Keeping The Government(s) Within Constitutional Bounds Is Not Only The Right, But The Duty, Of The People

It's not Trump's fault, nor is it McCarthy's, Schumer's, nor Pelosi's, or any of those other foxy characters, it's up to the people to enforce constitutional governance, and constitutional federalism.

Some good words from the people at the Tenth Amendment Foundation:

“Clearly, voting the bums out isn’t a good strategy when it comes to stopping unconstitutional federal power grabs and reducing the power of the monster state.

Thomas Jefferson told us this was the case in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Of course, there is a time and place for everything. Jefferson said “vote the bums out” was the right approach for dealing with bad policy or a bad administration of the constitutionally delegated powers.

“In cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy.

But when the federal government goes beyond the limits of the Constitution, Jefferson called for more aggressive measures, writing “nullification is the rightful remedy.”

“But where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” [emphasis added] …

Jefferson was far from alone in warning that the people would have to be willing to take action to stop federal usurpation of power.

James Iredell, who later became one of the first Supreme Court justices, put it this way in the North Carolina ratifying convention:

“Abuse may happen in any government. The only resource against usurpation is the inherent right of the people to prevent its exercise. This is the case in all free governments in the world. The people will resist if the government usurp powers not delegated to it.” [Emphasis added]

Notice that Iredell called resistance the “only resource” against an exercise of undelegated powers. He didn’t consider it a mere good idea, or something to be tried after everything else fails. Instead, he expected that the people would resist if the general government tried to exercise unwarranted powers.

That was the same message Jefferson gave us when he wrote that nullification is “the” rightful remedy, and not just one option among many.

In fact, the idea that the people of the several states should ignore, resist or block unwarranted federal actions predates the Constitution.

During the ratification debates, opponents of the Constitution warned that the new general government would easily abuse its delegated powers and usurp those not delegated. But numerous supporters of the Constitution argued that there was nothing to worry about because the states would be under no obligation to submit to unconstitutional acts.

Another North Carolinian, Archibald Maclaine, argued that states should not only disregard unconstitutional acts; they should “punish” Congress if it overstepped its bounds.

"If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’” [Emphasis added]

Even Alexander Hamilton got on board. In Federalist No. 33, he wrote that if Congress passed laws that were not “PURSUANT to its constitutional powers,” that such acts “will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” [emphasis added]

During the Massachusetts ratifying convention, Theophilus Parsons argued that there is a check on federal power “founded in the nature of the Union, superior to all the parchment checks that can be invented, -- the 13 state legislatures.” He said they have the means, as well as the inclination to successfully oppose federal usurpation. “Under these circumstances, none but madmen would attempt a usurpation.”

Writing as PUBLIUS in Federalist No. 46, James Madison made the same case, noting that “legislative devices” and a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” when used by multiple states “would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

In other words, if multiple states refused to participate in the enforcement or implementation of a federal act, it would be virtually impossible for the general government to carry it out.

And this was in a time where the proposed federal government would be so small in comparison to the monster state of today that it would be totally unrecognizable.

When you consider what these and other supporters of the Constitution said, it becomes clear the document was ratified on the promise that the people and the states could hold the federal government in check through the power of resistance and nullification.

As the founders taught us - when the federal government refuses to stay within the bounds of the Constitution - which happens 24/7/365 today - it's up to the states and the people to keep them in check.”

https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/