• Nullify! Chapter 15: Wasting Time
    Articles,  Blog

    Nullify! Chapter 15: Wasting Time

    Some people want States to nullify by arresting federal agents, but in today’s political and legal climate, there’s no way for this to work in practice. Under modern legal precedent, any case involving a federal agent acting within the scope of their assigned duties gets “removed” to federal court. On top of it, they’re currently isn’t a state court or state government in the country that’s willing to tell the federal courts to pound sand when it comes to charging a federal agent with breaking state law. In other words, the structure of the legal system today makes it nearly impossible to prosecute a federal agent in state court for…

  • Articles

    Tucker: Usurpation of Power is Treason

    Today, we’re talking about usurpation. You’ve probably heard it said that when the federal government does something outside of its constitutional authority it’s an act of usurpation. But what exactly does this word mean? In legal terms, usurpation is the unlawful seizure or assumption of sovereign power. Basically, it’s a government stealing power that doesn’t belong to it. Think of it like this. The federal government doesn’t actually any power of its own. The people of the states are sovereign and ultimately possess all legitimate political authority. Through the Constitution, they formed a union of states and delegated a few powers to a general government. They kept the rest for…

  • Warning: A Federal Court Strategy is Dangerous for Liberty
    Articles,  Blog

    Warning: A Federal Court Strategy is Dangerous for Liberty

    Running to federal courts can often make things even worse. National organizations like the ACLU and the NRA put a lot of time and energy into fighting things they oppose in federal court. But this approach only guarantees that bad decisions are going to be bad for everyone. Here’s an example. The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of an Arizona cop who shot a woman outside her Tucson home. The Supreme Court reversed an appellate court opinion, and ruled that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. This effectively shields government officials from lawsuits over violations of rights. The majority held that there was no clear precedent that would…

  • Nullify Chapter 23: James Madison’s 1830 Letter
    Articles,  Blog

    Nullify Chapter 23: James Madison’s 1830 Letter

    Some people say an 1830 letter from James Madison proves he opposed nullification in all situations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Writing to Edward Everett , the “Father of the Constitution” used phrases like “overturn the first principle of free government” and “speedily put an end to the Union itself.” Most modern commentators and legal experts claim Madison was talking about nullification with a broad stroke. Because of this, they also claim nullification is always wrong, and should never be used, in any form. FACT: They’re either ignorant. Or lying. Everett asked Madison about a nullification doctrine proposed by John C. Calhoun for the State of South Carolina.…

  • Warning: More Excuses to Take Your Rights
    Articles,  Blog

    Warning: More Excuses to Take Your Rights

    Taking away rights because some people abuse them is dangerous. Every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime, you’ll hear gun control supporters claim that new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are “necessary.” They don’t care that criminals don’t follow the law, and they don’t care that they’ll be attacking an essential tool of self-defense. Their view is extremely dangerous. But they’re not alone. Lately, a small, but very vocal, minority of conservatives have been complaining in much the same way about nullification. They tell us that nullification is bad because as they say it, “sanctuary cities are nullification.” Their view is also very…

  • Archibald Maclaine and Nullification
    Articles,  Blog

    Archibald Maclaine and Nullification

    It wasn’t just Thomas jefferson and James Madison who supported nullification During the 1788 Hillsborough Convention, delegates from North Carolina opposing ratification of the Constitution outnumbered those in favor by about 2-1. One of the greatest concerns was about the extent of powers delegated to the federal government, and the lack of a bill of rights at that time. Archibald Maclaine was a well-known attorney in the state and was a leader there in opposition to the Stamp Act years earlier. He argued in favor of ratification and suggested nullification as a response to federal overreach. He said: “If Congress should make a law beyond its powers and the spirit…

  • “Enforce the Law,” But Only if it Doesn’t Violate the Constitution
    Articles,  Blog

    “Enforce the Law,” But Only if it Doesn’t Violate the Constitution

    We recently released a report showing that our Second Amendment president has actually ramped up enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun laws when you compare him to gun-grabbing President Obama during his last year in office Well, we got a lot of hate mail for that one. Of course, a lot of it was just silly. Typing, “That’s B.S.,” in all caps isn’t really an argument. But several people brought up something more substantive saying the president has to enforce the law no matter what. One guy said if the president starts picking and choosing which laws to enforce, it will “break the system.” Now look – considering virtually everything the…

  • Constitution 101: Immigration vs Naturalization
    Articles,  Blog

    Constitution 101: Immigration vs Naturalization

    Did you know there is a difference between immigration and naturalization under the Constitution? Most people assume that the federal government has complete control over immigration. This is partly due to the fact that they confuse immigration and naturalization. In fact, they are two very distinct things. The Constitution delegates to the federal government the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” but it does not expressly delegate any power to regulate immigration. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson said the individual states have the power to regulate immigration and to deal with any foreigners within their borders. Madison insisted the only time the federal government could deport a…

  • Texas vs DC: States Can Impact the Federal Resettlement Program
    Articles,  Blog

    Texas vs DC: States Can Impact the Federal Resettlement Program

    States do have the ability to impact the federal government’s refugee resettlement program. As was widely reported last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has officially told the national Office of Refugee Resettlement that if certain conditions aren’t met, the state will be withdrawing from the federal resettlement program. Of course, the New York Times quickly downplayed the impact of Texas withdrawing from the program. But the practical realities look different. The state provides vital logistic medical and social service assistance. Texas manages $96 million in federal funds for services provided to refugees. And last year alone it resettled some seven thousand refugees. Several non-profits such as the International Rescue Committee,…

  • Articles

    There’s not Enough Gold? Nonsense!

    Some people believe that we can’t use sound money because they’re supposedly “not enough gold.” But they couldn’t be more wrong. Claims that gold can’t be used as money because there’s not enough of it reveal a fundamental misunderstanding. There’s always enough metal to support the money supply. It’s just a question of price. While it would be impossible to support the economy at the current price per ounce, the market would simply re-price the metal higher to make the system workable. Some people estimate a gold price between $9,000 and $10,000 per ounce would do the trick for a worldwide gold standard. This might sound like a lot, but…