Convention vs Nullification

By Joshua Miller

It takes a massive coordinated effort to amend the constitution and there's no guarantee of a good outcome. We don't follow the Bill of Rights so it's only a matter of time before new amendments are watered down.

The real question is how to limit government. The constitution is just a piece of paper. We don't need to change it. We need to learn how to follow it.

I'm a huge proponent of nullification. It does not require 3/4ths of the states plus congress to agree. We just need a few states to refuse to comply with Obamacare, other states to protect the 2nd Amendment, to stand up to the EPA, refuse to implement Common Core, etc.

Pick an issue, any issue. If a tenth amendment argument can be made then learn to make it. The bottom line is that the Feds depend on the states.

The goal is to pass laws in cities, counties, and states which make it illegal for local and state officials to 1) enforce unconstitutional federal "laws," and 2) make it illegal for local and state officials to assist the Feds.

The states never gave up their sovereignty. In fact, "state sovereignty," is a reflection of the sovereignty of the people. What I am for is a shift in focus where Americans assert their political sovereignty via localities and state governments.

Focusing on amending the constitution totally misses the real solutions. We need to rediscover self government, personal responsibility, the importance of family, the importance of community, etc.

If we stand for liberty we don't need to beg the federal government for permission. The people of the states created the federal government. The people of the states have the right to nullify unconstitutional federal "laws."

Learn More