Constitution Enforcement! – Ask James Madison, Father of the Constitution

The Tenth Amendment Center
Thur, Dec 19, 2013 
Subject: James Madison on How to Enforce the Constitution  



Thanks to Founding Father James Madison 

A good place to start in determining how to enforce the Constitution is with 
the guy who’s commonly referred to as the "Father of the Constitution." 
While there’s some debate that James Wilson was actually far more fitting of 
that title, Madison was obviously quite influential.

The essential question: When the federal government violates the 
constitution, what do you do about it?

Here’s what Madison had to say in Federalist #46. The Influence of the State 
and Federal Governments Compared:

"Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in 
particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a 
warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of 
opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; 
their repugnance and perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the 
Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State. The 
embarrassment created by legislative devices which would often be added on 
such occasions, would impose, in any State, very serious impediments; and 
were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would 
present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to 

Let me translate. Madison said that when the federal government passes an 
unconstitutional measure there are powerful methods to oppose it – amongst 
the people and in the states. He also pointed out that those methods were 
available even for warrantable, that is constitutional, measures.

Madison told us of four things that should be done to resist federal powers, 
whether merely unpopular, or unconstitu-tional.

1. Disquietude of the people – Madison expected the people would throw a fit 
when the feds usurped power – even using the word "repugnance" to describe 
their displeasure. That leads to the next step.

2. Refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union – Noncompliance. 
Madison apparently knew what we know today. The feds rely on cooperation 
from state and local governments, as well as individuals. When enough people 
refuse to comply, they simply can’t enforce their so-called laws.

3. The frowns of the executive magistracy of the State – Here Madison 
envisions governors formally protesting federal actions. This not only 
raises public awareness; executive leadership will also lead to the next 
step – legislative action.

4. Legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions – 
Madison keeps this open-ended, and in the years soon after, which we’ll 
cover shortly, we learn how both he and Thomas Jefferson applied this step.

Madison also told us that if several adjoining States would do the same it 
would be an effective tool to stop federal acts. To repeat, he said that 
doing this "would present obstructions which the federal government would 
hardly be willing to encounter."

Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed recently and said that people need to stop 
enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. He also said that if you could get 
an entire state doing this, it would make federal laws "nearly impossible to 

What’s important to note here, are some glaring omissions. The powerful 
means that Madison told us would be used to oppose federal power 
successfully did NOT include federal lawsuits in federal courts. He also did 
NOT include "voting the bums out" as a strategy, either.


Compare that with how people generally respond to what they consider 
unconstitutional or unpopular federal acts today.

The first thing we tend to hear from people who are opposed to a federal act 
is the "vote the bums out" mantra. We’ll fire congress, right?

Or some people tell us we have to sue and let the courts decide.

I’ve got some news for you. There’s nothing from the founders – anywhere – 
in which they tell us that our first response to extreme, repeated 
violations of the constitution and liberty is to vote the bums out, or sue 
the feds in federal court. Nothing.


Thomas Jefferson followed up on this in 1798 with the same kind of advice. 
That year, the Adams administration passed a wildly unconstitutional attack 
on the freedom of speech with the Alien and Sedition Acts. In response, 
while sitting as vice-president, Jefferson secretly drafted the Kentucky 
Resolutions, and here’s a little of what he wrote:

"The several states composing the united states of America are not united on 
a principle of unlimited submission to their general government."

"Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of 
the act is the rightful remedy"

"That every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact to 
nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within 
their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, 
absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment 
for them"

Madison was consistent in his views on this. In 1798, he also drafted and 
help pass something known as the Virginia Resolutions, a state-level 
"legislative device" in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. Here’s a 
key part:

"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."

Like Madison advised in Federalist #46, both he and Thomas Jefferson advised 
a state-level response to dangerous federal acts. In 1798, neither of them 
even mentioned voting or lawsuits.

Jefferson told us that a "nullification is the rightful remedy." And Madison 
told us that states are "duty-bound to interpose."

When Daniel Webster called on these same principles in response to military 
conscription plans during the war of 1812, he said:

"The operation of measures thus unconstitutional and illegal ought to be 
prevented by a resort to other measures which are both constitutional and 
legal. It will be the solemn duty of the State governments to protect their 
own authority over their own militia, and to interpose between their 
citizens and arbitrary power. These are among the objects for which the 
State governments exist; and their highest obligations bind them to the 
preservation of their own rights and the liberties of their people"

Here’s the bottom line. You are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 years for some 
new politicians to get in office and give your permission to be free. You 
are not supposed to wait 2 or 4 or 6 years for some federal court to tell 
you, "ok, you be free now."

You are supposed to stand up resist, refuse to comply and nullify 
unconstitutional federal acts – as soon as they happen.

All the money and time you throw at firing congress or winning in federal 
court will never, ever work – unless you start resisting right here in your 
state. And, that resistance needs to be your first response, not your last.

Provided by the Tenth Amendment Center.



Related Articles:

Jesus Was Married – Ogden Kraut Interviews For Free

Duck Dynasty Courage – Christmas Courage

Sovereign Inhabitant – Kurt Kallenbach Explains Admiralty Law

Top 3 Chinese Steps to Invade & Disarm America

Justice John Roberts – ObamaCare is Constitutional As a Tax

NWo Victory Over America – IRS Collection Agency for Federal Reserve, UN

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply