Could nullification be the answer to an overreaching federal government?

The concept of nullification is being endorsed by many in response to recent federal laws, executive orders and Supreme Court decisions. Though the legal basis has been rejected by the Supreme Court in the past, many are again putting forth the argument that states freely formed the Union and that states can (and even should) interpose and nullify federal laws and actions which exceed the powers granted to the government in the U.S. Constitution.

Based on the 10th Amendment -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people" -- it is argued that states have the right and duty to nullify federal laws and regulations which fall outside of powers and duties assigned to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. Following the thinking of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, they would allow the states who ratified and accepted the Constitution the right to interpret it and to determine when the federal government has exceeded its assigned role. And some go so far as to say that it is the duty of states to nullify federal laws falling outside of its constitutionally-assigned role.

Considering past Supreme Court decisions against the nullification views, it is doubtful the Supreme Court would ever acknowledge that states have the power to nullify federal laws deemed outside the Constitutional provisions of the federal government, making attempts at nullification difficult for states. But, a different form of nullification is being practiced in a number of states.

One example is the state of Colorado and its laws permitting recreational use of marijuana. While I have no interest in using or abusing the plant, I find the state's actions interesting because it adopted a law contrary to the laws of the federal government and does not enforce the federal law which prohibits people from possessing or using marijuana. The state did not legally challenge the constitutionality of the federal law but passed its own law and chose to ignore the federal laws.

This type of nullification is different than the more strict form of nullification advocated by Jefferson and Adams in that the state hasn't rejected or nullified federal law in the strict sense; it just chose to ignore it and the federal government has made little or no effort to enforce its law in Colorado.

Other states have adopted laws allowing the manufacture and sale of firearms without federal restrictions or background checks as long as they are intrastate rather than interstate. The state laws do not overturn federal law but they ignore it and adopt other laws, leaving it entirely up to the feds to enforce federal law with state and local officers only enforcing state and local laws. The theory is that the federal government does not have the resources to enforce its own laws and that, with state protections, federal law will in effect be nullified.

Some law enforcement officials have also gone on public record stating they will not enforce any federal law which violates rights protected in the Bill of Rights and by state constitutions or state and local laws, and some have even gone so far as to say they will arrest federal authorities attempting to enforce such federal laws within their jurisdictions -- and perhaps we need more such brave souls to reign in an out-of-control federal bureaucracy!

I've written before and will say it again, it's high time state governors and legislatures stand up to federal authority when it contradicts absolute moral values. I would love to have heard Governor Asa Hutchinson say that Arkansas still holds to a Biblical and traditional view of marriage and will not acknowledge same-sex marriages, bigamy, polygamy or any other perversion of traditional marriage, no matter what the Supreme Court tries to make legal with its fiat powers. And even more so, I would love to see state and local law enforcement officers and prosecuting attorneys arrest and charge with murder those who perform abortions or go to abortion clinics to abort their unborn children.

Yes, it's true that the Supreme Court has ruled and made legal what God's law and often state law have prohibited, but it's time that state officials stand for what is right rather than what is politically expedient and tell the federal government, "Not here in Arkansas!"

This, of course, brings me to those times when a Christian must nullify the laws of man. While Bible-believing Christians acknowledge the God-given role of governments and rulers, submit, honor and pay taxes, there is a time when Christians have to say no to the laws of the land. That principle is perhaps best summarized in the statement of the apostle Peter when the rulers of his day commanded the apostles to no longer speak in the name of Jesus. Peter's and the other apostles' response? "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)!

Yes, there comes a time, when government demands what God forbids or forbids what God demands, that we must obey God rather than men even if we must suffer the consequences. If government tells us we cannot speak against the murdering of the unborn, or call sin same-sex marriage and all other perversions of God's purpose and design for marriage and family, we must obey God rather than men. And when the government demands we support or participate in the sins it has made legal and protected with the law of the land, we must set aside the law of the land and obey God rather than men!

Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.

Editorial on 07/15/2015