Richard Larsen's latest Idaho State Journal column is posted online at http://richardlarsen.blogtownhall.com/as well as the ISJ weblog at  http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/?p=7498.

Following is an excerpt:

For some, the mere utterance of the word “nullification” conjures up images of voodoo incantations to exorcize evil spirits, or of “Gomers running around the block yelling ‘Citizen’s arrest.’” For some inexplicable reason, such images were never invoked when California, and 13 other states, through nullification, established their own marijuana laws to override federal laws, or when 25 states, through nullification, invalidated the Real ID Act just three years ago. Apparently the concept of nullification is just fine when it suits their ideological purposes, but heaven forbid when it doesn’t!

There are now 27 states, including Idaho, challenging Obamacare, 12 of which are pursuing the nullification route. Nullification is a doctrine that states can invalidate federal laws deemed unconstitutional.

There are several components to nullification that are critical to understand. The first is to understand the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. Article VI Clause 2 asserts that treaties and laws established by congress are the “Supreme Law of the Land.” The pertinent portion of the clause reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” There is a critical qualifier in that statement, “in pursuance thereof.” This qualifier makes clear that such laws passed by Congress are only the supreme law of the land if they are in accordance with the enumerated powers granted Congress by the Constitution. In other words, federal law is supreme over conflicting state statutes only insofar as congressional actions are constitutional…

To allow the federal government complete autonomy in implementation of any legislation according to their whims, regardless of constitutional authority, is to acquiesce to unmitigated tyranny. Federal mandates must be kept in check by the states, per their constitutional authority, and the “consent of the governed,” us!

 

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board.  He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.