Sir, I think you don't understand the whole philosophy behind Nullification. When you consider that we have natural rights and that we are sovereign individuals, you will ultimately come to the conclusion that nullification is a completely legitimate exercise of rights that can't be taken away from us.
If our rights are inalienable, how could one then simply say that a "right" doesn't exist because the Supreme Court said so? How could we have a written Constitution that is supposed to be the law of the land, but then expect that only a small group of lawyers in black robes are the only ones that can interpret it? If that happened to be the case, then our rights couldn't be thought of as inalienable and the powers of the government would be whatever the Supreme Court deemed them to be.. no matter what the actual Constitution said.
Does it make sense to allow the Federal Gov't to be the sole arbiter of what its powers are? Of course not. Then who is going to let it know when it's crossing the line? The states and the people within them, both of which are sovereign.
Please learn more on the topic of nullification before writing something so erroneous. Thomas E. Woods, Jr's book, Nullification, would be a great start.
Republican politicians are doing what they were hired to do. People could have voted against them. Maybe they did, but perhaps there were too few to defeat them. Regardless, they need an easier way to participate between elections, and a way hold politicians accountable for implementing solutions that benefit all of us. www.at10us.com
In other words, "It's too hard to do my job, so I'm not gonna do it anymore and you can't make me. :-P What? You're not going to try to make me? Ha! Chumps."
Pages