Rhode Island’s Nullification

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Thomas Allen

Recently, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating near polling places in Rhode Island. Naturally, many people strongly object to this Rhode Island law. Some even urge the arrest of the legislators who voted for the law, the governor who signed the bill into law, and any State and local official who attempts to enforce it.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island enacted this law not because it thought ICE was acting unconstitutionally in enforcing the immigration laws. Likely, it enacted the law as a protest against President Trump. Nevertheless, regardless of its motivation, does Rhode Island have the right to nullify a federal law and its enforcement?  Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country, the answer is “yes.” (Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right to the States, and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves it for the States. Also, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees this right.) However, under the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country, the current Constitution, the answer is “no.” (States  have only those rights that the federal government condescends to allow them.)

Whether a State can nullify a federal law within that State depends on whether a State is sovereign. If a State is sovereign, it has the right to decide for itself whether its agent (the federal government) is complying with the compact (the US Constitution) of which it is a member. Consequently, Rhode Island has the right to determine the constitutional limits of the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If a State finds that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, it not only has the right, but also the duty, to nullify or otherwise intervene to prevent such unconstitutional acts or actions. At least this is true if sovereignty resides in “we the people” of each State independently of all other States, as Jefferson and nearly all the other founding fathers claimed. However, if, like Lincoln, the opponents of Rhode Island’s interposition believe that a State does not have this right, then the States are not sovereign, and sovereignty resides in the oligarchs who control the federal government. Like Lincoln, they seem to believe that States have only those rights that the federal government condescends to grant them. (The Lincoln Constitution reduces the States to administrative districts of the federal government. [Lincoln’s War was not a war between the States; it was a war  against the States.])

(Vermont nullified a federal law that was clearly constitutional merely because it disliked the law. Not only did it nullify the law, but it also authorized the arrest and jailing of any federal agent trying to enforce it. [See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.] However, Vermont was acting under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and not the Constitution of Lincoln [For the differences between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.])

Opponents of nullification argue that federal courts should resolve the issues between a State and the federal government. However, this is an extremely poor solution. Being part of the federal government, federal courts are not impartial arbitrators between the States (the creator) and the federal government (the creation of the States). (See “Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution” by Thomas Allen.)

If a State lacks the right to nullify a federal law, it is not sovereign. If it is not sovereign, it does not have a republican form of government, although it may have a governmental structure that appears to be republican. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican form of government.

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that each State has a republican form of government. Thus, if a State lacks sovereignty, the Constitution is being violated. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” and “Republican Form of Government” by Thomas Allen.)

Would the people who oppose Rhode Island enacting a law that interferes with the enforcement of the federal immigration law also oppose a State interfering with the enforcement of a federal law that they despise and urge the arrest of State officials for enacting and enforcing such a law? They would if they are consistent and believe, as Lincoln did, that the United States is a consolidated national empire instead of a federation of sovereign nations, as nearly all, if not all, of the Founding Fathers thought. (See “False States’ Rights” by Thomas Allen.)

Personally, I disagree with Rhode Island on this immigration issue and believe that federal agents have the right to apprehend illegal immigrants at polling places. However, that is an issue for “we the people” of Rhode Island, as represented by their legislature in this instance, to decide, and not for me, the federal government, or anyone else to decide.

(For more about States' rights, nullification, and the Constitution, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/political.html.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Muslims and Jews

Muslims and Jews

Thomas Allen

The host of a radio program to which I listen harshly condemns Islam as a vile, evil, satanic religion and Muslims as vile, evil people. Also, he condemns woke Protestantism, which, unfortunately, includes most of today’s mainline denominations. However, I do not recall him ever condemning woke Judaism, although evidence suggests that Jews are behind much of the apostate corruption of Christianity. What follows are emails that I sent him with some modifications and additions.

If I understand him correctly, he says that the Jews did not kill Jesus. If so, he is calling Paul a liar (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15). Here, Paul expressly states that the Jews killed Jesus. Also, Peter says that the Jews killed Jesus: Acts 2:36, Acts 4:10, and Acts 5:30.  In his reply, he states that the Jews did not do the deed (his reply is given below). They may not have been the ones who physically hung Jesus on the cross, but they terrorized and manipulated the Romans into doing the deed for them. Regardless, both Paul and Peter give the Jews the credit for killing Jesus rather than the Romans. (See “Who Killed Jesus” by Thomas Allen.)

Islam may be as evil as the host describes it: more evil than sin. The nefarious acts of Muslims in Europe support his claim. (However, since most of these aliens are nonwhites, could their motivation be race and not religion?) Even more iniquitous are the acts of the European leaders, who are surely disciples of Lucifer. They let, even encourage, Muslim males of military age to enter their countries in vast numbers. Not only do they allow these Muslims to destroy European cultures, rape European women, and commit other hideous crimes, but they also protect them while they do these despicable acts, and they also arrest those who object to what these Muslims are doing.

Nevertheless, when I hear the host’s description of Muslims, I think of Jews. Muslims may be liars, connivers, thieves, killers, destroyers, etc. So are Jews — even more so. (This misbehavior has caused many countries to expel Jews throughout history; they did not expel them because of their religion.) The difference between the two is that, because of their small numbers, Jews manipulate others, like Americans, to do their killing and conquering.

Moreover, which Jews are we talking about? (1) The descendants of the Old Testament Israelites, especially Judah, i.e., Jews with all of their chromosomes coming from the Old Testament Israelites, of whom few, if any, exist today. (2) The people of Persia who became Jews for fear of the Jews at the time of Esther. (3) The Edomites or Idumaeans, who accounted for a large percentage of the Jews in Judea and surrounding areas during the time of Jesus. (4) The Ashkenazim, who originated in Europe (or in the Khazar Khaganate, as some claim) and who account for most of the Jews today. (5) The Sephardic Jews of the Iberian Peninsula. (6) The Mizrahi Jews of the Middle East and North Africa, who are a mixed breed of people. (7) The Jews of the Khazar Khaganate. If the Israelites are God’s chosen people, only the first group qualifies. The others are either amalgamated mongrels or not descendants of the Israelites. (There are people who call themselves Jews but are not [Revelation 2:9 and 3:9].)

Furthermore, if Islam is a satanic religion, so is Judaism. If it were not, why would Jesus call the Pharisees children of the devil: John 8:44? Today's Judaism is a direct descendant of Pharisaic Judaism.

Anyway, one’s religious book (the Koran) teaches that Jesus is a great prophet. The other’s religious book (the Talmud) teaches that Jesus is a blasphemer, a sorcerer, and a bastard. Which is more compatible with Christianity?

Additionally, at the behest of Jews, the US House of Representatives adopted a definition of antisemitism that outlaws the New Testament (the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023). (See “Christian Zionists” by Thomas Allen.)

Peace will not exist in the Middle East until one of two things happens. One, Israel ceases to exist or is reduced to insignificance. Two, all the Muslims and Christians who live in Egypt east of the Nile, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Turkey south of the Euphrates, in Syria west of the Euphrates, in Iraq west of the Euphrates, in Kuwait, and in northern Saudi Arabia leave their homes and let the Jews have their lands. (Does Israel have a right to all the territory that I name? Israel claims that it does. It claims all the land between the Nile and the Euphrates — from the river to the river.)

In closing, although I despise the acts of many Jews, such as Soros, I do not hate Jews. I wish that they all would come to Christ and receive his saving grace.

Replies

First reply: “Then you are calling God a liar. I have zero time with people of a Hitler mindset [sic]. Goodbye.” My comment: Although I cite several Bible verses, I did not mention God, the Bible, or theology, so how and where did I call God a liar? At worst, I described the stereotypical Jew as he described the stereotypical Muslim. Apparently, he considers today’s Jews as God’s chosen people (I always thought that Christians are God’s chosen people), although they act like Satan’s chosen people — especially the Zionist Jews in Israel. As for Hitler, I see Hitler and his followers as similar to the way this radio host sees Muslims: very evil people.

Second: “People make a big mistake when they claim God broke has [sic, His]  promise to the Jews. I’m sorry you feel the way you do, but this unprecedented rise in anti-Jewish sentiment is of biblical proportion. God’s promise is eternally binding, if it isn’t then neither is His promise of salvation to the Gentile. The Church did NOT replace God’s chosen, we were grafted onto that tree. I apologize for bring [sic, being[ so curt in my prior email. This morning has been physically rough on me, plus I just went through a pile of typical writings from leftists. As to my point about the Jews not being the one to kill Jesus, my point is they were not the ones who did the deed. While they wanted Jesus gone, because He was a threat to their corrupt institution, it was the ‘institution’ not the actual people who were threatened. That is still the issue to this day; a corrupt leadership. I always remind people of the word ‘Remnant.’ That is true among both Christians and Jews.” My comment: Although I do not know for sure, he seems to agree with those Christian Zionists who believe that Jews are saved merely by being Jews and without believing in Jesus for salvation. Moreover, are the Jews who live in Israel today the Jews to whom the promise was made? There are Jews, and there are Jews. Today, many people call themselves Jews, but are not Jews. (See my comment above on what Jews we are talking about.) Moreover, how can antichrist be God’s chosen people? In 1 John 2:22 and 4:3,  John writes that those, including and especially Jews, who deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ are the antichrist. (Since Muslims deny that Jesus is Christ and do not confess Jesus Christ, they are also antichrist.) Furthermore, most of the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment comes from Israel acting like a bully, Jews manipulating leaders, especially in the United States, to support Israel’s hostile and bullying actions, Jews promoting the suppression of freedom of speech in the United States (Muslims are doing likewise, but they have not been as effective), and other nefarious acts of Jews.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.