Nullification! | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[@JakeNonphixion]

Tom Woods is a beast of liberty

[@listen13]

We need this more today, 2024, than ever before!

[@rmcnnlly]

We need to send copies of Thomas Wood's book Nullification to every Governor and every candidate for governor in the United States.

[@Perririri]

Also, every legislator !!

[@Mavrilon]

Great conversation between two of my favorite Mieses' Institute people, Tom Woods and Jeffrey Tucker ! Please post more of these. I enjoy the lecture series,which are very informative ,but this is really lively and engaging and shows how exciting and relevant economics and history can be.

[@NicosMind]

Mises should post Tom's book to every governor, every senator, and ever person with power in the states! I reckon it would have a great powerful affect for the good of America!

[@OttoVonKonrad]

Well, if you love liberty, you can't stand the federal government. You can't stand any level of government whatsoever. - Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Perfect.

[@madmanmoon4038]

This is needed now more than ever.

[@reapfreak]

Mises....I love you guys. You enlightened me. Before i came across the Mises Institute I was a simple libertarian, but you guys made me think like I was taught not to. Thanks so much.

[@CurtHowland]

@greenghost2008 Did you see his presentation at the "Economics for Highschool Students" series? . Standing ovation. How many history lectures get a standing ovation? In my experience, his makes two. The other was James Burke who presented the Connections series.

[@KagarBeardtooth]

This is such a great interview!

[@Pericles461]

Right on the money. This is exactly what we need to do, and with state law as well. Especially here in Washington where we have a government agency running production of apples (Our main export) who are proud of the fact that apple farmers in Washington have less freedom than in Communist China, and where the freaking liquor industry is owned by the government. And it's a clear method by which we can fight back.

[@mjhonsun]

I love the last statement Tom makes about how nullification enrages the political establishment even more than Austrian economics because the may be too ignorant to understand economics but they do understand "disobeying". Classic.

[@angusmcgherkinsquirt]

Excellent.

[@soapbxprod]

"If you can pit them against each other- like the Nazis against the Commies..." TOM WOODS is the Murray Rothbard and the Ludwig Von Mises of OUR generation. And Jeffrey Tucker is... well... JEFFREY TUCKER. HUZZAH! :)

[@rumco]

More Tom Woods videos please! ;)

[@AustinW90]

Great interview! I think I'll watch it again in a few days.

[@Xasew]

Am I the only one who thinks Tom is kind of like Murray? Historian, to some extent a workaholic, has made original contributions at a young age, writes so that even a layman can understand and has a down-to-earth approach to politics. Jeffrey on the other hand is the most insightful writer on everyday life and culture. I highly recommend his book Bourbon For Breakfast(also in free .pdf). It's a quick and fascinating read that will open your eyes.

[@rootcause123]

The true undercut to all this is land reform. Our social safety net should be nothing less than a fair share of the land & resources we need to be self sustaining. Native Ameircans were free people with fierce local government & almost no large central government. Every person was fed and housed & none relied on jobs for their survival, yet they thrived. Our security shouldn't be on the shoulders of corporations because their focus is on profits, not our wellbeing. Free land. Free People. Start

[@IDATMAN]

The Constitutional Sovereignty Alliance organizes and supports state chapters who support STATE laws that exercise the states' sovereignty to resist and reverse federal usurpation.

[@klaptongroovemaster]

NEOCONFEDERATE!!!

[@sniped101]

good point.

[@815141518]

We need more Tom Woodses in this country who are capable of destroying the statist talking points of the politically correct and the statists such as m$nbc, airhead schultz, madcow, odorman, etc.

[@greenghost2008]

I hope I can get Woods to speak at my school. is rate is pretty cheap comparably so I'm hopeful.

[@alexandertytler]

ruddip: Some have said if the Feds won't enforce the laws that only they can enforce, then AZ should secede. I believe, that the States need not secede, they just need to realize that the national government has seceded from them -- it has violated its contract with the States (in this issue at least). Since the national government has defaulted on the contract, the States should declare it void and create a new government.

[@wilsonlincoln280]

22:22 that is what the minimum drinking age act does. It was never about public safety it was about intimidating and bullying the states.

[@dfjpr]

@NietzscheanMan hmm... "this would be much more contained", banks often operated up to 9 to 1 lending ratios under gold standard, and money supply contracted 27% from 1931 to 1933. So actually, and this is the irony, I don't think it is more contained, the difference is that nowadays it is only inflation, instead of inflate followed by deflate, both of which harm the population and the business environment. It wud appear that we dont need a fixed base, so much as a stable broad moneysupply.

[@dfjpr]

"At least the state doesn't have a printing press" - banks create more money than the fed, by far the greatest contributors to the money supply is private lending since each loan creates its own deposit.

[@dfjpr]

even the 1870 depression and the 1907 panic demonstrate that the credit cycle was present prior to 1913, a cycle of lending, inflation, then deflation, default and foreclosure on assets that banks never had the money to buy in the 1st place. Private bank money-creation is surely just as legitimate as fed printing, both of which are surely less legitimate than gov create its own money on. behalf of the ppl. So if we argue against fed, we ought to argue for gov control of the Money-supply.

[@Conan_the_Based]

While they can crack down on some to set an example to the rest, they ultimate need your blood to survive. Mass civil disobedience. Works every time.

[@christo930]

I wish more people knew about jury nullification! If I am put in a jury, you can rest assured I will NEVER convict anyone of a drug crime, for example. State nullification is a joke, it will never happen.

[@robertbrown351]

christo930, it will never happen? Actually, it HAS happened. Hundreds of times. Try reading his book, "Nullification".

[@HondoLane76]

I could be wrong, but didn't some states try this when Regan increased the drinking age to 21. The states that didn't change their laws didn't receive the federal funding they were due. Now, every state has a drinking age of 21. This is why states don't nullify. It's down to jurry nullification now! (note comment posted after only watching 17 minutes of the vid).

[@RonaldLeeWattonvilleAmes]

Right on. The global public-private partnership (PPP) of big business & big government is strangling working taxpayers & small business investors. The same mostly European, American, & Asian financial arch-criminal uber-rich controlling banking & corporate investor families have waged economic war on us in the US 12 times, starting in 1797. Today's economic war is global, led by the malevolent Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switz.; Mexico City D.F. & Hong Kong SAR (PRC).

[@ntoiyt]

Superb!

[@kevinz1985]

excellent.

[@libertyplayground]

does anyone get the feeling that Jeff Tucker is larger than life?

[@TheLegalImmigrant05]

@ricsen13 "Swiss Confederation is a positive exemple to follow" - In what aspects, specifically?

[@linkin622]

share this everywhere !

[@thedemoboy]

@leavesofliberty Last point first; nothing would prevent it. Which is what has happened, and why folks like me are fighting to get things back on track. Now to the main point of anarchy not being possible. Where in the world does/has anarchy existed for a lengthy period of time? It doesn't/hasn't. This is basic sociology (see 'power vacuums') I'm not dismissing the idea "out of hat"; as your idea isn't a new one - and believe it or not, I've thought about it before reading your comment.

[@NietzscheanMan]

@dfjpr Hello. I know what you mean, but this is only possible due to people relying and for the most part only knowing about fiat money which gives the banks license to do this (due to state backing). In a free market environment where each bank is free to print its own currency etc.; this would be much more contained like it was before central banking (and you'd get the return of actual savings banks and such without fractional reserve banking).

[@ruddip]

@AgoraTravel arizona shouldn't do anything about illegal immigration? then what other options are there?

[@o1mtech]

Did Thomas Jefferson write an attachment, that gives the steps involved to abolish a tyrannical government?

[@overtblowfish4439]

Second amendment

[@arcanekrusader]

@SpotlightEntrance I agree. I post many Mises vids to my FB page: I doubt anyone watches them though, but you never know!

[@overtblowfish4439]

I'm guessing Tucker is no longer associated with mises institute

[@ShowofStrengthwithMichael]

Interesting. Land pensions? Food for thought, no pun intended.

[@dfjpr]

@NietzscheanMan thanks for the response by the way.

[@thedemoboy]

@leavesofliberty "If men were angels, there would be no need for government." Unfortunately, we are not angels, and anarchy doesn't work - and not just because we can't handle it - people naturally gravitate to some kind of governing body. What we need is to go back to STRICT constitutional principals, and get rid of EXCESSIVE government.

[@statesrights01]

Keep the Colors A'Flyin!!

[@dfjpr]

@NietzscheanMan Hi man, no, I'm not mixing up. Each loan creates its own deposit, this is the irony here, we're shouting about a central bank printing money, but our system is one that creates money privatemy, central bank only creates base money which is a fraction of the total. pls watch "money as debt" video. Without central bank you wud still get a full credit cycle of inflation followed by deflation, if you allow banks to lend money they don't have, which we do.

[@offensivend5183]

who is a challenger student here

[@samikamurthy816]

lmao meee

[@goten1201]

@thedemoboy I'd have to disagree because human being can be empathetical that is the basis that denies tyranny.

[@jocai1039]

Guys, the State Governments DID ratify the Constitution. The People rule over the Government, but it was the State legislatures that approved of it. Check your facts.

[@LibertarianRF]

Share this

[@JordanMiller333]

Love your words, hate your tie.

[@PierzStyx]

There is no such thing as a sovereign nation. Individuals are sovereigns with right to rule their individual lives. When the "nation" is sovereign the people are slaves. Either you are free and sovereign or you are a slave to the State. And the Founder understood this. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government claim to be sovereign. Indeed its very nature as being a product of the states means that those agree to it, empowering it, means that the federal government is subservient to those creating it.

[@pretorious700]

Woods has a rorschach tie

[@tittiger]

You also want to check out the "tenth amendment center DOT com"

[@MrRobtB]

Obama did 'say' he would uphold the constitution and the bill of rights....did he suddenly get amnesia ??

[@GeneHill]

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendment and this process will be more effective. I am not talking about armed resistance either.

[@dfjpr]

"like the nazis against the commies" Tom is right, lets vote Communist so that they fight to promote more responsible government

[@NietzscheanMan]

@dfjpr you're mixing up cause and effect; the source is the central banking system

[@TotalAnomy]

no zombies?

[@jamesmadison8484]

Please enlighten me. What is wrong with Mises. org? What is this single fact? Is there a fatal flaw with the Austrian School of Economics?

[@mjhonsun]

@libertyplayground I've been thinking the same thing. He wrote a book recently that I can't wait to read called 'Bourbon for Breakfast' and it's loaded with libertarian perspectives about all sorts of everyday experiences from economics to shaving cream. It's available for free download at Mises dot org if you're interested.

[@SleekMinister]

Is Jeffrey Bruce's double??

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

NULLIFICATION IN THE HIERARCHY OF SOVEREIGNTY. REALITIES IN THE DOCTRINE OF LAW vs. FORCE. If Federal force is primary and controlling, in an atmosphere where "nullification" is blocked or rendered ineffective, even in the face of lawless tyranny, then we do not live under law or principles of law. It would amount to the very definition of "might makes right!" Since the States created the federal government under a constitutional compact and, the people in and of the States created the States under a State constitutional compact, then, if we are endowed with clear and viable powers of thought,... it becomes necessary to clarify the hierarchy of sovereignty in play. Being a Pastor, I would want to throw GOD's Sovereignty into the mix, as well! I perceive that Judge Napolitano makes that very point, even though he appears to acknowledge the religious and the nonreligious, so that both GOD-given rights and the "human rights" rights of unbelievers (where man is the highest authority) becomes part of his Natural Law instruction. What this all adds up to is a four-prong model of sovereignty: (1) the Sovereignty of GOD, which is self-existent, (2) the sovereignty of the people [(both individually and collectively) and by virtue of divine delegation of dominion over "all the Earth," as set forth in Genesis 1:26 (KJV)], (3) the sovereignty of the States created by the people, (4) the sovereignty of the national (federal) government created by the States. Needless to say, there is a reason why, in my breakdown of this hierarchy, I have placed GOD at the head of the sovereignty model [as Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence (although it is a "Declaration," it is still codified as Law in the United States Code)]. For the sake of completeness and thoroughness, we must address yet another, fifth-prong in the developing scheme of sovereignty: (5) That is the emergence of international or global sovereignty, [being] created by the nations of the world (sometimes referred to as a "New World Order"), which has struggled, first in birth pangs (United Nations) and then to begin to feel feet grounded beneath it, since WWII. Sovereigns may delegate certain powers but, the principle remains that it cannot be irreversible and,... sovereigns can only be deprived of sovereign power(s), in whole or part, by the express consent of the original source of that [delegated] sovereignty. Otherwise, delegation is replaced by conquest (by the powerful and lawless). In reflection, that brings to mind an amoral action under some form of "survival-of-the-fittest" model, where "might" rules and "right" is irrelevant. The rather narrow view, brought forward in commentary, that only "sovereign nations" can nullify federal law(s), which plays in quite nicely to the continuation of federal tyranny, without recourse, is, in the final analysis, ludicrous. I do not think that it could even pass true legal/lawful muster. My legal research and studies have always proceeded on the premise that when a wrong occurs, the law provides a remedy (even if that remedy has not yet been promulgated in legislated law). I am fully cognizant of the fact, after having read thousands of case law decisional opinions, that scholarly sleight-of-hand has, in a number of cases, avoided the correct and obvious remedy. We know that "Jury Nullification" is viewed as a lawless exercise of power by the people, so much so that just mentioning such nullification can get one barred from jury service. It appears, that our legal system doesn't even want the average citizen to know about nullification power(s), the mere mention of which is viewed as tainting the entire jury pool. I mentioned it once and, it took the court some effort to spatula the prosecutor from the courtroom ceiling. My wildest imagination can only speculate on what would ensue from more serious forms of nullification. Please understand, I favor nullification of unconstitutional laws (although nullification cannot be the remedy across the board). I suggest that some laws, which turn out to be constitutional, but which nevertheless impact society in a negative fashion and cause unnecessary harm, also must be dealt with in a remedial way (of which one option may be nullification). The obvious problem which is resisted is that the constitution is not perfect (leaving room for reform). During my lifetime (I'm in my 60's), I have adopted the life rule and maxim that, when it comes to basic natural, God-given, and inalienable rights, it is never too much trouble to stand up for those rights. Unfortunately, in today's world, the expenditure of time and effort has been hindered by the false notion that action and effort must somehow be tied to material gain, monetary reward(s), and the recognition and/or approval of others. Moreover, people seem to be fearful, uncomfortable, and reluctant to stand alone (or with the few) against challenging odds (no doubt founded on the human tendency to want to be on the "winning" side). The wise among us realize that freedom is not free, nor is it usually easy to do that which must, under trying circumstances, be done. We are the modern-day guardians of freedom,... we must object in a timely manner, as well as relentlessly seek individual, societal, State, National, and, if applicable, international remedies. This must be done under a valid recognition of rights under law and not under the invalid doctrine that "might makes right!" The unconstitutional "jus-lex-morph" phenomena, being justified by various trained legal professionals, is truly alarming. GOD Bless or Best Wishes, whichever sentiment you prefer. Pastor Mike. 6-8-16.

[@Bayareamom9]

Oh, and sources for those facts, please...

[@Mechanized0]

@thedemoboy Were men angels, government would not be the most tyrannical and destructive institution ever devised by man.

[@CurtHowland]

@dfjpr Your assertion is an excellent idea for the next "Interview with a Zombie" episode. . You should look that one up. /watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc

[@simonpurist4499]

Just one problem: ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN NULLIFY FEDERAL LAWS. And he Federal government claims that the states are NOT sovereign nations; meanwhile, Woods _doesn't_ claim that they ARE sovereign nations. Thus, Woods defeats his own argument. by silence on the issue of national sovereignty. He might state EVIDENCE that the states are sovereign; but an argument requires a CONCLUSION as well.

[@blakepettys28]

The supremacy clause says that only the constitutional amendments and the laws used to pursue should be upheld.

[@PierzStyx]

There is no such thing as a sovereign nation. Individuals are sovereigns with right to rule their individual lives. When the "nation" is sovereign the people are slaves. Either you are free and sovereign or you are a slave to the State. And the Founder understood this. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government claim to be sovereign. Indeed its very nature as being a product of the states means that those agree to it, empowering it, means that the federal government is subservient to those creating it.

[@AnAdoptedKnight]

I'll have to tell Andrew Cuomo to remove that language. I can't imagine why we are called the Sovereign State of New York.

[@Sinisterene]

No zombie :(

[@rkecseg84]

To follow the logic of your criticism, and that of the status quo, the Supreme Court has sole responsibility (vested power) to determine the constitutionality of federal law (and is infallible in doing so, according to 1958 Cooper decision), even in the face of aggregious federal overreach, but the Supreme Court can, and has, allowed the legislative branch to delegate it's legislative authority to the executive branch, through the countless regulatory departments and agencies. Hypocritical

[@Bayareamom9]

What facts isn't he telling? Please share.

[@tittiger]

Also Google "The-Principles-of-98" mises DOT org SLASH media SLASH 1851 SLASH The-Principles-of-98

[@sov19871987]

4 Keynesians watched this video

[@ExposingUncleSham]

What 2 degenerates didnt like this video???

[@newseamus]

popular culture heroes: Kobe Bryant, Peyton Manning, Angelina Jolie.... my heroes: Tom "freaking" Woods, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Walter Block.... mine are better than yours!!!!

[@GeneHill]

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendment and this process will be more effective. I am not talking about armed resistance either.