The ONE Thing Your Legislator Must Do For Freedom

On October 3rd 2024, Joe Wolverton J.D., Constitutional Law Scholar for The John Birch Society, testified in front of the Tennessee state legislature about the tool the Founders intended us to use to restore lost liberty, if and when the federal government stepped outside it’s constitutional bounds.

Learn more about nullification here: https://treeoflibertysociety.com/playlists/nullification

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

If your legislator even pretends to care about freedom, they'll do this one thing. Today on the Tree of Liberty Society.

Recently, Dr. Joe Wolverton, who we've had on the program, had the opportunity to speak before the state legislature in Tennessee about a principle the founding fathers said that must be done if we are to retain liberty. Check out his vital, inspirational, and important testimony before the Tennessee State Legislature.

Mr. Wolverton, you're recognized.

Thank you, Senator. And I'm going to set my time, y'all, so you know that I'm not going to go over time, okay? I'll shut up right in the middle if I'm in the middle of my time. All right. I am from rural West Tennessee. I am an attorney, but I have repented of that, and I now devote my time to constitutional education and scholarship.

You don't have to show this slide presentation. Don't even look up there. Just listen to me. I'm just going to talk to you.

The John Birch Society approached me some time ago and extended to me the honor to be their inaugural constitutional law scholar in recognition of the books I've written on the subject of the Constitution.

I am the first person on either side of my family to go to college. I am the first person in four generations of my family not born into abject poverty of sharecropping on a cotton field below sharecropping. Went to law school.

I also descend from a long line of circuit preachers. So you're probably going to hear that in my cadence. So if I start to get the Holy Ghost a little bit, y'all just know it ain't me. It's my ancestors coming through me. I ain't trying to convert nobody.

That's okay as long as you don't pass the collection plate.

I ain't going to pass the plate. No, sir. No, sir. Esteemed legislators, I come before you today to address the baseless and constitutionally unsound assertion— Oh, let me tell you first. I'm sorry. I jumped into it. I'm the one who gave you all those packets that you got in the manila envelopes. A copy of my book. Read it at your leisure. It's about James Madison's plan to make America states again. All right. We will make America great again when we make America states again.

James Madison very clearly stated that in Federalist 46, that if you expect to be free as Americans without the states standing as barriers between a tyrannical federal government and the people, then he said that is a delusional dream. And not true patriotism.

So I wrote this whole book about the plan that Madison set forth. What degree of madness? If we ever become crazy enough to allow the federal government to usurp the authority rightfully belonging to the states and the people. Madison laid out a plan for us in Federalist No. 46, and I put it in basic language and how to do it in this book. I gave you a copy of the pocket Constitution, which I figured you all had, but this is the only publisher, we are the only publisher that puts the correct title of that document on the cover. The preamble declares this is the Constitution for the United States, not of, the United States. And there's a big difference there if you're an attorney and all three of us are, and many of y'all are, there's a big difference between a constitution for and a constitution of.

And when the John Birch society hired me, the first thing I said is scrap all those pocket constitutions. Cause we're going to publish it with the right title because it matters that much to me. And so we did. And I, I put my, a copy of my testimony and some other things in that packet. You're free to look at it or throw it away. Just don't do it when I can see if you're throwing it away.

All right. I'm going to address the baseless and constitutionally unsound assertions contained within the recent Attorney General's opinion regarding SB 1092. The Attorney General claims the bill is constitutionally infirm and that state refusal to ratify unconstitutional federal actions, as outlined in this bill, is inconsistent with both the Tennessee and federal constitutions. The AG's argument not only misrepresents the constitutional structure of our republic, but also undermines the sovereign authority of the state of Tennessee and the people it represents.

Let me address point by point the Attorney General's arguments and demonstrate how SB 1092 aligns perfectly with the Constitution and the historical principles upon which our government was founded. Now, you'll notice if you're following along in the printed copy, I'm a freestyle. Again, I refer you back to the circuit preacher comment. The Attorney General argues that nullification of federal laws by a state violates the Supremacy Clause. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of that clause. The Supremacy Clause only applies to federal laws made, quote, in pursuance of the Constitution. Acts of the federal government that exceed the powers delegated to it by the Constitution are not made in pursuance of that document and therefore cannot claim supremacy over the laws of the state of Tennessee.

The framers of the Constitution were clear. The federal government is limited to specifically enumerated powers, and any action beyond those powers is not binding on the states. The true meaning of the Supremacy Clause. The Attorney General relies heavily on the Supremacy Clause to argue that SB 1092 violates the federal constitution. This reading ignores the precise language of that clause. It declares that only those laws made in pursuance of the constitution are supreme.

The federal government is not the ultimate arbiter of its own power. States retain their sovereignty and their role as defenders of constitutional limits. SB 1092 is fully consistent with this understanding, and it affirms Tennessee's right to nullify federal actions that are not in pursuance of the Constitution.

That is an ancient legal maxim which says if in a legal document a list of things to be included in a class is made and something is left off that list, then that thing was purposely left off that list. Supreme Court opinions are not included in the list of the supreme law of the land in Article 6. Therefore, it was purposely left off that list.

Our federal system was created through a compact between sovereign states, and as such, the states are the final arbiters of the powers that they delegated to their agent, the federal government. This principle, articulated by Thomas Jefferson in the Kentucky Resolutions and James Madison in the Virginia Resolution, is a bedrock of constitutional authority. When the federal government acts outside its delegated powers, it is the right, it is the obligation, of the states to nullify those actions.

SB 1092 embodies this principle by providing a lawful mechanism for Tennessee to resist unconstitutional federal overreach. The principle of agency law underscores that an agent's power is derived from the principle that is to say, the states that gave the agent its power. It is inherently limited by the authority granted by the principle. In the context of state nullification, this principle asserts that the federal government, as an agent of the states, cannot lawfully exercise powers not explicitly delegated to it by the states in the Constitution.

Thus, when the federal government enacts measures that overstep its constitutionally enumerated powers, states possess the right and the duty to interpose and nullify such acts, preserving the balance of power originally intended by the framers. Let me put it to you in a simple way. If I was famous enough to hire a bodyguard, and every morning I went outside and that bodyguard beat me up and stole my wallet, but then the next day I went outside and that bodyguard once again beat me up and stole my wallet, What kind of person would I be if I continued paying the salary of that bodyguard simply because I had entered into a contract to make him my bodyguard? Anybody with any good sense would fire that bodyguard.

But for over 100 years now, our bodyguard, every day we come out of the house, has beaten us up, stolen our wallet, and we keep paying his salary.

Historical precedent for nullification. The attorney general's opinion disregards the numerous historical precedents in which states have exercised their sovereign authority to refuse enforcement of unconstitutional federal mandates. For example, the Kentucky-Virginia resolutions of 1798. And I'm going to mention this one because y'all don't know me.

But when I say sharecropper, that's a lie. My family was something below sharecropper. I remember when I was a little kid and we went into a store. Y'all remember Belks? And there was a young black lady doing the checkout. And we were walking out, me and my nanny, my grandma. And the lady in front of us called that lady that was checking us out a word. And I was only real little, and I asked my nanny what that word meant. And she told me that we don't say that word because people refer to our people as that as well. And we don't use that word, son.

So when I talk about... Wisconsin's nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act, that means something to me. Did you know on the same day in the 1690s, one of my grandpas died in his will free to slaves and one of my grandpas was handed down as a slave? Think about that. This means a lot to me to sit here in front of you. It means a lot to me. And Wisconsin's refusal to send someone back means a lot to me.

And that was a nullification of an unconstitutional act of the federal government. And that's a powerful reminder of the role that states have played in resisting unconstitutional federal laws. Tennessee has every right, both historically and constitutionally, to stand in defense of its people and reject federal overreach.

Oh, okay. All right. I got a new number then. All right. The Attorney General claims that the new bill is 2775, apparently, violates the separation of powers by allowing the legislature and the governor to nullify federal laws. This misrepresents both the role of state governments and the very nature of separation of powers. The federal government, when acting outside its constitutional limits, ceases to operate under legitimate authority.

Tennessee, as a sovereign state, has the inherent right to protect its citizens from unlawful federal actions. This is not an infringement on the judiciary's role. Rather, it is an exercise of the state's duty to safeguard liberty. Contrary to the Attorney General's assertions, state courts have every right to adjudicate the constitutionality of federal actions.

The Constitution does not grant the federal judiciary exclusive authority to interpret the Constitution. In fact, under our system of federalism, states have concurrent authority to protect their citizens from unconstitutional laws. This Tennessee bill is simply a reaffirmation.

The opinion of the Attorney General relies heavily on the doctrine of judicial supremacy, suggesting that only the federal judiciary can determine the constitutionality of federal laws. This doctrine is both historically inaccurate and constitutionally unfounded. The federal government, retain the right to judge when its agent, that government, has overstepped its contractual authority.

Nullification is not, as the Attorney General implies, an act of rebellion or lawlessness. Rather, it is a peaceful and constitutional means for a state to defend its sovereignty and the right of its people. This bill would provide a lawful process for challenging federal overreach, ensuring that Tennessee remains a bulwark against unconstitutional federal power.

If there is a tumor in a part of your body, a doctor will use a scalpel to remove that tumor so as not to damage the healthy tissue. Nullification. We have the tumor of tyranny in the body politic in this country, esteemed legislators. Nullification is a scalpel. Secession is a chainsaw.

We have the opportunity, and I dare say, you have the obligation as representatives of the people to use the scalpel of nullification to remove each and every tumor of tyranny that appears in the body politic wherein you see them. That is your right. That is your obligation.

The Attorney General's flawed use of precedent. The Attorney General cites Cooper v. Aaron to argue that states cannot resist federal court rulings. However, that case involved a clear violation of constitutional rights, not an unlawful exercise of federal power. This state bill is aimed at resisting federal actions that are not in pursuance of the Constitution. This distinction is critical, as Tennessee is not seeking to nullify legitimate federal authority. but to safeguard its citizens from unconstitutional federal encroachment.

Under our federal system, state sovereignty is concurrent with federal sovereignty, except where the Constitution explicitly grants power to the federal government. The Attorney General's opinion overlooks this principle of concurrent sovereignty, wrongly suggesting... that the federal authority is superior in all matters. This state bill simply reasserts Tennessee's rightful place as a co-sovereign in a federal system.

This state bill is not only constitutionally sound, but is necessary to protect the sovereignty of the state of Tennessee and the life, liberty, and property of its people. The Attorney General's opinion relies on a distorted view of the Constitution, one that ignores the clear limits placed on the federal government and the vital role of states in preserving our federal system.

I urge you to reject the Attorney General's misguided opinion and stand firm in defense of state sovereignty and constitutional fidelity by supporting a state bill of nullification. Tennessee must lead the way in resisting federal overreach and upholding the constitutional principles that have guided our republic since its founding.

In his opinion, the attorney general opposes the state bill and the position that the government of the state of Tennessee has the right and the obligation to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens by nullifying unconstitutional acts of the federal government. He calls such an act by our state government, quote, constitutionally infirm, unquote.

Well, respectfully, it is the Attorney General's opinion that suffers from constitutional infirmity. By ironically, presuming to grant to himself a politician who is neither elected by nor accountable to the people of the state of Tennessee the power to nullify the will of hundreds of thousands of citizens of this state and their elected representatives who both sponsored and supported this legislation.

We don't know who's going to win the upcoming presidential election. Now, I don't know whether y'all are Republicans or Democrats, and frankly, I don't care. But I assume some of y'all are Republicans and some of y'all are Democrats. Maybe some of y'all are something else. And we don't know who's going to win the upcoming election. But we do know one thing. The federal government is not going to suddenly decide to be less intrusive in our lives or less destructive of our liberty.

Esteemed representatives of the people of the state of Tennessee, nullification is the tide that lifts all boats. Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, it does not matter. When those plutocrats on the Potomac, when they do anything to deny Tennesseans of the rights given to them by Almighty God, then we, acting in our constitutionally, legally, and historically sound role as barriers between our people and federal tyranny, may and we must refuse to enact, enforce, or in any way participate in an unconstitutional act of our agent, the federal government.

And finally, Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution for the State of Tennessee declares that government being instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Now, marinating that with me for a minute. If we do not resist arbitrary power, then we are being absurd, slavish, and destructive of our people. Arbitrary is defined as not governed by fixed rules, despotic, absolute in power, having no external control, esteemed, and I mean that truly, esteemed legislators. I can think of nothing more absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of the people of the state of Tennessee than to allow the federal government to exercise arbitrary powers.

Especially if by failing to impose the external control of nullification and forcing the federal government to follow the fixed rules limiting its powers, the United States Constitution, especially absurd, slavish, and destructive, if we aid and abet that absurd, slavish, and destructive behavior on the part of the plutocrats over there on the Potomac.

I know that each and every one of you respects your constituents and values the sacred trust that they've placed in you, and you would never allow them to be reduced to powerless servants, to an all-powerful federal master. Thank you.

18 seconds left, y'all.

We appreciate that, really.