The Rightful Remedy

There are a number of fallacies concerning States’ Rights.  So much of how one views them depends almost entirely on how one views the makeup of the union.   Those with the nationalist viewpoint see states’ rights as some act of usurpation; a rogue province going against the larger government.  But, those who know their history and have taken the time to actually study the formation and construction of the union understand that nullification is simply a normal exercise of a state’s power and exertion of its sovereignty.  Below are several educational items giving the history of nullification and how two of our founders, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, were the creators of the state’s defense mechanism; drawing from what was discussed from their participation in the ratification convention of the U.S. Constitution.

The States Rights Tradition Nobody Knows

States’ Rights has been a term used by many. However, it is a misnomer because states don’t actually have rights in our political system, only individuals have rights. But, the term has been used to express the individuals within their states exercising their sovereignty through their instrument; their state. But, if the people are sovereign in their own capacity and the state is their instrument to exercise this sovereignty, what happens when the federal government encroaches on a state? Aren’t they also encroaching on those individuals? Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains how this exercise of state sovereignty has been used in the past to push back the encroachment of the federal government on the individual states. Available for download as Mp3.

The States' Rights Tradition Nobody Knows


States’ Rights in Theory and Practice

The compact theory holds that self-governing sovereign states have rights to protect themselves, whereas the nationalist theory holds that nullification or secession would be insubordination. Nationalists view states as a single whole with no boundaries and a single aggregated people.

The First Continental Congress was an advisory body only creating resolutions, not laws. In 1775 they met again and continued to do so until 1781. They had no powers of coercion. A multiplicity of colonies sent delegates occasionally. Nothing done by this Congress is inconsistent with the idea of separate and sovereign states. “We the people” was originally “We the states”.

Available for download as Mp3.

States' Rights in Theory and Practice


Thomas Jefferson And The Principles of 98

(The History of State Nullification)

The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says the Constitution and laws in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. This means that the Constitution and constitutional laws shall be the supreme law of the land. But, what if the federal government reaches for powers OUTSIDE of the constitution? Powers that the framers NEVER intended for them to have? What is to be the nation’s response? Well, Thomas Jefferson had this exact scenario happen while he was vice president of the United States; a mere 11 years after the Constitution was officially signed. Thomas Woods, Jr. tells the history of this event and how it laid the framework for how a government that doesn’t recognize the limits placed on it by it’s own law (the Constitution) is to be kept in check. Available for download as Mp3.

Thomas Jefferson and the Principles of '98


The audio above is from lectures given by award winning author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Dr. Woods holds his master’s, M.Phil., and Ph.D. in history from Columbia University and bachelor’s from Harvard. he’s written numerous books, including The Church Confronts Modernity (Columbia University Press) and two New York Times bestsellers — Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. His two latest books are Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse and Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. His full biography can be found at

Nullification: The Rightful Remedy

One of the biggest clashes that many people have is not left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican. It is the Nationalist vs. The Compact View of the Union. Thought many may not be familiar with the terms, many have already planted their flag in one of these camps when viewing America.

The Nationalist’s say that the Federal Government is supreme and the States have very little say in the American Political Arena. The Compact Theorists argue that not only do the states have a say, they are entitled to their sovereignty when dealing with issues concerning things within their domain and concerning their citizens. This fight has been raging since before the ink was even dry on the Constitution. So, what does history say? The following video gives analysis of the Nationalist vs. the Compact view of our Nation in an historical context.