Thanks for this. It is quite timely seeing how there is a new (mis)use of the fourteenth afoot right now over the debt ceiling--

"The issue of Nullification deserves a better defense of its merits than this and Nullification as a tool to be used by sovereign states can stand on its own merits..."

Are you going to provide the better defense? I may be wrong but from your comment it sounds as if you haven't read much from his books. The Germany reference is only a small portion of his overall argument for nullification. And as far as nullification standing on its own merits, I think it would be safe to say that without Woods and his tireless work on this issue (along with groups like TAC) many state legislators would not be talking about this, let alone taking it serious. This is certainly the case in Idaho.

I really love Jack Hunter. I went to school at the College of Charleston and I'm not a hater but it took the 21st Amendment (1933) to repeal the 18th (1919). The 19th Amendment was women's suffrage--

"The drafters well understood and explicitly intended that this would give the federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, the final say about what the Constitution means. That's why the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions are authoritative."

You are espousing the doctrine of judicial review and it's not in the "original text." In fact this idea was specifically brought up in the Constitutional Convention in the form of a judicial veto and was rejected by the framers. So much for all the drafters explicitly intending and agreeing to the idea of judicial review.

I had a comment posted earlier but it has since vanished. I will try to reconstruct it.
For Alex—
I have read your comments throughout TAC and I was curious as to where you are coming from constitutionally. I have just a few questions.
1)You seem to place great emphasis on the judicial branch in your constitutional interpretation. Can the federal judiciary ever be in violation of the constitution? And if so, what is to be done about it?
2)Can the acts and laws of the other two federal branches be unconstitutional? If so, what is to be done when all three federal branches are in violation of the constitution?
3)In your comments you seem to be of the opinion that the US Constitution treats the states as an afterthought and not an important center of political sovereignty. What is the purpose of the states?
4)If the federal judiciary is the final arbiter of all constitutional questions, acts of the executive and laws of the congress, both federal and state, and the judges are not elected, what system of government do we have in the US? What do you appropriately call rule be judges?

I am just trying to understand your constitutional thought. Thanks—

This comment is for Alex Hamilton.
After seeing your comments scattered throughout TAC I have a few questions for you.

1) Can the actions, laws and/or rulings of any of the branches of the federal government ever be in "defiance of constitutional authority"? Your comments seem to indicate that the US Constitution treats states as an afterthought or of little importance as one of the depositories of political sovereignty.

2) Can the decisions and opinions of the judiciary EVER be unconstitutional? And if so what is to be done?

3) If it is possible for the three federal branches to do anything unconstitutional, what is to be done when they are all doing or sustaining unconstitutional acts and laws?

4) And if the federal judiciary, which is made up of justices who are unelected, is the final arbiter of all actions and laws of the other federal branches and states, the only interpreter of the constitution and interposition is hogwash, what system of government are we living under? A republic? A democracy? An oligarchy? A monarchy? An aristocracy?

I really am seeking to understand your constitutional thinking? Thanks--

Good piece of legislation. I was impressed with how it both affirmed allegiance to the United States and Texas, reflecting the true federal structure that we should have.
My question is, if (and when) the national government ignores the resolution what will you do? The language of the bill is very much in the form of a command.
Is there a follow up resolution laying out an appropriate response if the national government ignores the bill?

We here in Idaho (the state house at least) have pushed for nullification of the healthcare law but so far without success. Texas could and should be the leader on this mainly because of the size and prestige of the state.

Having followed this as a resident of Idaho I will say that even this toned-down bill will face an uphill battle in the Idaho senate. This is the place that Senate Majority Leader Bart Davis helped kill the bill and tried to justify it by stating in part:
"I agree that we should do all we can to push the federal government to return to its enumerated powers...But for me, I need to do it within the system. … My heart, but not my mind, is with the supporters of this legislation.”

Absolute nonsense. Let's hope he can steel his mind long enough to support this bill and that he won't let his mind betray his heart and kill this bill as well. To me this is a candid admission that he simply lacks the courage to do what is right.

And more from the Spokesman-Review:
"Senate President Pro-Tem Brent Hill, R-Rexburg, told the crowd [after hearing testimony about the first nullification bill], “We're angry and we're frustrated, and I have a sacred Constitution that I believe provides for remedies for that. … I find no constitutional justification for the things that we are talking about here today. I commend you for your … goals… (and) passion. … I cannot pursue them in the manner that some of you are prescribing.”

So this is what we are dealing with in Idaho. The people through their elected representatives in the House want to retain an ounce of state sovereignty but the illustrious senate leaders find the rightful remedy of nullification distasteful. Like Tom Woods says it's a solution that doesn't fall within the Gingrich to Pelosi spectrum of acceptable ideas.

Our representatives will continue to "push" for solutions to an overreaching national government but only if it's compatible with the current twisted constitutional construct.

Out of curiosity and sheer boredom I glanced Levin's website and his recommended reading list. I think what he lists as must reads reveals where he is coming from on the war powers issue and many other constitutional issues as well. Here are the highlights: Rumsfeld, Bill Benett about the War on Terror, Gingrich, all of Hannity's books, Rove, Palin, Coulter, Bolton, a book on Cheney, Tom DeLay, and Rush Limbaugh. To be fair he has Goldwater and Hayek on his list too but they are at the end. Now don't get me wrong, if you want to understand the derailing of conservatism or the decline of the Old Right Jeffersonian types in the conservative movement and the rise of a new crop of conservative reformulation this is a great list. Unfortunately as we've seen, Levin represents not a recommitment to liberty after the Bush years but a reaffirmation of the liberty-killing foreign policy and tendencies of neoconservatives.

Thanks for the post. Of course I'm sure if you had the time and space you would have included the 17th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve to round out the trio of doom for federalism. 1913 would truly be the year to erase if one had the power. Don't get me wrong I want a democratic system of government that I can participate in, it's the only way to practice civic virtue and guard against corruption but when democracy is exported to a far away government (DC is 2,300 miles away from me) it becomes tyrannical. Madison said a republic would work over a large territory, not democracy.

Another good book that warns about the dangers of a national democracy is Freedom and Federalism by Morley. I highly recommend it.