Nullification returns: Mark Levin vs. the Tenth Amendment Center

James-Madison-nullification

By Robert Romano

Nullification is back. And it is getting heated.

For the uninitiated, nullification is a theory of constitutional Tenth Amendment powers wherein states are said to have the power to declare federal law that it deems unconstitutional to be null and void within the boundaries of that state.

Yes, that nullification. The one that compelled Congress to authorize military force and Andrew Jackson that same year to mobilize the armed forces against South Carolina to execute a federal tariff law in 1833.

The same nullification that has been struck down as unconstitutional every single time it has come up in federal court, in United States v. Peters (1809), Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1819), Ableman v. Booth (1859), Cooper v. Aaron (1958), and others, as recently outlined in an Americans for Limited Government Foundation paper by Dr. Bradley Gitz of Lyon College.

The same nullification that had James Madison almost to his dying day speaking out against the doctrine, and defending himself against the charge that he had ever supported it. Of nullification, in 1834, he wrote, “A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined.”

You know, the doctrine that outright defies the Constitution’s supremacy clause and attempts to overthrow the federal judiciary as the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

Most recently, the issue has come up between nationally syndicated talk show host and best-selling author Mark Levin, arguing against nullification, and the Tenth Amendment Center, the Washington Times, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano, and the John Birch Society’s New American arguing in favor.

Back to South Carolina

But, before we get there, there is a background to the fight between Levin and the Tenth Amendment Center that takes this issue very much out of the philosophical realm into the very real politics of how states ought to respond to the continued federal implementation of Obamacare.

Perhaps fittingly, the issue has come up again in none other than South Carolina. In April 2013, the state house there passed legislation 65 to 34 that declares Obamacare to be “null and void,” criminalizes compliance of the law by state insurers, and even advocates non-compliance by citizens by offering to pay the fines of those who refuse to follow the law’s individual mandate.

Dr. Gitz summarizes the problem with this approach: “to criminalize compliance with federal statutes takes us several steps further than even an outright declaration of unconstitutionality would… And to use state revenue to ‘make whole’ those penalized with fines for failing to conform to federal law amounts to something never before contemplated; more precisely, an effort to use public revenues to directly subvert federal law.”

For now, the bill is in the state senate this week as it reconvenes, with Sen. Tom Davis offering an amendment to the legislation that would gut its nullifying provisions, including the tax deduction and criminalizing of Obamacare’s implementation.

In a statement, Davis spoke clearly against nullification, “[O]utright nullification, in the sense of declaring any implementation of the ACA within the borders of South Carolina to be a criminal act, is not an available remedy.”

The amendment, however, according to Davis would “aggressively pursue all of the other ways in which it can to slow the spread of that infection as best they can until such time as Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act.”

Included is a provision for state licensing and regulation of so-called Healthcare.gov navigators, those nonprofit groups receiving federal money to help people sign up for health insurance on the federal health exchange. The ostensible goal would be to ensure that nobody is being signed up for subsidized care that does not qualify under South Carolina law, where Medicaid has not been expanded.

Nullification won’t work to stop Obamacare

One can only hope Davis’ amendment is what passes, and not the House version of the bill.

To be clear, at Americans for Limited Government, we have been at the forefront in opposing Obamacare, including working closely with Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on the recent defunding effort.

But this proposed legislation will do nothing to stop the health care law’s implementation in South Carolina. It also risks a constitutional crisis that will force the White House to either back down and let Obama’s signature achievement wither under a regime of state non-compliance, or force him to enforce the law.

The worst case scenario would be that the South Carolina law passes, and then empowers Obama to turn the situation into a modern-day Selma or Little Rock, with the National Guard called in to police state Medicaid offices, insurers, hospitals, and doctor’s offices — all to ensure the health care law is in fact implemented.

Don’t think it can happen? See Andrew Jackson. See Dwight Eisenhower. Obama has shown no evidence of backing down. So perhaps the sort of confrontation outlined above is precisely what advocates of nullification relish.

But it is hard to contrive a more divisive outcome for the nation, and at the expense of the people of South Carolina who would be compelled at the barrel of a gun into yet another federal regime. Is this the direction we really want the debate over the health care law to go this year?

Hopefully, Davis is not persuaded into adopting the extremely flawed doctrine of nullification. But so far, he is not taking the bait. At TheState.com, Davis is quoted stating, “The conversation really has gotten off the rails a little bit. Everybody talks about nullification. This isn’t nullification. We can’t nullify.”

That is good that Davis is saying that, because the last thing this country needs is another crisis over this issue.

Mark Levin rescues James Madison’s reputation

Talk show host and author Mark Levin, for his part, waded into the debate, somewhat inadvertently, stemming from his appearance on C-Span’s Book TV when he stated, as a matter of fact, that James Madison rejected nullification.

That he rejected it is undeniable.

It’s plain enough to read from Madison’s own writings. On Facebook, Levin cites an 1830 letter Madison wrote on the matter, in which he plainly states he never supported nullification, and had been misrepresented over the years.

Wrote Madison, “It may often happen, as experience proves, that erroneous constructions, not anticipated, may not be sufficiently guarded against, in the language used; and it is due to the distinguished individuals, who have misconceived the intention of those proceedings, to suppose that the meaning of the legislature, though well comprehended at the time, may not now be obvious to those unacquainted with the contemporary indications and impressions.”

Those “erroneous constructions” Madison wrote of were of the Virginia Resolution adopted in 1798 against the John Adams administration’s Alien and Sedition Acts that the legislature felt was unconstitutional.

That resolution stated, “That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.”

Yet, nowhere does the resolution endorse or even mention nullification. As Madison noted in 1830, the legislature went out of its way to avoid that appearance: “It is worthy of remark, and explanatory of the intentions of the legislature, that the words ‘not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect,’ which had followed, in one of the resolutions, the word ‘unconstitutional,’ were struck out by common consent. Though the words were in fact but synonymous with ‘unconstitutional;’ yet to guard against a misunderstanding of this phrase as more than declaratory of opinion, the word ‘unconstitutional’ alone was retained, as not liable to that danger.”

Leaving no doubt, Madison in his Report of 1800 states unequivocally that the Virginia Resolution was stating the opinion of that legislature on the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts: “The declarations, in such cases, are expressions of opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force.”

Those declarations, in short could not, repeat not “be deemed in any point of view an assumption of the office of the judge.”

Pretty simple, right? Did the Virginia legislature say it thought the law was unconstitutional, or did it bar implementation of that law in the Commonwealth’s borders? Plain as day, Madison says it was just an opinion, that it is still up to judges to say what the law actually is.

In 1834, he affirmed that position, that the only purpose of the Virginia Resolution was  “to produce a conviction everywhere, that the Constitution had been violated by the obnoxious acts and to procure a concurrence and co-operation of the other States in effectuating a repeal of the acts.”

Nullifiers: “Pay no attention to what Madison actually wrote!”

Not so, reply the nullifiers.

Joe Wolverton at the New American replied with the missive, “Correcting Mark Levin’s Repeated Misrepresentation of James Madison.”

The Tenth Amendment Center reacted, “Mark Levin Doubles Down on James Madison and Nullification. He’s Still Wrong.”

Michael Lotfi at the Washington Times responsed to Levin, “Is Mark Levin the poster child for nullification?” that makes the remarkable argument that Madison and Levin, despite having explicitly stated repeatedly they rejected nullification, actually supported it.

For Madison’s part, the verbal gymnastics are rather creative in order to recreate his alleged support of nullification. They include citing the Virginia Resolution as somehow striking down enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Commonwealth even though it was clearly a non-binding resolution.

Or, citing his 1834 writings on nullification that explicitly rejected the idea: “it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined.”

Pretty compelling evidence there, guys.

Of course, as is clear from the historical record, misattributing Madison as some sort of champion of nullification is a pretty old American tradition with about two centuries of experience. Why stop lying now?

It’s like those fake Founder quotes you always find on the Internet that are designed to prove any point that anyone wants to make. After all, because, if it’s on the Internet, it must be true!

“A more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined”

Levin, for his part, is defending against anarchy, not endorsing it. He is seeking to restore the constitutional rule of law via the Article V states convention process for proposing amendments to the Constitution, as he did in his new book, The Liberty Amendments.

And why was that Article V process included? Because George Mason, the father of the Bill of Rights, demanded that it be in there at the Constitutional Convention. According to Madison’s notes at the convention, Mason feared that if Congress were the only body that could propose amendments, because it would “depend… ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.”

The Article V power for states to amend the Constitution on their own, unlike nullification, actually appears in the Constitution, and is the states’ final legal recourse should the republic ever devolve into a tyranny.

If there was any legal justification for nullification, it would have to be that the Constitution does not, either implicitly or explicitly, delegate to the Supreme Court the power to say what is and is not constitutional, and that therefore the same power is reserved by the States or the people under the Tenth Amendment.

Yet, the Framers clearly intended that the courts would be the final arbiter on the Constitution. Madison, in his Report of 1800, says as much. In the Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton in 1788 wrote of the judicial branch, “whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

While the well-intentioned notion of nullification may seem like a viable means of dealing with an out-of-control federal government, it is impossible to conclude that it is justified constitutionally, and would not obliterate the very constitutional order it seeks to uphold.

(Correction: An earlier version of this post mistakenly attributed the Tenth Amendment Center’s preference of the House version of the South Carolina nullification bill over the proposed Davis amendment.)

Robert Romano is the senior editor of Americans for Limited Government.

  • Brian Bertha

    The only thing the Federal government can logically claim via the supremacy clause is those items outlined via the enumerated powers anything else they do not so enumerated is an usurpation of that power. Also the 9th and 10th Amendment specifically leave everything else to the states and the people. The fact that SCOTUS has ruled otherwise is without merit.

  • Myrtle Linder

    The Problem: the government does not want the states to have any authority, they want to control the states, the want to muzzle the states. If they can take all power from the states they will do so, they want total rule, total control of all, that is connected in any way the the USA. A dictatorship is what they are working on, with the big 0 as the dictator. Those who are fighting for him think they will be special to him but they had better be ready to jump when he speaks, when he becomes the dictator. Except for the GRACE OF GOD that is what will happen.

    Daniel 12:1-2
    1. And at that time shall Michael stand up the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to the that same time: at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book (book of life)
    2. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

    We do get to choose will be ours by the life we choose to live. The states and their people need to continue to fight against the socialism in the governent.

  • Rayaz7

    State legalization of Marijuana in spite of Federal law to the contrary seems to render Mr. Levin’s arguments moot. It’s working quite well in practice.

  • kuhnkat

    Levin is a magical thinker. The courts have made up their interpretation for the Commerce Clause and others. How long would it take the courts to subvert anything positive coming out of the convention??

    In fact, with the current tyrant in power it is questionable if that process would be allowed to be completed. It is worth trying, but, ultimately the opinions, biases, whether honestly held, bought, or extorted of SCOTUS will NOT be changed by Changing the Constitution which they regularly rewrite or ignore depending on the situation and need of their faction.

  • pduffy

    The federal government reigns supreme over the people because they have the firepower to force submission. It’s government by force, not by consent. That’s the outcome of the ‘Civil War’. It has nothing to do with a legal argument for ‘nullification’. If a group of individuals choose to ‘nullify’ the feds, that’s a denial of its authority, the decision the south made when they voted to leave the union. You must ‘count the cost’, of declaring such a war, because the black-robe society is not going to release the slaves they have fought so hard to obtain.

    Human beings have the right to separate from a tyrannical government if THEY SO CHOOSE, which was the entire reason for creating the so-called ‘states’ in the first place and writing the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, why have 50 state houses, all making their own laws? Therefore, these same states have the right to separate, and nullify, because the federal government IS NOT GOD, and was created by men, and can be dissolved by men, when they so choose. This system should be dissolved, as it has become the tyrant the founders rebelled against. History has repeated itself, again.

  • pduffy

    There is no ‘supremacy’ clause. Who can make something ‘supreme’ other than God? This is a group of men, in rebellion to God, they are supreme over NOTHING.

  • JGillman

    Wasn’t it ‘Madison’ Wisconsin which
    first exercised nullification successfully? In fact wasn’t it
    Wisconsin that nullified the fugitive slave act. And YES their
    court might have had it overturned, but Vermont, in doing
    essentially what SC is doing, slam dunked it. The Vermont
    legislature In November 1850, passed the “Habeas Corpus Law,”
    requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist
    captured fugitive slaves. This law made the federal Fugitive Slave
    Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont rendering a
    “nullification” of ‘federal law.’

    I really appreciate you guys, but the 10th amendment is clear, and
    if we do not exercise the rights inherent to the states and its
    people (not granted to the United States govt) then what good is
    it? Just to be able to complain?

    Nah. If we leave enforcement of the constitution to the fed, then
    THAT battle is already lost, and we might as well prepare for the
    next stage of subjugation.

  • Mad Mike

    The federal government has zero constitutional authority to “create endless, manditory federal programs”, of any sort they choose, trampling upon the freedoms of all americans constitutional rights, and enforcing the obedience of the states at military gunpoint! The constitution defines the “rights, powers and duties” of the federal government, thus restricting their authority over the people. This federal government has ignored those boundry lines for many decades and has slowly “wormed their way into dictatorial powers that they do not posess by constitutional law”. It is time to “slap their hands away from their grasp on our freedoms”! Stacking the federal courts and the supreme court with lifetime pro-government lackies, and using their biased decisions to enforce their unconstitutional evil laws, will only bring a long and bloody 2nd civil war to america that will forever divide this nation. Vote these radical, anti-american, communist-cultist democrats, out of public office everywhere in america before it’s too late for peaceful solutions to there tyranny!

  • SteveD

    Not only is Levin wrong he is a tool to boot.

  • SteveD

    “Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression. It cannot be supposed for a moment that Mr. Jefferson would not revolt at the doctrine of South Carolina, that a single state could constitutionally resist a law of the Union while remaining within it, and that with the accession of a small minority of the others, overrule the will of a great majority of the whole, & constitutionally annul the law everywhere.” – James Madison

    He did support nullification, just not the version which assumed a single state could decide for all others. Get you facts straight.

  • jpcec

    So what are they going to do if a citizen doesn’t comply with this atrocity? Take away their birthday? To hell with Obama and his ACA! He can stick it where the the sun doesn’t shine!

  • jpcec

    Levin has forgotten more than you know sir.

  • jpcec

    Great comment!

  • jpcec

    If I’m not mistaken and I’m not, states do make their own laws and always have…Have you looked at tax codes that vary from state to state?

  • pduffy

    Yes, but New York cannot tax the citizens of Texas, correct? I can also choose to leave New York if it becomes oppressive, where can I flee if the federal system does so? The states were to be a protection against this kind of tyranny, but when that protection is gone because of ‘federal’ oppression, there is nowhere to run.

  • dosuhr

    Some issues to consider: 1) In 1913 the congress took the states voice in government away by passing a constitutional amendment that made Senators election by popular vote. (2) The supreme court has become another political branch of government. (3) The government has put upon the people laws that they have no power to impose under the constitution.(4) We have allowed the establishment of a ruling class by continually voting career politicians into office. The result is that the ruling class govern to keep the class in power and not for the good of the country.

  • marcdepiolenc

    So nullification has been struck down repeatedly by the Federal supreme court? Surprise, surprise… Now, explain to me please how their opinion matters. It’s really very simple: the States are the parties to the covenant that created the Federal government; they are senior, both chronologically and legally. It follows that a State is the ultimate judge of what it agreed to in adhering to the Constitution. It is also disingenuous to hold up tariff enforcement as proof that nullification is null and void; tariffs are among the few taxes that the Constitution DOES authorize, and nullification applies only to unconstitutional acts.

  • jdelaney3

    I simply don’t understand what this writer doesn’t understand about the clear meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
    The 10th amendment is crystal clear as to what a State’s power is in this federal compact: “The powers not delegated [by the States] to the United States [the federal government] by the Constitution [Art 1 Sec 8], nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    THUS, any power not specifically delegated to the central government by the Constitution devolve upon the States and the People AND, similarly, any power not specifically prohibited by the Constitution to the States is reserved by the States.
    As for the grossly and often deliberately misinterpreted Supremacy Clause, carefully note that the Constitution, of which the 9th and 10th Amendments are a part, is the Supreme Law of the land–not the Supreme Court or any other branch of the federal government, and, most certainly, not the States. (If the feds are the supreme law of the land, then why have a Constitutiion at all?)
    Note the carefully crafted wording of the Supremacy Clause (Art VI, Para 2): “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, of which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Thus, the Supremacy Clause renders federal power supreme ONLY insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art 1 Sec 8). Please re-read that provision until it finally sinks in.
    Also, Madison did not debunk nullification. In fact, all Founders asserted that any unconstitutional acts emanating from the central government are null and void and unenforceable. Madison took exception not to nullification, but to South Carolina’s assertion that a State’s nullifying a particular federal act/law should be applicable to all States. And, of course, that is wrong.
    And, like nullification and a whole host of other powers not specifically enumerated as State powers, secession too is NOT prohibited to the States by the Supreme Law of the Land, that being the CONSTITUTION.
    I realized that the confusion stems from a terribly misguided education by educators schooled in nationalistic, statist philosophy and viewpoint, but the Constitution means what it says, and not what some would like it to mean.
    Geez.

  • jdelaney3

    I like Levin, but on this subject he is absolutely wrong.

  • jdelaney3

    By definition, we’ve never had a “civil war”. In 1861, we had the “War of Southern Independence” which some have dubbed the “War of Northern Aggression”.
    Only if the Southern States were vying for political control of the central government in DC could that 4-yr slaughter be correctly described a “civil war”. The Confederate States of America fought to be left alone in peace, independence and freedom–NOT to achieve ruling authority over the union.

  • jdelaney3

    Obfuscators and historical revisionists are hell bent to equate nullification (and secession) with slavery, this to delegitimize the inherent reserved rights of the States to nullify. These purveyors of propaganda and revionist history conveniently forget the “Harford Convention” which brought New England a hair’s breath from seceding from the union. And, of course, they conveniently, deliberately and mendaciously characterize nullification as a “southern thing” when there were actually more acts of northern nullification than southern nullification. I hope folks get a chance to read “A Patriot’s Call to Action” which debunks this revisionism and mythology with historical and legal facts.

  • jdelaney3

    Look to the 9th and 10th Amendments, and let our Founders be our guide–not the historical revisionists who would have us adopt authoritarianism as our form of government.

  • jdelaney3

    We must remember that, this according to the Founders, the FINAL ARBITER of what is and what is not constitutional is We the People–not a gaggle of unelected, black-robed, divinely-inspired judicial oligarchs in DC.
    We have strayed so very far from the Constitution it may require an upheavel to restore constitutional order, economic sanity and the rule of law. For any thinking American to believe we now live in a Republic is delusional.

  • jdelaney3

    Art 1 Sec 8 (enumerated federal powers) are, by design, very limited. Over the years, the feds–especially with Progressive encouragement–have expanded their powers well beyond constitutional limitations. As thhe 10th Amendment clearly provides, ANY power not specifically delegated by the States to the federal government, i.e. art 1 Sec 8 powers, are reserved to the States and/or We the People. In short, the Feds have NO authority to regulate commerce WITHIN a State. Adn that includes marijuana production and sale of same. Fed authority applies only to interstate commerce, this for purpose of rendering trade between the States free and unencumbered.

  • jdelaney3

    Actually, there is a “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution. To wit, Art. VI, para 2: ” This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States, WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    In short, the CONSTITUTION–not the Supreme Court or any other federal branch of government, or of the individual States, are supreme. This clause renders federal power supreme only insofar as the power exercised is within its clearly defined enumerated powers (Art 1 Sec 8).

    Nationalists, Statists conveniently and deliberately misinterpret this clause in order to advance their authoritarian agendas. The always omit the words ” which shall be made in pursuance thereof”.

    It’s well past time we all became better acquainted with our Constitution and put these social engineers and radical authoritarians in their place.

  • jdelaney3

    And too often the States lack the constitutional principle and spine to defend their sovereign rights under the Constitution. Sadly, they’ve been bought off by the federal Leviathan.

  • jdelaney3

    Absolutely!

  • jdelaney3

    Good comment, SteveD!!!!!!

  • jdelaney3

    Art 3 doesn’t give the Supreme Court the power to violate the 10th Amendment. It can opine as to the constitutionality of a particular act, but it has absolutely no constitutional authority to “rule” against or to militate against what, in its view, is an unconstitutional act. The Founders were very clear about this. Unfortunately, those who followed have hollowed out the Constitution to comport with their ideological game plans. It’s up to us to restore constitutional order both at the federal and state levels.

  • pduffy

    The constitution is a piece of paper, written by men. It has no ‘force’ in and of itself, other than the people demanding their rights, so if you are willing to abdicate your rights to a group of ‘social engineers’, the ‘supremacy clause’ is meaningless. Furthermore, if America is to survive, its ‘supreme law’ must be the law of God, not the constitution. This is really the problem now isn’t it? This government does not recognize the law, ‘THOU SHALT NOT STEAL’, and ‘THOU SHALT NOT MURDER’, is it does both of those with impunity and even legalizes and funds the murder with money stolen from ‘tax payers’.

  • Jim Delaney

    Agreed, but I hope you also agree that that “piece of paper” is well-worth defending.

  • Pingback: 14 January 2014 | My Daily Dive – News of the Day

  • anAmericanMom

    –Dr. Gitz summarizes the problem with this approach: “to criminalize compliance with federal statutes takes us several steps further than even an outright declaration of unconstitutionality would… And to use state revenue to ‘make whole’ those penalized with fines for failing to conform to federal law amounts to something never before contemplated; more precisely, an effort to use public revenues to directly subvert federal law.”
    Isn’t THAT exactly what the Tyrant is doing? He is picking and choosing who does not have to comply with the FAILED obamacare from the get go. He has offered exemptions to whoever appeals to him. Halting deportations usurping federal laws and agencies Sorry this is a Tyrant run mad with power. Power “HE” has no rights to.
    He sir/ madam has no authority. However the States do indeed have that right.

  • anAmericanMom

    Add to that, the fact we are going on about the Federal Government.

    When in fact it is the President who has VERY limited powers. Other then commander in chief of his corpse (intentional)
    The rest of the Government is ours. HE acts as if the IRS along with every other created federal agency, is his to command.

    That is another very good reason to rid ourselves of DOE, EPA and on and on. Also apparently now the NSA. Which “he” has proved is just one of those “TOOLS” the tyrant wants to look at, with his cabinet and his mighty pen.
    What is that I hear, SILENCE, from our congress.

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily