Nullification: The Remedy Of The Constitutionally Literate

Rebuttal to: Commentary: Bait and Switch Tactics in Nullifying Tennessee’s Attorney General and President Trump

Image Credit: Canva

By Joe Wolverton II, J.D. –

There are few sights more pitiable than a man who, lacking both facts and the ability to marshal reasoned argument, resorts instead to insults and name-calling, hoping that the sheer force of his contempt will obscure the intellectual vacancy of his position. Such is the case with Mark Pulliam’s latest attack on nullification, a screed so riddled with errors, mischaracterizations, and outright misrepresentations that one must wonder whether he even troubled himself to read the U.S. Constitution before venturing to lecture others on its meaning.

It is telling that Pulliam begins his tirade not with an engagement of the principles at issue, but with an ad hominem assault on State Senator Janice Bowling and those who have defended nullification. This is the first sign that he lacks the facts to support his position—because only a man who fears the truth would so brazenly attempt to distract from it. The Constitution does not belong to law professors, Supreme Court justices, or politicians—it belongs to We the People, and it is to our understanding of it that all government officials must submit.

Nullification: The Founders’ Remedy

Let’s be clear: nullification is not, as Pulliam derisively calls it, a “fringe theory.” It is, in fact, an explicit constitutional mechanism designed to prevent federal usurpation—a principle that predates even the ratification of the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the very architects of our government, laid out nullification as the rightful remedy when the federal government oversteps its bounds.

In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, these men of unimpeachable authority—certainly more so than Pulliam—argued that when the federal government exercises powers not delegated to it, the states not only have the rightbut the duty to refuse to comply. Madison, in his Report of 1800, reaffirmed that the states are “duty-bound to interpose” when the federal government assumes powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

Yet Pulliam, with the arrogance of a man unfamiliar with his own limitations, dismisses this as “daft.” Are we to believe that Madison and Jefferson were misguided cranks? That the men who drafted the Constitution somehow misunderstood its meaning, while Pulliam, in his infinite wisdom, has cracked the code? The absurdity is self-evident.

The Supreme Court: Not the Sole Arbiter of the Constitution

Pulliam’s insistence that nullification is “discredited” because it does not conform to “over 200 years of Supreme Court caselaw” betrays either a gross misunderstanding of our constitutional system or a deliberate misrepresentation of it.

The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional—the Constitution itself is. As Jefferson warned, allowing the federal judiciary to be the sole interpreter of the document that limits federal power is to submit to “an elective despotism.” The Supreme Court has, time and again, rubber-stamped unconstitutional federal overreach, from Wickard v. Filburn (expanding the Commerce Clause beyond recognition) to NFIB v. Sebelius (upholding Obamacare as a “tax” despite clear constitutional contradictions).

Would Pulliam have had the states bow to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford as well? That decision, too, was once “the law of the land.” Yet it was the refusal of state governments to comply with that judicial monstrosity that ultimately led to its demise. The fact that the Supreme Court has, for two centuries, acted as an accomplice in the unconstitutional expansion of federal power does not render that expansion legitimate—it merely proves how necessary nullification remains.

Executive Orders Are Not Law

Among Pulliam’s more outlandish claims is that SB 479 somehow undermines President Trump by affirming that executive orders are not laws. But this is not an attack on Trump—it is a simple statement of constitutional fact.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution is unambiguous: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” The President has no authority to create laws—he may execute them, but he may not make them. Executive orders that remain within the bounds of the Constitution (such as those directing how the executive branch carries out its lawful functions) are legitimate; those that attempt to impose legal obligations on states or citizens are not.

If Pulliam takes issue with this, his quarrel is not with Sen. Bowling, nor with nullification—it is with the Framers of the Constitution themselves.

Insults Do Not Constitute an Argument

The most revealing aspect of Pulliam’s article is his reliance on character assassination rather than substantive argument. Instead of refuting the historical and constitutional basis for nullification, he resorts to dismissing its supporters as “mediocre far-right hacks.” He sneers at an “estate planning lawyer” and a “non-practicing former attorney,” as if legal pedigree were the arbiter of constitutional fidelity.

Yet, consider this: the entire legal profession today is trained in a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Constitution—one that glorifies judicial supremacy, downplays federalism, and dismisses the enumerated powers doctrine. That law schools teach this “false version of constitutional law” is not risible—it is an observable fact. That Pulliam finds this truth inconvenient does not make it any less true.

Nullification: More Necessary Than Ever

If nullification is as unserious as Pulliam claims, why does it provoke such vitriol from him and his ilk? Why does it frighten them so much that they feel compelled to vilify, misrepresent, and outright lie about it? The answer is simple: nullification is a direct and effective means of reining in the federal leviathan, and they know it.

Every unconstitutional act left unchecked by the states is an invitation for more tyranny. If state legislators—the most accountable representatives of the people—lack the courage to resist unconstitutional dictates from Washington, then the American experiment is truly lost.

Thankfully, men and women of principle do remain. Senator Bowling, Jeff Cobble, and others who advocate for nullification understand what Pulliam does not: that the Constitution is a contract, and that when one party violates a contract, the other is not bound to obey.

Conclusion

Pulliam’s attack on nullification is as baseless as it is bombastic. His reliance on Supreme Court precedent over constitutional principle, his rejection of the Founders’ clear intent, and his contempt for those who challenge federal overreach expose him not as a defender of constitutional government, but as an apologist for its continued erosion.

One is left with a final question: If nullification were truly “fringe” and “discredited,” why spend so much energy trying to discredit it? The reality is clear—nullification threatens the power of those who benefit from unconstitutional government, and that is why it must be defended.