The New Nullifiers

Over the last few weeks this website has been bombarded by individuals who believe we haven’t taken a sufficiently firm position on the issue of nullification – or the right of states to explicitly reject objectionable federal legislation. These “New Nullifiers” are foaming at the mouth, people … and with…

Over the last few weeks this website has been bombarded by individuals who believe we haven’t taken a sufficiently firm position on the issue of nullification – or the right of states to explicitly reject objectionable federal legislation.

These “New Nullifiers” are foaming at the mouth, people … and with good reason. The country they live in is going to hell in a handbasket and they feel powerless to do anything about it. The nullification movement gives them a purpose – even though it has been rebuked by the “Republican” establishment and conservative think tanks like The Heritage Foundation.

“Nullification may appear to offer a tempting ‘silver bullet’ solution to the overexpansion of the federal government, but it is imperative that legislators reject this unconstitutional and unlawful doctrine,” Heritage’s Mike Kelsey wrote last February. “Defenders of the Constitution should continue to resist the allure of nullification and seek other constitutional means of defending federalism, limited constitutional government, and the cause of liberty.”

Talk like that gets the New Nullifiers blood boiling … as does the rejection of the nullification cause by state leaders like SCGOP chairman Chad Connelly.

“When a state nullifies a federal act, it is simply telling the federal government: We did not agree to give you this power, it is not listed in the constitution, and we will not allow it in our state (emphasis original),” writes Tom Utley of the Republican Liberty Caucus of South Carolina. “Nullification doesn’t veto the federal act, and it will still apply to states that do not nullify.”

Utley goes on to say “all constitutional laws enacted by the federal government are the supreme law of the land” but that states should be permitted to nullify “any act that is unconstitutional or that oversteps the bounds placed on the federal government by Article 1, Section 8.”

We agree … in fact we’ve taken this admittedly radical notion one step further by advocating outright civil disobedience of all gun control laws.

Our only concern about the current nullification movement? We fear “Republican” lawmakers in South Carolina will use it as political cover to approve a massive Medicaid expansion associated with Obamacare.

You know … sort of like when they all railed against U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2009 stimulus but then greedily lapped up its “free money” after the fact.

“Lawmakers cannot reject Obamacare on the one hand and take its money on the other,” we wrote.

Well actually they can, they’d just be hypocrites … although as we’ve seen in South Carolina politics that’s pretty much par for the course.

As for the “New Nullifiers,” they’re not going anywhere any time soon … and that’s a good thing. The more vocal groups like this are, the better. We just hope they realize there is plenty more to be pissed off about than just Obamacare. We also hope they realize more often than not that “Republicans” are every bit as neck deep in the bullshit as Democrats.


(Banner via)

Related posts


Letter: Is South Carolina Actually Getting Hotter?


S.C. Attorney General Leads Parental Rights Coalition

Erin Parrott

South Carolina Attorney General Addresses Title IX Changes



Taxes & Fees February 4, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Fed legalizes something, they assert it must be regulated.
They HIRE people to regulate, taxes increase.

Fed criminalizes something, they assert it must be enforced.
They HIRE people to enforce, taxes increase.

The government is an ever-growing merry-go-round. They are always making room for more horses. Eventually, you will show up at “Six Flags” and there will be this one big goddamned merry-go-round with 250,000,000 people on it and 50,000,000 people standing around asking “how did I miss that ride, Mrs Jones?”

And then Mexico will call Canada and ask, “hey, Canuck amigo, how do you close da border and stop all these gringos from coming down heah and taking our jobs?

Crooner February 4, 2013 at 4:50 pm

You fear that poor people in our state are going to get access to healthcare? What’s wrong with you?

Sadie February 5, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Poor people have had access to health care. Obamacare just adds more people to Medicaid and causes poor people to have less access. Same is true for Medicare — cuts and services denied due to cost. If you actually cared about poor people getting quality care, then you would be against Obamacare. Plain and simple. You would know this if you actually READ THE BILL. Or, hey liberals, I guess its easier for you to get your information from The Daily Show and just stay stupid.

? February 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm

Of course we haven’t even touched on the issue of taking money from one person to pay the health bills of someone else.(commonly known as theft)

If being poor entitled one to someone else’s money then eventually everyone would be poor.

Gubment Cheese February 5, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Funny the government isn’t supposed to give us anything, but we’re expected to die for it. Americans love their country, but not each other. Awesome society, folks!

ceilidh10 February 6, 2013 at 11:55 am

The GOP always says it reads the bill. It’s a standard lie. Did you really read it, Sadie? I doubt it.

Obamacare is one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of the USA. Go Obama !

SparkleCity February 4, 2013 at 5:07 pm

First it was the rabid “birthers” then came the preppers/dumb-assed ammunition horders, now its the “nullifiers” all of whom are usually associated with the TEA Party in one form or another and politicians like Lee “lightbulb factory” Bright kiss ass every time they can.

So played, so VERY PLAYED

SparkleCity February 4, 2013 at 5:48 pm

“Foaming at the mouth”???

Hell, these right wing-nuts foam at the mouth at the least situation.

If there’s not “boogie-man” hiding under every rock they ain’t happy.

Common Sense February 4, 2013 at 8:28 pm


Billy-Bob February 4, 2013 at 5:12 pm

Pretty sure we have more problems here in SC/State Government that need to be fixed first!!

CUvinny February 4, 2013 at 5:24 pm

I think the fat redneck revolutionaries have a better chance of succeeding then nullifiers. The supreme court has said several times the states do not have this power.

Not surprising every time it has been tried (and bitch slapped down) in the past it had to do with slavery or racism. Same crowd? (yes)

Tbird February 4, 2013 at 7:16 pm

Who dat?

Thunderbird February 4, 2013 at 7:18 pm

Dat be right!

DAVIS February 4, 2013 at 8:11 pm

The Supreme Court is nothing more than nine lawyers wearing black robes.

Mike February 5, 2013 at 2:17 am

So, it was racist when Northern states used Nullification, throughout the 1850s, to defy the Fugitive Slave Act? Is that your assertion? Do you believe that Northern states should have complied with Congress and the Supreme Court, and sent all of these fugitive blacks back into slavery in the South?

Cicero February 4, 2013 at 5:40 pm

So, let me get this straight. The “nullifier” dude agrees that fed action is the “supreme law of the land,” as the Supremacy Clause states, but that states can ignore it if they think it’s “unconstitutional.”

1) Ever hear if the courts? Laws get invalidated all the time. Groups like the Institute for Justice and (ever so rarely) the ACLU do a good job for private citizens. And, um, why even have states attorneys general if they’re not fighting federal overreach? The settled law in America is SCOTUS has the final say on what’s constitutional, not some asshat legislature in, of all places, South Carolina.

2) Everyone seems so goddamn sure of what the Constitution means. Is Obamacare bad? Of course. Does it violate the Constitution? Surely the “nullification now” crowd thinks so. Based on what? Years of careful legal research? Training in the law? Historical expertise about what men 250 years ago meant by “interstate commerce”? Do they know SO MUCH about the Constitution that they’d willingly upset hundreds of years if settled power-sharing between the feds and states?

Bottom line: learn how to play by the rules or go home.

Foghorn February 4, 2013 at 5:44 pm

But Cicero, the rules they are ‘a always changing…

? February 4, 2013 at 8:08 pm

Not only that Foghorn, the “rules” are enforced somewhat arbitrarily now and disproportionately on the powerless.

It’s all a crooked facade that needs to collapse in on itself…and will…eventually.

hack February 4, 2013 at 5:47 pm

Nullification is an act reserved for the State’s as sovereign entities. This is a State right that predates the unconstitutional power of judicial review implemented by the Marshall Court.

Swingline February 5, 2013 at 10:46 am

“Hack” is a very appropriate moniker.

Joe Wilson Is A Very Smart Man February 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm

A bunch of nuts.

gimme my check February 4, 2013 at 7:22 pm

You’re a true statist, comrade.

Anti Gubment Nut Job February 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm

Yep, time to take a boy to the bunker…

sweepin February 4, 2013 at 7:03 pm

Too soon, but witty.

Disagreement Ain't February 4, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Nice move, say you don’t like the way things are going with the current political climate and suddenly you are insane and ready to kill kids.

Fuck you sheepshead, dissent is healthy, best you figure that out sooner rather than later.

Anti Gubment Nut Job February 5, 2013 at 1:36 pm

“Nice move, say you don’t like the way things are going with the current political climate and suddenly you are insane and ready to kill kids.”

Jimmy Lee Dykes was and I was making a joke. Here’s more if you like:

“His friends and his neighbors stated that he did not trust the government, that he was a Vietnam vet, and that he had PTSD,” Byrd said, according to the center. “He was standoffish;, didn’t socialize or have any contact with anybody. He was a survivalist type.”

More Rush and Glenn!!!

9" February 4, 2013 at 7:22 pm

They’re giving shots in the Food Lion parking lot this weekend…

9" February 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm Reply
General Ben Butler February 4, 2013 at 7:23 pm

Lots of Bolsheviks on this blog.

General Ben Butler February 4, 2013 at 7:31 pm

The U.S. dollar has been devalued by 97% since 1913.

Don’t worry, we’ll print more funny money.

? February 4, 2013 at 8:30 pm

“Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams

Calhoun looks like a big time ass kicker as depicted in the statue.

Sarge February 4, 2013 at 9:00 pm

Let’s see. We’ve got Nikki Haley, Glenn McConnell, Hugh Leatherman, Lindsay Graham and Tim Scott running our state with Queen Jean Toal “judging” it all. The time just ain’t right folks for SC to strike out on it’s own.

Gimpy February 4, 2013 at 9:04 pm Reply
hhuuhh?? February 4, 2013 at 10:27 pm

We don’t need BRAC anymore.
Any state that nullifies anything should have the federal government’s military bases removed from them since we do not need our military in states with traitors.

DAVIS February 5, 2013 at 12:07 am

That would be fine with me. The occupational force would be gone.

WorkingTommyC February 5, 2013 at 8:51 am

How about this bill, S-92 to nullify the federal government coming to South Carolina and indefinitely imprisoning you because they magically declare that you’re a terrorist?

Yes! It could happen to YOU! And according to NDAA supporter and “lawyer Nazi” Lindsey Graham, “No lawyer for you!”

You don’t get a trial and you could waste your life away in a prison cell because some federal level politician decides you’re a threat and sends the military to arrest and detain you.

Does nullification taste a little better NOW?

Nullification is the opposite of tyranny and the opposite of secession. It’s a way for the states to STAY TOGETHER under a LEGAL government according to how each state judges what the proper, restrictive interpretation of the US Constitution to be.

If other states think that a state has gone too far in nullification, they’re free to kick that state out through Congressional action. Nullification is (according to Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and many others) a great and proper check on the excesses of a centralized tyranny.

Tom February 5, 2013 at 10:16 am

Thanks for the mention. I appreciate you covering this issue. To answer your question, yes, we hope our state nullifies many things. Here’s a short list:

– Legal Tender Laws
– NDAA Indefinite Detention
– The Patriot Act
– Gun Control
and so on.

Lastly, you are right about the strategy of the establishment Republicans. “King” Harrell has already gotten the narrative out there through his PACs and through local media outlets: Chumley’s Nullification is unconstitutional, and Dellaney’s bill isn’t.

The problem is, Dellaney’s bill doesn’t actually nullify anything. It only opts out of the state exchange, which Haley has already committed to doing, and which won’t change anything because the federal government will then come in with its exchange. The Dellaney bill doesn’t prevent any of the new taxes or mandates, and most importantly it still allows the medicaid expansion which will bankrupt this state.

But Harrell doesn’t care about that, because he will be laughing all the way to the bank. This new expansion will be a boon for the pharmaceutical business that he used his office to fastrack through the licensing process.

9" February 5, 2013 at 9:05 pm

what about free ass/dick as reparations to homos? you’re hot

Good Gravy February 5, 2013 at 9:48 pm

“any act that is unconstitutional or that oversteps the bounds placed on the federal government by Article 1, Section 8.”

I must’a missed something, I though constitutionality was determinted by the courts in our country. Apparently it is up to the individual state, city, county, household, individual? Everyman an island. I love it, the republic should last a long time like that….

ceilidh10 February 6, 2013 at 11:51 am

Those who don’t study the past are condemned to repeat it, according to George Santayana.

WorkingTommyC February 6, 2013 at 12:44 pm

Good Gravy,

No one put the courts in charge, they took that role for themselves. They have no exclusive domain in (mis)interpreting the Constitution.

The states created the contract which put the federal government into existence. It wasn’t the other way around. The Constitution is a self-limiting document. It’s boundaries are clear for the most part. The 9th and 10th Amendments implicitly give the states a say in interpretation and, strangely enough (-not!) the federal courts have left those two amendments out of the discussion so far.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written by two of the founding fathers and eloquently put forth the doctrine of nullifcation (a word coined by Thomas Jefferson) as a check on the powers of the central government.

The idea that the US Supreme Court is the final say in interpreting the Constitution is very undemocratic and not fitting with the idea of a federal republic. Five tyrants bullying us with their idiotic opinions are no better than one.

Legislation belongs to the legislature and the executive, legislative, judicial branches of the federal government and especially the states, being the originators of and signatories to the US Constitution, all have a say in interpreting the US Constitution. In fact, the sheriffs of individual counties have a say as well if they are faced with the federal government coming into their territory. The final say on interpreting the Constitution lies with the states willing to nullify what they believe to be unconstitutional.

Vanilla Guerilla February 6, 2013 at 5:32 pm

How many time does the Supreme court have to say that the federal government’s drug prohibition is constitutional before those rebellious Californicators, real Washingtonians, and Colorodans get the message?? They should just send in black hawks, tanks, and drones to execute all those pot dispensary owners and pot smokers. That shit is unconstitutional and a bunch of cross dressers in black dresses already made that clear! Who the hell do they think they are in letting all those degenerates put things into their body not approved by the FDA and us congress??

Actually, thank the hemp Gods that even States like Colorado, Washington, California, and more recognize nullification as a valid concept and go so far as to use it to help curtail at least a small part of the senseless drug war and drug prohibition. Nullification works and is legit. It’s even being used by liberals!

I guess when it’s a cause championed (at least in part) by liberals for which nullification is used, it’s acceptable. It’s just when those people who don’t worship the state want to use it does it become the tool of bunker builders, paranoids, and tin foil hat wearers.

Cranial-rectal inversion is a rampant problem.

Frank March 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm

Sorry SC. The more you secede, the more you fail.

Frank March 1, 2013 at 7:51 pm

Sorry SC. The more you secede, the more you fail.


Leave a Comment