If Progressives Can Ignore Federal Laws, Why Can't I?

With the torrent of cities, counties and states declaring they won't be cooperating with Trump's deportation plan I was starting to wonder: is nullification coming back in style?

What is nullification? It has it's roots in the ratification of the 1787 Constitution and you can read lots about it here.

In short:

The doctrine of nullification, i.e., the idea that states have the right to unilaterally render void an act of the federal government that they perceive to be contrary to the Constitution, finds its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson, most notably his 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, written to protest the Federalist Congress’s passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions claim that the U. S. Constitution was a compact among the several states-whereby the states delegated certain limited powers to the U.S. government; any undelegated power exercised by the U. S. government is thus void.

Furthermore, the general government is not the final and authoritative judge of its own powers, since that would make the government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers-but rather the parties to the contract, the states, have each an equal right to judge for themselves whether the Constitution has been violated as well as “the mode and measure of redress”-since there is no common judge of such matters among them.

Thus, every state can of its own authority nullify within its territory “all assumptions of power by others”-i.e., all perceived violations of the Constitution by the federal government.
— Gennady Stolyarov II

Now there's a problem with trying to nullify federal immigration law:

"The Congress shall have Power To... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;" - U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8

It's not a unconstitutional power for the federal government to establish immigration laws, it's an enumerated power.

This is common thread in progressive politics, rules aren't for we but for thee. When it comes to the explicit enumerated powers of congress to naturalize citizens, it can be ignored when convenient. When it comes to an explicit "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" we get infringements.

So suddenly we have the ideology which most at every turn attempts to expand federal power, ignoring the plain text of the constitution, finding fantastical interpretations to support their regimes of taxation and regulation, like the "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" clauses, wanting to fight federal overreach.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist so I don't necessarily consent to the federal government ability to "legitimately" rule over me or anyone else but if we're going to at least pretend that there is a "social contract" that document is the Constitution of the United States. If they don't hold up their end of the deal, why do I have to hold up mine?

Can I make my income a "sanctuary income"?

How about my gun safe? My guns aren't illegal - they're just "undocumented"!

What if I trade in cannabis within my own state lines? Oh how nice, the State of Colorado acknowledges that right already.

Still working on getting some raw milk though...

You can see, this is not the game that statist want to play

We can, we should, we must, nullify every last law which doesn't acknowledge our natural rights. If there was an argument to the Republican party being controlled opposition, it's that they don't practice nullification at every sentence of the federal register. Seeing as they are the holders of the vast majority of Gubernatorial and State legislature offices. If a state, county, or city can nullify, why can't I as well?

Please also consider a visit to tenthamenmentcenter.com to see their great work on this topic.