A Nullification That Failed

A Nullification That Failed

Thomas Allen

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the Southern States failed in their attempt to nullify federal acts that forced desegregation and integration, following the recommendations of Madison, which the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) endorses. Not only did the Southern States dislike these acts,  but most of them were unconstitutional. 

In Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the US Supreme Court based its desegregation ruling primarily on personal biases, sociology, and politics, with the US Constitution playing only an insignificant role. When Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not intend for it to apply to schools. Shortly after its ratification, Congress established a racially segregated school system for the District of Columbia.

According to TAC, Madison identified four appropriate methods that a State and “we the people” of that State could use to oppose and nullify an unconstitutional federal act or even a disliked federal act. A discussion of these four follows.

1. Popular protest by the people. “We the people” of a State may vigorously and vociferously protest against an unconstitutional or even disliked federal act. Southerners protested resolutely and vehemently against forced federal integration acts, but the federal government successfully suppressed their protest. Their protest did nothing more than bring more federal oppression and less liberty.

2. Refuse to cooperate with the federal government. Wholeheartedly, the Southern States not only refused to cooperate with the federal government, but they also interfered with its enforcement of federal integration acts. With great fervor, they opposed federal integration acts. Their disobedience and lack of cooperation did nothing except invigorate the federal government’s resolve to become more tyrannical and oppressive.

3. Formal protest by the governor. Few governors have ever protested unconstitutional acts of the federal government as did Governor Faubus of Arkansas and Governor Wallace of Alabama. All their protest did was cause the federal government to use military force against Arkansas and Alabama to quell their protest. Other governors protested, but to no avail. Their protest led to more subjection and despotism.

4. Legislative action. Legislative action includes resolutions formally protesting the federal government’s usurpation and unconstitutional acts. Legislatures may forbid agents of the State and its local governments from cooperating with the federal government in enforcing the federal act. It may even include interfering to prevent the federal government from enforcing an unconstitutional federal act. However, legislative action does not extend to preventing federal agents from enforcing unconstitutional federal acts with imprisonment or fines. State legislatures of the Southern States took actions to thwart the enforcement of federal integration acts, short of jailing federal agents. Again, the results were the same: more oppression, tyranny, and loss of liberty.

Madison believed that if adjoining States protested against a federal act and sought to nullify it with the aforementioned actions, their actions would cause the federal act to become void. Madison was wrong. The Southern States were unified in their protest of the federal government’s integration acts. Yet, their unity did nothing to stop the federal government’s tyranny.

The Southern States did not resort to jailing federal agents attempting to enforce school integration. However, this action would have also failed because the philosophy of "might makes right" dominated the country. (With the possible exceptions of the Cleveland, Harding, and Coolidge administrations, this philosophy has been the dominant governing principle of the federal government since 1861 — even superseding the Constitution.) Since the federal government used military force against Arkansas and Alabama in response to much milder forms of nullification, it would have used even greater force against a State that jailed its agents. (If a State had nullified these federal acts following Calhoun’s philosophy instead of Madison’s, these acts would not have applied in the nullifying States. Consequently, the federal government could not have lawfully used the military to enforce them because they did not exist in the nullifying States. However, since the federal government ceased following the Constitution in 1861, it would have used troops anyway.)

As a result of the Southern States’ failure to nullify the federal government’s integration acts, America’s education has deteriorated significantly. Worse, their defeat gave birth to racial quotas, political correctness, diversity-equity-inclusion, wokeism, and ultimately the death of the White race, Christianity, and Western Civilization. Such has been the goal of the Puritan Yankees since the mid-nineteenth century. Only the South stood in the way of this goal; that is why Lincoln and the Republicans had to destroy the South.

Madison may have wept over the utter defeat of the Southern States’ failure to nullify these unconstitutional federal acts. However, based on inferences from its writings, TAC has not.

However, the Southern States’ attempted nullification did lead to two of the three wars that the United States have won since World War II: Eisenhower’s war against Arkansas, Kennedy’s war against Alabama, and Reagan’s war against Grenada. Defeating these three world superpowers is the height of US military prowess in the post-World War II era.

Since Lincoln’s War, States have been highly successful at nullifying federal acts against vice, e.g., prohibition, which the Constitution authorized the federal government to prohibit the manufacturing, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors, and marijuana, which the federal government has no constitutional authority to outlaw or regulate. However, the nullification of most unconstitutional federal acts has been highly unsuccessful. The only nullifying acts that States are allowed are unenforceable protests and resolutions, and not participating with the federal government in enforcing federal laws (even this one seems to be fading under Trump).

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Trump, Israel, and Iran

Thomas Allen

The following are some observations on the Israel-Iran War and Trump’s response. Also, some comments on Christian Zionists are presented.

1 – Hal Turner, a radio commentator, gives a good analogy of the Israel-United States-Middle East relationship. Israel is a little bully. Because it does not like the kid next door, it punches the kid in the nose. In response, the kid hits Israel back. Then Israel runs to its big brother, crying, “He hit me! He hit me!” As a result of Israel’s crying, its subservient, compliant big brother, the United States, beats up the kid next door.

How much of the terrorism associated with Middle Eastern Muslim countries is merely a reaction to Israel bullying its neighbors and the US protecting the bully and meddling in the affairs of these countries, even to the extent of regime change, as with Iraq, Syria, and Libya?

2 – With his war against Iran, Trump has betrayed a large number of his MAGA base. Because Trump promised to end the Ukraine-Russia War and the Israel-Gaza War, many people voted for him. Not only has he failed to end those wars, but he has also started another one — or at least allied himself with Israel after Israel started another one.

One group of the MAGA base supports Trump in his war against Iran. They are mostly Christian Zionists. They want a global nuclear war because they believe such a war is necessary for Christ’s return. Since most Christian Zionists are premillennialists who believe in the pretribulation rapture, they believe that they will not have to endure the global nuclear war. They believe that they will enjoy the holocaust from a safe distance. Although this war will cause a massive slaughter of “God’s Chosen People,” whom most of the Christian Zionists worship, they look forward to this holocaust of the Jews. So much for their Christian compassion.

3– Trump ran as an antiestablishment candidate. Most of his MAGA base believed him and voted for him because they thought that he was an enemy of the establishment: neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, progressives, liberals, and most federal bureaucrats and politicians. Now, he has betrayed them. He appears to have sold out to the establishment, the military-security-industrial complex, and neoconservatives (many of whom are Jews, “God’s Chosen People,” and all of whom are Zionists). They wanted Trump to attack Iran for Israel, and he delivered. Thus, Trump again betrays his MAGA base, except for the Christian Zionists.

Christian Zionists believe that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of the United States is to serve and protect Israel and “God’s Chosen People.” To be sacrificed on the altar of Zionism is the United States' raison d'être. Such a sacrifice is the greatest of all honors. America has no higher purpose.

4– Trump seems to have become a neoconservative, who are Zionist frontmen, and an establishment conservative, who take care of the military-security-industrial complex. (Turning to the Democrats offers no escape. Not only are most Democrat leaders Zionists and protect the military-security-industrial complex, but they are also much more fascistic, promote queerdom, seek to destroy America with nonwhite aliens, and want to genocide the White race.)

5– Occasionally, Trump gives the illusion that he is not Israel’s lapdog by vigorously objecting to Israel’s actions. He has done so recently when Israel and Iran temporarily ignored his order for a ceasefire. (Does Trump really believe that he can give Israel orders? If so, he does not understand the world’s power structure: “God’s Chosen People” are in charge.) However, he never follows through with any sanctions on Israel. Is he like all Presidents since Kennedy and trembles in fear before Israel? If any US president becomes unruly, Israel will beat them into submission as it did with Kennedy.

(Apparently, such punishment was in President Johnson’s mind when he let Israel get away with trying to sink the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War. Instead of penalizing Israel for its sneak attack on the USS Liberty, he threatened the surviving crew with severe penalties if they mentioned the attack.)

6– Did Trump call for a ceasefire at the behest of Israel? Israel had expended most of its antimissile missiles and needed to replenish its stock and repair its missile defense system. It needed a ceasefire to restock its antimissiles and rebuild its missile defenses and armed forces. After that, it plans to continue its war with Iran. In the past, it has used ceasefires to rebuild its armed forces to continue fighting.

Furthermore, Iran had severely damaged Israeli infrastructure. Israel needed Trump to stop the war to save Israel from having to sue for peace before Iran destroyed it. Trump seems to be delivering. Will he use the ceasefire to bring about a peace that forces Israel to abandon its dream of Greater Israel? Or will he use it to give Israel time to repair its damage and rebuild its armed forces so that it can continue its quest for Greater Israel?

Some pro-Israel-anti-Iran folks believe that Iran agreed to the ceasefire so that it could rebuild its defenses and military. After which, it plans to attack Israel. They seem to discount Israel being the aggressor who initiated the war with its sneak attack on Iran. Also, they seem to discount the damage that Iran has inflicted on Israel, which seems greater than what Israel has inflicted on it.

7– Even if Trump wants to free himself from being an Israeli lackey, he may find such an effort impossible. He has surrounded himself with Zionists, many of whom are fervent Christian Zionists. They believe that the purpose of America and Christians is to sacrifice themselves for Israel and “God’s Chosen People,” the Jews.

8– Trump says that he does not want regime change in Iran because the change would lead to chaos. At least, he has learned one important lesson from Bush’s overthrow of Iraq; Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Afghanistan; Obama’s overthrow of Libya; and Obama, Trump, and Biden’s overthrow of Syria.

Nevertheless, Israel wants an Iranian regime change. It wants a compliant government that it can control — like the governments of the United States, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Will Trump prevail, or will Israel prevail?

9– Even if Trump successfully destroyed Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, he has only eliminated Israel’s ostensible excuse for war against Iran. What Trump is overlooking is that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is just an excuse that Israel is using for its war. Israel wants to subordinate Iran to its will, and the nuclear weapons program is just an excuse for the war to achieve that goal.

If Trump has been successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israel will find another reason for its war against Iran. A possible reason is that Trump failed to destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This excuse is one that the Zionist and Jewish-controlled media are currently promoting. Another is that Israel has to continue the war to prevent Iran from rebuilding its nuclear weapons program. Or Israel could come up with an excuse that is not related to nuclear weapons. Israel is not yet through with Iran.

As the old saying goes, “Israel has played Trump like a two-bit fiddle.” Perhaps Trump is realizing that Israel has used him, and that is why he is angry. Even if the United States destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Israel will find another excuse for war against Iran.

10– The reason that no signs of radiation have been detected at the three sites that Trump bombed is that they were empty — thus, the explanation that Iran had removed any uranium stored there before the bombing. Also, according to Scott Ritter, plans for these bombings were initiated during the Biden administration. Since any nuclear material at these sites had been removed long before the bombing, what was the purpose of the bombing? The United States and Israel must have known that they were empty. (If not, their intelligence agencies are the worst in the world and should be abolished.) Thus, the purpose of the bombing was for a political theatrical show; consequently, Trump risked American lives for a show. (See “Donald Trump Has Joined Joe Biden In The Ranks Of War Criminals” by Chuck Baldwin.)

11– Since Israel and Iran have an uncontrollable urge to fight each other, perhaps Trump should let them. If he does, he should take the divine approach of showing no partiality. Therefore, he would cease all support of Israel and remove all sanctions on Iran.

Alternatively, Netanyahu and Ali Khamenei fight each other in a no-rules bare-knuckles boxing match. The one who beats the other to death wins. As a result, the loser pays the victor a token prize of a thousand ounces of gold. Then, the people of both countries return to living their lives without molestation or threat of war from the other country. (It would also be helpful if warmongering propaganda were forbidden.) Using this approach saves many lives and prevents much destruction of bodies and property. Moreover, the two principal warmongers put their lives on the line instead of sending others to die for their vanity.

12– Trump carrying the United States to war for Israel again shows the American electorate that elections for federal offices mean nothing, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As long as the Establishment controls the Democratic and Republican parties, America can never be made great again.

It matters not whom Americans elect as President, be he a Democrat or a Republican, the Prime Minister of Israel is always the de facto President of the United States. Consequently, the foreign policy of the United States remains the same, especially in the Middle East and concerning Israel.

13– Democrats who criticize Trump for bombing Iran are hypocrites. When Obama bombed Libya to initiate regime change without notifying Congress, they did not object because he failed to notify them before the bombing. Their objection to Trump’s bombing is based on politics and not principle.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.