The states simply do NOT have to cooperate with the enforcement of unconstitutional federal acts concerning the right to keep and bear arms. This strategy has even been affirmed by the courts under what is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. JAMES MADISON’S ADVICE From Federalist #46: “Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” Let’s break down Madison’s prescription. “Should an unwarrantable measure…” What does Madison mean by “unwarrantable?” The word literally means “unjustifiable.” Madison was clearly talking about federal acts with no constitutional justification. In other words, unconstitutional. But notice something interesting, Madison implies that state governments can even resist a “warrantable” or justifiable federal act. So what does Madison suggest states do when the feds overstep their authority? Oppose it! “…the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand.” Madison anticipated the possibility of federal usurpation and clearly believed the states would serve as a check on federal power. He believed the states should and would resist unconstitutional acts. So, what are the “means of opposition?” 1. Disquietude of the people – This would include protests and petitions generated at the grassroots level. Madison expected the people would throw a fit when the feds usurped power – even using the word “repugnance” to describe their displeasure. That’s a pretty strong word. And inevitably, disquietude leads to action – first at the local level, then bubbling up to the state level. That leads to the next step. 2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union - Noncompliance. Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws. Noncompliance works and it should be happening at both the state and local level. 3, The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State - Here Madison envisions Governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next step – legislative action. Prior to passage of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Gov. Garrard delivered a powerful message condemning the Alien and Sedition Acts and calling on legislative action. 4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions -What exactly does Madison mean by “legislative devices?” He doesn’t make that clear. But we know they include resolutions, because he and Thomas Jefferson penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in response to the draconian and unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Together, these Principles of ’98 formalize the doctrine of nullification. But do legislative devices stop at non-binding resolutions? Clearly not, because Madison said these measures would create “difficulties” and “impediments.” 18th-century dictionaries list “obstruction” as a synonym for impediment. In other words, these legislative devices could serve to block the operation of unconstitutional power. This infers actions including formal, binding prohibitions of state or local cooperation, and outright interposition: “to intervene or place an agency between two positions.” So what do we have today? Do we not have a federal government that has long since usurped its powers enumerated to it by the US Constitution and disobeyed its further restrictions outlined in the Bill of Rights? The clear course we have to take to once again have a resemblance of federalism and a constitutional republic is undoubtedly the non-cooperation/anti-commandeering doctrine of any and all federal gun restrictions, it is the rightful remedy.
Posted on: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:47:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015