one wishes it, but if nullification is the only way to restore freedom, then a second civil war might be the only way to by pass an ignoramus Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not have the last say, the legislature can re write a law to make it something resembling constitutional. When all else fails, its up to the people.

    • guest

      Neocons continue to provide us with laughter. Keep up the good work, folks.

      • Mary Sue

        neocon nothing. You have no clue as to the meaning of the term.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    ………..WE the wagon-pullin' Plebs………….

    ..Just say NO to the re-distribution, reparations, OBAMA PLANTATION.

  • Arlie

    Spoiled, uneducated, fearful people in this Once Great Constitutional Republic no longer know the meaning of the word …..NO…..ENOUGH……STOP. All they know is gimme, your owe me, i deserve, I'm entitled. From the lest to the biggest Corporations…..they are destroying a once Great Free & Moral Society one nudge, one lie, one court case at a time. Somehow NO has been twisted into YES. Everything is upside down from our origins. The 10th Amendment has been eroded by the lazy, corrupt State governments accepting Federal assistance instead of relying on the people within the State as Sovereigns. The States gave an inch and the Federal's took a mile every time. Getting back to keeping it local will be our ONLY saving grace. It is sad that some State are too far gone. You know who you are, nanny States.

    There was another great article at American Thinker that listed 3 things that Madison got wrong, by Timothy Gordon on 1/27/13. I found the article very enlightening.

    Come to find out, I'm an anti-federalist…on the side of Cato and Brutus and Montesquieu.

    "Jefferson, having listened to both sides, suggested the course opted for should be that which confers the optimal amount of liberty. Madison did not listen"

  • Arlie

    Reinstate Glass-Steagall Act IMMEDIATELY. Bernanke is committing concrete crimes.

  • SoCalMike

    Notice the ones most opposed to the theory of nullification are the ones invariably plugged into other people's money.
    I'm just sayin….

    • guest

      You mean the military industrial complex?

      • Drakken

        Those that beat their swords into plowshares always plow for those who don't.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "You mean the military industrial complex?"


      • Mary Sue

        they mean the welfare queens.

  • tagalog

    The debate among legal scholars over nullification ended, FOR THE MOMENT, in 1865.

    Perhaps it's time for Atlas to shrug.

  • Roger Dane

    Remember the Shays’ Rebellion! And noted Sons of Liberty founder/spokesman Samuel Adams said that (paraphrasing) “it was okay to revolt/fight/start insurrection against a monarch but not the laws of a Constitutional Republic.” Well, are we nearing a ‘monarchy?’ The repealing of the 22nd Amendment would come very close to that concept. And once a Constitutional Democratic Republic starts repealing the ‘founding documents’ aren’t all ‘bets off?’ As I recently heard eloquently debated, “The people in the wagon being pulled by the producers of the work force are becoming more and more numerous…” and the powers that be are “praising the pullees and decrying the pullors!” ( ;^) And after a period of time many of those pulling decide it looks better in the wagon! We have allowed our educational system to be degraded to teaching only ‘self-esteem’ and ethnic studies and acquiesced to those attacking Judeo-Christian morals as to exclusive all the while trying to exclude those “who cling to their Bibles.” America is a powder keg resting in a box of dynamite floating in a sea of jet fuel with a President that still smokes!

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      At the Hartford Convention of 1814, the New England states almost seceded from the United States; had NOTHING to do with slavery. The pro-British Federalists wanted to secede from the Union, over MONEY, because they didn't want to pay their fair share of the costs of "Mr. Jefferson's war," as they termed the War of 1812. If the New England Federalists could so seriously have considered secession over the relatively trivial issue of MONEY, there must be something the states can do along the lines of nullification today, to stop the cancerous growth of the Federal government. Growth that is choking our country to death. And the consequences are much higher today.

    • Fritz

      Nobody is going to repeal the 22nd amendment, anyone can introduce a constitutional amendment before congress, 5000 tried, only 33 were formally proposed. Not only does it require ratification by congress but ratification by 3/4ths of the state legislatures, and it takes 2-1/2 years to ratify, that is if everyone is on board. Only one amendment was every repealed and that was the 18th amendment which was repealed by the 21st. Anything is possible but at least half the states have legislatures controlled by the Republican party, and this assumes that the ones controlled by Democrats are 100% on board with repealing the 22nd amendment, so where is the 3/4ths going to come from? So if they started now, had all of their ducks in a row, everyone on board, the amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which would be the 28th amendment, would be ratified while the next election cycle is underway.

  • umustbkidding

    Two things:
    1st. We must stop sending our tax $$ to washington. They refuse to send it back to the states if the states don't do everything they are told. SO – – – go down to your HR department at work and ask for a W-4 form. You filled it out when you got your job. take as many dependents as you can – like 10. This reduces the amount that gets taken out of your pay. Not Medicare or Social Security but federal withholding. Save the difference of your net check so that you have Most of your new tax obligation the following April 15th. Bear in mind that your payroll taxes will continue to go up so . . . plan for that.

    2nd. Our states are corrupt just as the federal government. The good news is that they are far more concerned with our "mood". State representatives are far more accessable than the federal ones, so start talking to your neighbors and start calling your representatives. It's also a good idea to get to know your local sheriff. They are not the same as the police. The police work for the politicans and the sheriff works for you. Get to know them and talk to them.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      " Our states are corrupt just as the federal government. The good news is that they are far more concerned with our "mood". State representatives are far more accessable than the federal ones, "

      Precisely. That is EXACTLY why nothing should be performed at federal level that can be done more locally. The same is true for the state and even in some cases the county. Cities and neighborhoods should stop looking towards their idolized government agencies when they should be able to perform it better. Not always, but the trend towards big fed and big magical problem solvers (whose promises are based on accumulating other people's money or OPM) must be reversed no matter what else happens.

      • WilliamJamesWard


  • umustbkidding

    These are all Ben Franklin quotes,

    "When people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"  

    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty."  

    "Never confuse motion and action"  

    "This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties.  A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know the prize rights which GOD has given them, can not be enslaved.  It is the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.   

    "Only a virtuous are capable of freedom.  As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more needs of masters."  

    "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to GOD."  

    "The constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness.  You have to catch it yourself."

    ". . .a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles . . is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free."

    "There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and more frequently fall than that of defrauding the government."

  • umustbkidding

    These are Jefferson quotes:

    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent"  Thomas Jefferson

    Here's something for our congress today – " delay is always preferable to error"

    "Dependence get subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the design of ambition"  Thomas Jefferson

    "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny"  Thomas Jefferson

    "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe."


"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." — Thomas Jefferson


"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." — Thomas Jefferson

    "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." — Thomas Jefferson


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

– Thomas Jefferson

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." — Thomas Jefferson

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

– Thomas Jefferson


"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up
homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

  • edgineer1

    As long as the Democrats are allowed to cheat at will in every election, there is no hope for our republic and Nikita Kruschchev will be vindicated.

    • Gayle

      You need to take your focus off of the federal level. The states are the real battleground now.

      Get involved in your state's politics, NOW. Time is short.

      • edgineer1

        They are cheating at the local, state and federal level period. With our voting system undermined by Marxists we face the biggest threat to our country in it's history.

  • darlene

    If only Governor Brown and the California legislature could understand the depths of insight in Finch's "NO" article….

    • Mary Sue

      Governor Moonbeam's always been heavily clueless.

      • fanlad

        California is lost. The mass exodus has begun. Higher taxes on a dwindling tax base to support their socialist system, unsustainable.

  • Drakken

    Open rebellion will come when they completely go after the 2nd Amendement, NY citizens are already telling Il Duece to go eff himself over gun rights and that they aim to disobey, if the rest of the states go the same way we might have hope for changing things to the better, otherwise we will be pushed over into the abyss, from there, no one has a clue how things will end up.

    • nightspore

      This is the silver lining in all of this. These people are so stupid (and insular and arrogant) that inevitably they overreach. Going after the 2nd Amendment may be a bridge too far, and if it isn't there'll be another.

    • nightspore

      In fact, almost immediately after I posted the comment above I noticed Daniel Greenfield's article "Every species everywhere is now officially endangered". QED

  • mlcblog

    Pierce is right that no one person can lead this, unless of course that leader has yet to emerge and still can they withstand the vehemence of the press. This is why the article is brilliant.

    I have great faith in the American spirit, and that is what Mr. Finch is talking about. The power of Hell no.

  • tanstaafl

    Sometimes you have to enforce the contract……

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Consider that there is no argument to legitamize the restoration and continuation of
    slavery but and attack on the Constitution is and open call to refuse to accept any
    part of such and attack. Now in this era under the Obama regeme that stands on the
    fact that slavery is a grand noose around the necks of white descendants of
    slave owners or not, Obama attacks the Constitution and we should say no and the
    irony is that by destroying the Constitution ala Obama and the Democrats, we become
    slaves of the State. I will say no to becoming a slave and no to continuing to support
    the idea I owe anyone anything they did not work for and especially if the work did not
    benefit me nor was conscripted by myself with my approval. No is a powerful word, the
    use of which has results, like them or not……………………William

  • Anamah

    My lips can't stop to say No. I love America, but is also the entire world needs this compass to keep the spirit and hope….in the future.
    Unconstitutional attacks must be rejected, we have the law, the reason, and our history.
    We are right and they are wrong.

  • clewgyber

    Good piece, but I think you're giving too much credit and legitimacy to the Supreme Court. After the Kelo decision, it became clear that the SC cannot be trusted to protect the fights of individuals. It ruled that a government can STEAL the homes of the hardworking, lower middle class and poor people, and GIVE them to rich corporations. A court that finds this obscenity "constitutional" is morally bankrupt to a hopeless degree, and should have been impeached. We are approaching the point at which it is no longer enough to impeach, fire, zero out the budgets of, and eliminate the positions of government agents; but it will be necessary to built gallows for them. Maybe that will start to discourage government overreach. As Dr. Johnson said, "the thought of being hanged in the morning, focuses the mind wonderfully".

    • Mary Sue

      the thing about the Kelo decision was it was all the "progressives" on the court voting for it, and all the normal people on the court like Scalia voting against it. I'm not sure what will happen since the composition of the court is a bit different now, though Obama's replaced leftists with more leftists as far as I can tell?

  • Polyglot

    It seems clear to me that the ability of the states to nullify laws they find unconstitutional necessarily underpins the notion that "we, the people" are govern ourselves. How, indeed, would one begin to rein in a government gone wild without any method in place for doing so? In fact, we have that method, and it is why we have remained 50 sovereign states. The logic is unassailable: If our states are, indeed, sovereign, then of course they must have the right to nullify laws that they deem unconstitutional, or they have no way of remaining sovereign! The powers of the federal government are derived from the consent of the governed. At such time as the actions of the government exceed that consent, the states, via the will of their people, must withdraw their consent. It's the only interpretation that makes logical sense. If progressively-leaning elements reject this idea out of hand, then they are protesting too much, I think. Clearly, they want to bury the argument aborning. The last thing they want is to have to argue the case again, and with good reason: They would lose!

    • Mary Sue

      that's why they think you can't be trusted to govern yourself.