Joining us now, we have a very special guest on the line, Dr. Tom Woods, who is a New York Times best-selling author of 10 books, and he's got a new book called Nullification, How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.
And he does have his own YouTube channel, and some of them are hilarious, so we are very pleased to have on Tom Woods. Are you with us?
Yes, I am.
Oh, good morning. Thank you for joining us.
my pleasure i hope we're a little bit better than the interview with a zombie
well i guess we'll see won't we yeah that's that's really a funny video it is really good a lot yeah
i like it well check out so you can check out interviewwithazombie.com the the the gist of it
for those who haven't seen it in case there is anyone out there who hasn't it's uh the idea of
it is that with my new book i was anticipating that if i were to get interviewed by somebody in
in the mainstream media, it would be impossible to convey the points of the book because what
would happen is that I would have all these sort of politically correct words thrown at
me and accusations and all the rest of it.
So it turns out that being interviewed by Chris Matthews is pretty similar to being
interviewed by a guy dressed as a zombie.
Because he just throws out things like, if you're against healthcare you must be a racist
or if you're against, yeah, of course.
Right, so there are no arguments being made, of course. They just throw a word at you that's supposed to ruin your career and you're supposed to go crawl into some cave and die, and I just won't do it. I'm just going to laugh at these people.
Good. I love it. And I guess you, well, I read, I read the, there's a free article that people can read a free chapter out of your recent book if they go to your website, tomwoods.com, right?
Yes, that's right.
and i read the articles very good about nullification and sort of just given the
crystallized view of nullification but just tell the audience what it what is
nullification
well nullification is the
is thomas jefferson's idea that's making a sort of surprise comeback
because it basically was jefferson's answer to the question what the heck you
do
when the federal government
violates the constitution
now this is you know as you know this is not exactly a hypothetical question
Nancy Pelosi was asked what the constitutional basis was for the health care bill, and this is her answer.
Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?
Are you serious?
Are you serious? What's her response? Nancy, where...
I was thinking to myself, you know, if for some reason there's a technical problem and they can't play this recording, I thought, well, it would still work.
They said, here's Nancy Pelosi's constitutional argument, and it was just blank dead air.
Yeah, you're right.
Actually, that would have been all right.
But that's her answer. Hey, Nancy, where do you find it in the Constitution that, you know, to carry out these unbelievable programs that you're instituting? Are you serious?
So what Jefferson decided you need to do is his answer was interesting because it's different from what we are sort of told we need to do. Like today we were told, well, you just sit back and wait for the federal courts to tell you that the federal government has done something wrong. And Jefferson's view was that, well, number one, the federal courts are probably just going to rubber stamp everything, which indeed they have. And secondly, the federal courts are actually part of the federal government, so they're not exactly impartial arbiters in all this.
And secondly, elections. Just vote the bums out. First of all, you don't have an election every 10 seconds, so a lot of damage can be done while you're waiting for one.
But secondly, what's the guarantee that you do vote the bum out, or that the guy you put in doesn't betray you at the first opportunity?
How do you actually practically stop this thing? And Jefferson's answer was, well, the states have to function as restraints on the federal government.
I love that. It's great, yeah, it's great. And it has been, in your article you point out a few areas where states have actually implemented this. For example, the Real ID Act. I know in Louisiana we've refused to fund it because we've considered it to be unconstitutional. We've considered it to be unconstitutional. We've considered it to be unconstitutional. We've considered it to be unconstitutional.
to be an unfunded mandate and other states have taken the same position and supposedly
refuse to comply with that law. Is that correct?
Yeah, exactly right. So we have, early in American history, we have this idea, which
by the way, this nullification idea that we've just talked about, you know, hardly anyone
knows about this. I've done a lot of radio on this, basically right of center sort of
radio. None of these hosts know anything about it. And I say that not as an insult, but because
When they hear about it, they say, well, it makes sense to me. I mean, we tried everything else, and nothing else works on this government. Might as well try everything Jefferson suggested we try.
But indeed, in early American history, we've got Jefferson and Madison employing nullification against infringements on free speech, the northern states using it against unconstitutional searches and seizures,
and Military Conscription, and against the Fugitive Slave Act, and then five years ago,
as you mentioned, with the Real ID Act, we had a couple of dozen states basically saying,
well, we're just not doing this thing, and you know, when that many states say we're
not doing something, I mean, what's the federal government going to do? Cut off the highway
money to all of them, or send in the tanks to all these? I mean, what, practically speaking,
what can they do? So there is strength in numbers, and in fact, you know, maybe the
California is one of 14 states that allows medical marijuana. Federal law does not make an exception for medical marijuana. You are not allowed to do this. And the Supreme Court even said, you can't do this. So the Justice Department says you can't do it. The Supreme Court says you can't do it. And California basically said, well, thanks for your Supreme Court decision. And they continued doing it. And the funny thing is that today, when you raise that as an example of a state just saying, no, we're not doing it,
to the federal government. People will say, well, that's not a good example because the
Justice Department has decided it's not going to prosecute these cases anymore. Well, yeah,
why do you think they decided not to do it? That's right. Because they woke up one day
and said, gee, maybe our interpretation of the commerce clause is wrong. We really shouldn't
be doing it. No, they woke up and said we're not doing it because no one was cooperating
with them. That's right. The resistance was so big, so it shows that this works, actually.
Sure it does, because otherwise they lose their power. If people start seeing that, seeing odds behind the curtain, well, you know, then their power is diminished. It's only by pretending to be the big, bad federal government and, you know, not having their authority challenged that they can continue to get away with the tyranny that they get away with.
That's an excellent point. So they realize that it's making them look bad to continue enforcing this when there's that much resistance to it.
They say, well, you know, we've got other priorities now. Yeah, I don't doubt it. You don't want to be made to look like a fool by California and other states.
So sure, of course you have other priorities now. So my argument is not that if we start nullifying a law, this is a guarantee that will reduce the government to back where it needs to be.
The point is that, you know, I'm all ears if people have suggestions that we haven't already tried a thousand times, like, you know, voting for Newt Gingrich and crossing your fingers, that, I mean, best day ever done that.
Exactly.
Well, I wanted to ask you about Arizona, because that's kind of the opposite of nullification. They decided they're actually going to enforce something, and then they're told to back down from enforcing it.
Indeed, right. It is a kind of reverse nullification, although if, let's say, the Federal Government struck down their law, if their governor just went ahead and enforced it anyway, that would be a kind of nullification.
And this bill, by the way, this is an example, I think, of, I mean, if nullification is to be carried through, then, you know, it has to be done consistently.
And it could mean that some states, you know, from time to time will have laws that some people might not like.
But if it's going to work, we can't say, well, you can nullify this or this and this, but I don't really want you to nullify it.
You know, look, you're going to have to put up with the fact that some of these things are going to be obnoxious.
When the federal government does something catastrophically stupid, what do you do about it?
Do we move to Canada? And then what do I do when Canada does something stupid?
Do I have to move to the moon? I mean, at least if you can keep power as broken up and into pieces as you possibly can,
then at least you can vote with your feet. I mean, there's at least some kind of restraint on these sociopaths.
Whereas right now, they've centralized so much of their idiocy that there's nowhere to run, you know, the same idiotic laws, federal laws that the federal government has usurped, almost all state power at this point, you have nowhere to go. So you better as a state start standing up. And listen, Louisiana, we've been under the jackboot of the feds for six years at this point. And most recently, our governor who pretends to have presidential aspirations, I don't think he's read the 10th Amendment, because all he's
During the whole confrontation with the feds over the oil, when we wanted to do things to protect ourselves,
was, please, please, please, please, please give us permits.
A real governor would have just done it and said, we're going to arrest you if you get in our way.
And the fact is, who would have been against that apart from 12 ideologues in Hollywood or something?
You know, he could have become president had he stood up.
The whole country would have been behind this guy.
I mean, Democrats and Republicans, they would have said, man, this guy has guts, and good
for him, finally.
You know, we're sick of these mealy-mouthed, nobody-jerk boobs that we have to vote for,
whatever.
Right on.
Finally.
Right on.
And he just wouldn't do it.
I mean, what a letdown.
Jerk boobs and sociopaths, will you stop mincing words?
Tell us how you really feel, because I'm right there with you.
Because every week, Jindal, you know, we're going to, that's it, we are telling the Federal
The Federal Government, we're going to do what we want. If they would just please give us the permits.
What a weenie.
You said something interesting in one of your videos, and I think it was just really paraphrasing Jefferson,
when you said that when the Federal Government is the final judge on how much power it should have,
shouldn't we be shocked that you just keep grabbing more and more and more?
So we're going to talk more about how to get the Federal Government off our backs with Dr. Tom Woods
We are coming back with a most interesting and exciting guest who speaks his mind on Baldy and the Blind.
Alright, this is Tom Coates and Michelle Godin with Tom Woods and we will be back in a few minutes. Stay tuned.
We are coming back now with Dr. Thomas E. Woods, our probably most feisty guest. I love him.
And he is talking to us about a solution to the ever-increasing tyranny of the federal government, which is nullification,
which is just refuse to comply when they're out of bounds and unconstitutional, and he didn't make that up, Thomas Jefferson did. How about that? That crazy right-wing guy, Thomas Jefferson.
Hey Tom, we've got a trio of Toms, they're all crazy, I guess, right?
Yep. Love my Toms.
Now, nullification is not, we're not suggesting Louisiana disobeys laws that we think are bad ideas, but are constitutional, right?
Right. The idea is, yeah, things that are unconstitutional, but since most of the things the federal government does that you don't like are unconstitutional,
The Theory of Money and Credit
Is that nullification is strictly a right-wing extremist thing? Is it not true that these sanctuary cities are really just nullification?
Yeah, it is. I mean, they would never want to use that word because, heaven forbid, they might be politically incorrect and they can't have that.
But that is certainly a form of nullification. They're basically saying we're not going to devote any resources to enforcing this particular immigration law.
Another way, another thing they could do, I'd love to see a city or a state, say, to the federal government. You know, you've got your crazy drug war, but we're not going to, and you can have those laws, but we're not going to devote any resources to it. So how do you like that?
Yeah, I fully agree. Actually, that's something I'm always going on about. I agree that they're ridiculous laws and they expect the states to enforce the federal laws.
Right, so if the states just say, I mean by and large the federal government needs the
states to cooperate in its, you know, absurdities, and if the states say, well we're not doing
it, well this, you know, this could be the beginning of something, this could be the
beginning of the states saying, you know, what, we want to go back to the constitution
we were supposed to have, so we better have a meeting of the minds here, because we're
just not doing what you want us to do, we're just not going to do it, and especially with
the economy the way it is, and unlikely to really recover in the near future, and states
I think you could get to a point where it gets so bad that some governor starts saying look starting tomorrow I'm going line by line through the state budget and everything I see here that's an unconstitutional federal mandate we're not doing anymore, period. And go ahead, throw me in jail. See what that does for your popularity, throw a governor in jail. I'd like to see you try. And I've actually seen Andrew Napolitano advocate arresting federal officials that come in and try to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
Jefferson envisioned trying them for treason against the state.
Absolutely.
So, I mean, yeah, I know Keith Olbermann would be horrified by that, but I don't think
Jefferson over Keith Olbermann.
Myself.
You know, Harry Lee was a sheriff in Jefferson Parish that I think really understood his
constitutional authority as a sheriff.
And after Katrina, the feds actually cut the communication lines between he and his deputies,
And he reestablished them and put armed guards on the lines and ordered them to shoot any
federal officials that tried to cut the lines again.
Oh wow, I hadn't heard that.
You know what, it's really buried, but it's one of the greatest things I've ever heard
in the last ten years of a local authority standing up to the feds, and you'd have to
know him, he's kind of a legend here, so he was something, but we have a bunch of wusses
in office now, so.
Yeah, we do, but maybe if they see that their ambitions can be, in other words, if they
realize there's a group of people out there that feel strongly about this, well, maybe
some of them will do something.
I'm inclined to think that state legislators might be reachable, because they're not all
crazy loons who want to be president some day.
Some of them are just regular people who feel like they're doing a civic duty.
Well, you might be able to persuade them to take a historic stand, or you might even be able to win as a state legislator, and again, it's not that state legislators are wonderful, saintly people necessarily, but at least in Jefferson's view, there was a chance you might actually know your state legislator. You might live down the street from him. You might have some prayer of influencing them, whereas you have zero prayer of influencing the U.S. Senate. I have no authority over the U.S. Senate whatsoever. And they do obviously whatever they want. I mean, they don't care at all what the American people
Well that's been made clear to us again and again, nobody wanted the bank bailouts, we
got the bank bailouts, huge opposition to the healthcare, we got the healthcare, skepticism
about the stimulus, we got the stimulus, I mean they clearly do not care what we're saying
or thinking.
And then you're going to see amnesty, and you know, what should have woken people up
to the fact that both sides, Republicans and Democrats, are equally crazy and unconstitutional
When George Bush was pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens, you know, and Republicans were kind of like, huh?
Yeah, well, and the fact is that to hear them talk today about, well, you know, we're going to take back America by putting the Republicans back in.
Joke.
I mean, we want to take it back from them after what they did to us for eight years.
Right.
I mean, seriously, look at their track record. I mean, Bill Clinton was clearly, this isn't, I'm not just saying this just to be facetious,
Bill Clinton was clearly a fiscal conservative compared to George W. Bush. What's the challenge to seeing that? That was clear and obvious.
Absolutely. Again, he had disdain for the Constitution as much as George Bush.
I mean, they're all cut from the same cloth, but I mean, if what I'm supposed to look forward to is, you know, is George W. Bush and his, basically the sort of policies he implemented on education and health and deficits and wars and civil liberties. I mean, come on. I mean, every drone running for president favors the same thing. Nobody's going to change anything. I mean, if I elect, you know, Mitt Romney, if I elect another GOP plastic man,
is going to change, except, I'm afraid, some of the Tea Party people, one thing that will
change is they'll say, ah, finally, finally we got one of our own people in office, all
right, let's go back to our jobs, no, no, no, what's the matter with you people, no.
Yeah, unfortunately the Tea Party in many ways has been compromised by Republican takeover,
or at least the Republicans are trying to get branded with them, whereas I think the
The True Tea Party people were a lot of Ron Paul supporters that had started this years
ago.
And there's still some hope for them.
When nullification is spelled out to them, when they hear it, a lot of them are ready
to jump on board.
Hey, let's get started.
Go ahead.
Let's start nullifying.
Some of them had some good instincts.
We're down to our last minute.
Do this.
Give out your website and how people can find your book, Nullification.
Okay, sure.
Nullification is in all your major bookstores, but most cheaply you can get it on Amazon.com
and check out tomwoods.com, there's a lot of free stuff, you can learn all about this stuff
free audio and video, it's all there, tomwoods.com
and i think you know our next guest, Walter Block, huh?
oh yeah, say hello to Walter Block, sure will
thanks tom, you've been great and i hope that you can join us again sometime, it's been a
terrific visit with you
great, i had fun, thank you
yeah, that's what we need
more Tom Woods