Americans' Sovereign Duty to Resist Lawfare

"Let us remember that if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it and involve others in our doom."

-Samuel Adams, Boston Gazette, October 1771

Nullification is the inherent duty of individuals to invalidate and resist any and every government action shown to be unconstitutional or unjust. This principle is rooted in the belief that all government power derives from the consent of the governed; therefore, when a government oversteps its mandate, individuals retain their sovereignty to act as checks on its authority. Historically, the idea has been championed by US Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, for nullification emphasizes that the Constitution represents a compact among the people, any breach of which by the government warrants the rightful resistance of its citizens to protect their intrinsic freedom and its sovereign rights.

This fundamentally American doctrine asserts that the Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, but one for the people to restrain their government, literally an insurance policy against the hazard that it may unjustly harm or endanger them.

The duty to resist usurpation of power by anyone, in any office, is painfully relevant today, and not because of any election season. We see it on display across several contemporary movements, in varying degrees, as more and more individuals are separately forced to resist overreach. Consider the array of government misconduct regarding gun control, land management, medical mandates, surveillance and, of course, whistle-blowers. Tragically, as individuals who work in local, state and federal offices inevitably attempt to expand their scope and power, since nongovernmental civilians hold ultimate sovereignty, it is also necessarily their own inseparable responsibility to nullify unconstitutional actions as the crucial maintenance of their freedom.

If they ignore this, or shrink from it, whether through laziness or fear, then they risk harming many more than just themselves.

The doctrine that arbitrary power must be resisted is the driving force behind individual acts of defiance, both against unjust laws (i.e. those beyond the consent of the governed) and/or those unjustly applied (i.e. lawfare). Notably, individuals across various states have refused to comply with federal gun control measures, asserting their duty to self-defense and its protection under the Second Amendment. This form of resistance is not only a right but a vital obligation to prevent the erosion of fundamental freedoms that are easily lost and only regained at great cost, if ever. Similarly, resistance to federal healthcare mandates, including the Affordable Care Act, has seen individuals and groups challenge its provisions through legal and grassroots means, emphasizing their duty to safeguard medical autonomy over bureaucrats' attempts to usurp it.

Moreover, the concept of jury nullification, where jurors acquit defendants despite evidence of legal guilt because they believe the law itself is unjust, underscores the enduring belief in individual duty to resist government actions that overstep constitutional boundaries. This practice allows individuals to directly impact the enforcement of laws they consider oppressive, embodying the principle that upholding justice may sometimes require defying statutory decrees.

The relevance of nullification today underscores a persistent distrust in centralized power and a reaffirmation of individual rights and duties. As local, state and federal government officers openly attempt to usurp power, this principle is a reminder of the necessity for checks and balances, ensuring that power remains ultimately with you, who are otherwise unaffiliated with your government. This enduring principle from the American Revolution continues to inform and inspire modern resistance to government overreach, a living safeguard of individual liberty against institutional (i.e. inhuman) and inhumane threats.

The duty to resist is deeply embedded in the philosophical underpinnings of the American legal tradition. The writings of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founding figures emphasize that when a government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established — namely, to secure the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — it is not just the right but the duty of the people to alter or abolish it. This is not a call for anarchy, but for a vigilant citizenry that holds its administrators accountable as such.

If you survey contemporary society, you will see nullification practiced by those few individuals with the courage to stand up against any laws and regulations that demonstrably infringe on our constitutionally protected rights. From whistleblowers exposing the misconduct of government officials (of any branch or rank) to activists challenging unjust laws, the spirit of nullification is alive, though arguably unwell. Indeed, the fewer individuals volunteer for this duty, the greater the cost and risk they are forced to bear.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the normalization of criminal plea bargaining, which is almost always evidence that the State has no case ... if it could win in a jury trial, then why would it not seek convictions without offering deals instead?

Ultimately, nullification is a suspiciously fragile aspect of American jurisprudence, emphasizing that individuals are the last line of defense of their own freedom. By resisting unconstitutional laws and government actions themselves, they uphold the foundational principles of liberty and justice, ensuring that government remains a servant of the people, not their master. Habitual critical thinking about law and procedure, possibly as far as self-representation in court, if necessary, uniquely empowers individuals to take control of their own legal matters and to most effectively protect human rights, including their own.

? adrian dyer, 2024

"Who is the rebel against law and order, the legislator ordaining or the citizen resisting unconstitutional measures? It is the unprincipled minister who artfully innovates on the custom of governing, the ambitious senator whose self is his God, the faithless magistrate who tramples on rights which he has sworn to protect. These are the men who by perverting the purposes of government destroy its foundation, bring back society into a state of war, and are answerable for its mischievous effects."

- William Emerson, Sermon, 1802