Is Now a Great Time to Nullify the Federal Government? I Ask the Tenth Amendment Center's Mike Maharrey

There has never been a period in my own lifetime when American people have had so little trust in, or regard for, the nation's government. Witnessing the events of the past four-plus years – or indeed, the past couple of weeks – one might rightly declare that we have reached peak clown show in the realm of governance.

So is it time to just cut it loose? Would it be better for states to simply go their own ways, and let the feds continue to flounder? And if so, what are the mechanisms by which they might do this? Would such a move require outright secession, or violent revolution? Or does the very law upon which the nation is founded allow for it?

I pose these questions to Mike Maharrey, National Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center.

Mike is also a reporter and analyst for Money Metals.

You can find Mike on Twitter.

He is the co-author of the books "Constitution Owner's Manual: The Real Constitution Politicians Don’t Want You to Know About", and "Nullification 101: An Introduction to the History, Constitutionality, and Practical Applications of Nullification."

Transcript

[00:04] Bretigne Shaffer: Welcome to the podcast that's all about solutions. If you're tired of complaining about tyranny and you want to take action to create a freer world, this is the place for you. Join us as we ask, what then must we do? I am very happy today to be here with Mike Meharry. Mike is the national communications director for the 10th Amendment center. He's also a reporter and analyst for Money medals. A gold dealer, gold and silver, I guess, dealer. And he's also on Twitter. You can find him on Twitter. I asked Mike here to talk to us about what's going on in the world these last few weeks, and doesn't it kind of seem like maybe now might be a good time to nullify the federal government? So I'll just open it up with that. What do you think?

[01:05] Mike Maharrey: Well, first off, thanks so much for having me on your show. I really appreciate it. And, yeah, crazy times we're living in. My stepdaughter is fond of saying what a time to be alive, and it certainly is. I, quite frankly, think anytime is a good time to nullify the federal government, because it has grown into a behemoth far beyond what was ever envisioned or intended when the country was founded. And right now, there's so much focus on national politics. We've got an election coming up. It's the latest version of the most important election in our history. And of course, there's all kinds of drama around it, with the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and you got Biden dropping off, and everybody's just obsessed with these national political things. And I've been saying for years that the reality is it doesn't really matter. You know, whoever wins. Here's my election prediction. I would put money on this election prediction. In four years, after whoever wins is nominated, whether it's Trump or Harris or somebody out of the, out of left field, no matter what happens in four years, the government will be in deeper debt, there will be more laws imprinting on our liberty. Uh, there'll probably be some more wars. Uh, and nothing fundamentally is going to change. And the problem is the entire system has been corrupted and broken. And so it's like you've got this car, right? It's up on blocks. Uh, there's no tires. The battery's gone, you know, the engine's seized up. And people are trying to fix that by putting a new driver in the driver's seat. Well, of course, that doesn't work. So we have to figure out if those, those who care to be engaged in the political process we have to figure out something that can be done to address the system itself. And that's not going to happen by going right to the system. Right. You're not going to fix it by changing out the parts. You're not going to fix it by begging them to pass a law to restore your rights. You're not going to go to the federal courts and get it to limit the federal government because it is part of the federal government. So there has to be some strategy that we can, can do as people, because ultimately the people are supposed to be in charge of this. What can we do? And really for me, and this has been my political strategy for more than a decade now, is work at the state and local level, try to do things and put things in place that will force the federal government back within the bounds that it was intended to be in. We could sit here and argue all day whether or not, you know, people like to this spooner quote, you know, whether it be one thing or another, the constitution has either given us this government or it's failed to restrain it. And we can debate that all day. But the fact of the matter is it's way too big. It's way too overpowering. It's overwhelming our individual liberties. It's overwhelming the sovereignty of the states. And ultimately, it's up to the people. We can't expect government to fix this problem. So we have these tools. We have other power sources. We have the states, we have local governments. We can use those to kind of rein the federal government in and kind of force it back into the box it was supposed to be in, whether it got there on purpose or by accident.

[04:33] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah, and it's such an important point because you hear a lot of people who are just so frustrated and fed up with where things have gotten. And people will often say, well, the only option is revolution. There's got to be revolution in the streets. You have a ******, violent revolution. That's all there is to. And yet that's not all there is. There are these tools that are explicitly within the constitution. These are legal. If you think the constitution's legitimate, they're legitimate tools that don't require bloodshed or revolution. And I think that's such an important point for people to understand because as frustration levels rise, people start thinking, well, what can I do? What can I do? Well, here's what you can do, actual tools. So could you talk a little bit about what does the constitution say about, you know, whether states and local jurisdictions have to do what the federal government says?

[05:33] Mike Maharrey: Well, you know, there's. There's kind of two ways that you can approach this, and you. You kind of. You kind of swerved into this point in what you just said. We can talk about what the original meaning of the constitution is. I've written a book about it. We can stand here or sit here and talk about that all day. What really matters in terms of nuts and bolts? What are we going to actually be able to do? What really matters is what the courts have said over the years, because that is the paradigm with which we operate under. Now, I will start off by saying that I think the Supreme Court is a big part of the problem, that it has allowed the federal government to outstretch the bounds of the constitution. But be that as it may, the Supreme Court has passed along a judicial precedent that goes all the way back to the 1840s that provides us the tool, the legal framework that we can use to push back against federal power. And this is known as the anti commandeering doctrine. And it's really simple. You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it. Basically, in all of these years, the courts have consistently held that the federal government cannot force states to utilize their own personnel or their resources to enforce a federal law or implement a federal program. They can't do it. And they've held this consistently. And so that means that when the federal government comes to the states and says, hey, we need you to enforce our gun control law, or we need you to enforce our drug law, or, you know, we need you to do this or that, the state is within its bounds and rights, both from a philosophical, constitutional standpoint, which doesn't really matter from practical purposes, but also from a legal standpoint that does. They don't have to do it. And so this feeds into a strategy that James Madison actually laid out in federalist number 46. Before the Constitution was even ratified, because this question had come up, the framers had consistently said, hey, this constitution is supposed to create a very limited federal government. As Madison put it in federalist number 45, powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain with the states are numerous and indefinitely. And so that raises the question, well, how do you keep it that way? And so Madison addressed this in federalist number 46. And he gave an outline. He said. He said that there are certain things, there are certain powers that can be wielded, and a lot of them are kind of, you know, he talked about petitioning and kind of the public pressure that the people can place on the federal government to kind of reign it in. But the most important and the key strategy that he gave, and these are his exact words, a refusal to cooperate with officers of the union. And that's exactly what he said, and that's exactly what the anti commandeering, commandeering doctrine allows for. So again, when the federal government comes along and says, okay, we're going to pass this bump stock ban, state and local governments can say, okay, we're not going to enforce it. And that may not seem significant, but it really, really is, because the federal government depends on state and local cooperation to do virtually everything that it does. And I always use this example because it's a visual thing I think a lot of people can picture. If you've ever watched a federal drug bust, if you've ever seen that on the news, what do you see? You see two dudes in DEA jackets, and then there's like 45 local sheriffs and local police officers supporting the operation. Now imagine what happens when all of those sheriff's deputies and local cops don't show up and you just got the two DEA agents. They ain't doing nothing. And so this is a problem that the federal government has on virtually everything it does. It depends on this state and local cooperation. And this is precisely why the federal war on marijuana has completely unraveled and failed. And this goes back to 1996, and it was difficult, and it's been a slow process. But over the years, more and more states have said, you know what? We think that people in our state should be able to use marijuana. Uh, you know, it started off for medical reasons, and then eventually, uh, we started seeing legalization for recreational use. And, you know, whatever you think about marijuana, whether you use it, don't think it's bad, think it's good, whatever, doesn't matter. There's no federal authority to wage a war on drugs. And anybody who questions this just go back to alcohol. We had alcohol prohibition. It required a constitutional amendment because the federal government didn't have the constitutional authority to regulate alcohol. Well, they don't have constitutional authority to regulate a plant either. They're just doing it. But with so many states not enforcing marijuana laws, we're to the point now that I think there's 38 total states that have in some way legalized marijuana. Marijuana prohibition is falling apart. The federal government can't do it. In fact, in most cases, they've just given up. You know, they'll go after some, some of the big dealers every once in a while, and they'll, you know, they'll do this show of force to prove that they're still in charge, but they're not because they're not getting that support and cooperation. So I kind of use, use weed as the model, and I tease, I tease gun people because I'm like, you guys gotta get the, you know, the fortitude of the marijuana folks.

[11:08] Bretigne Shaffer: Learn from the hippies.

[11:09] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, part of it is, is, you know, really, I would go even a step back. And political strategy is important, and we can do things at the federal level or at the state level, and we can block things and whatnot. But really, it comes down to individual human action. We can go back to the whole premise of mises. People act and how people act matters. And when enough people decide they're going to do something the government can't make, they can't stop it. And that's really why we have marijuana legalization. There were enough people that are like, dude, I want to get high. And again, whether you think people should get high or not, it's immaterial. That's kind of the way the population went. And then, of course, we got all kinds of evidence that marijuana is valuable for medical purposes. And that kind of helped as well. But when you get enough people that want to do something, it's going to happen, no matter how much the powers that be try to crack down. I like to use the example of driving, um, you know, if you go out on the interstate today and go drive somewhere, you may see a speed limit sign that says 65. Nobody's driving 65. You know, even 70 people are always driving at least 5 miles over. And cops don't even bother with that. And for the most part, you can pretty much drive however fast you want. Again, police will come along and pick people off every once in a while. You know, they want you to know that they're still there. But really, we've effectively nullified speed limits by driving however fast we feel is safe and appropriate to go. And so it really starts with that human action. But state and local government action can support that and create a better environment. As states began to legalize marijuana, then more people who wanted to engage in that behavior, but were fearful of the repercussions, then they were willing to go ahead and engage in the activity, no matter what the federal government says. Because again, like 99% of all marijuana arrests happen at the state and local level. So when you get rid of that layer of laws, you're getting rid of most of the enforcement. So it's a, it's an incredibly powerful strategy. It can be applied to all kinds of issues, some issues that you wouldn't even think of, uh, such as foreign policy because states have control over their national guard units. So there is a, there is a way that, you know, states could say, hey, we're not going to deploy our national guard units if they're going into active duty combat overseas without a declaration of war, which is one of the legislative policy areas that we work on at the 10th Amendment center. It's called defend the guard. And so it requires some creative strength, creative thinking. It requires a lot of work at the state and local level, and it requires human action behind it. But I, this is a strategy that can work. I'm not saying we can get rid of the federal government or we can completely return to its constitutional roots, but we can certainly do a lot and create more space for freedom and liberty to thrive through this kind of strategy.

[14:11] Bretigne Shaffer: So what would be in our times with all the stuff coming at us, all the talk of cbdcs and just nutso stuff that we probably weren't prepared for, what do you think some of the most important issues to go after would be on a state level?

[14:31] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, that's a great question. My initial reaction is all of them, because again, you can apply it to so many things. And I think from a strategic standpoint, what you really have to do is you kind of have to step back and say, okay, what do we have the political support to get done in my particular state? Right. That's going to be different in Kentucky than it is in Florida. Then certainly it is in New York. Right. So, you know, for example, I would think in Kentucky or most southern states, you could get good, you know, public support behind efforts to rein in federal gun control because, you know, rural people like their guns.

[15:17] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah.

[15:18] Mike Maharrey: You're not going to get that done in New York. Not right now. Right. So in New York, you might focus on something different. You might focus on dealing with the surveillance state or dealing with the overreaching police state. You know, the federal militarization of police, which has basically created a standing army. So you really have to kind of look at your local jurisdiction and think, say, what can we get done? And kind of go at it at that angle. But there are some things that kind of cross the political spectrum and cross geography. The war on drugs is one. I think pretty much everybody is sick of that. CBDC is a great example, and we've seen a lot of states that have passed laws over the last two years to try to minimize the impact of CBD. Central bank, digital currency. I almost said the acronym wrong. So that's something that kind of, I think there's people on both sides of the political aisle that are a little bit wary of this potential of overreaching federal control that you could get with central bank digital currency. There was a great movement several years ago called right to try. And basically what this was was a law that allowed folks based on state law to try medical experimental drugs, experimental treatments when they were dealing with a life threatening or it started out as being primarily for folks who were dying, but it's actually expanded since, but allowed them to try these drugs even though the FDA hadn't approved them. It created a state process to allow people to try medications. Now, what sane human being is going to say, no, we can't have people who are dying go out and try experimental? Nobody's going to say that. So by the time it was all said and done, there's like 42 states that had passed some type of right to try law. And then eventually the federal government, they ran and said, oh, we're going to fix this. And it had already been fixed by the states, but it goes to show the power of that bottom up approach, because you start getting things done, even at the local level, trickles up to the state, and then I eventually will put pressure on these federal politicians. And I think, you know, I don't think we're far away from having marijuana legalized at the federal level either, because they've lost control of that. So I want them to lose control of everything so they can't do anything.

[17:48] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah, well, the ratchet try example is an interesting one because I think we think of the FDA as having this sort of unstoppable power over the whole nation, but with this kind of legislation. Well, let me just ask you, would it be possible for a state to say the FDA no longer has jurisdiction here, period, at all?

[18:13] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I mean, no. I mean, the short answer is no. I mean, you could declare it, but what, you know, I'm always concerned about or focused on what is going to be the practical effect. So you're really going to have a difficult time totally seizing jurisdiction, especially because so much in the field of medicine is regulated kind of through interstate commerce. But that being said, you can, at the state level, refuse to enforce any FDA mandate that you want to. Again, the federal government can't force states to enforce federal law, so you can put the FDA in a position where they have to do the enforcement themselves. And that becomes very difficult because they don't have the personnel and resources. So we've actually, you know, with right to try. That's basically what happened. But, you know, you could do the same thing. You could say a vaccine mandate, let's say that that was actually going through OSHA, but let's say the FDA passed some kind of vaccine mandate. Well, who's going to enforce it? Ultimately, it's going to come down to the states to enforce it. If they don't enforce it. I mean, it's not like you have FDA agents that are running around to do stuff. And you've seen this as well with some of the movement in several states to have food freedom where they basically say, we're not going to enforce these certain state laws, and those usually are mirrored in federal law. We're not going to enforce these on people that are small scale producers of food or folks that are making stuff in their homes. Know, interestingly, when that enforcement ends, then the federal enforcement effectively ends as well. And the result of this, in states that have done this, you're actually seeing a decrease in foodborne illnesses, of course. Right. Because so often the federal enforcement, what they're doing is they're creating monopolies and they're creating these consolidated corporations that are handling all the food. And, I mean, that's a little off the subject. But it just goes to show when you get into some of these agencies like the FDA or the EPA, it's hard to say a state's gonna blanket ignore them, but they don't have to enforce anything that they do. And when that state enforcement goes away, then the federal government finds itself in a very difficult situation. It doesn't work for everything. There are certain things where the federal government can go after individuals directly, and that becomes problematic. But when it comes to enforcing these big regulatory things, almost all of it's done at the state level as far as environmental protection, food protection, those type of things, workforce and protection, even though the feds are funding it, the actual work is being done by the state and local level. And that's why the whole vaccine mandate thing fell apart, because so many states were just not going to enforce that.

[21:11] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah. Yeah. Does the chevron ruling change this at all? Does it make it easier? Or is it really, is that really sort of a separate issue?

[21:20] Mike Maharrey: I mean, I think it's definitely a positive because it opens up the legal environment. And what it really does is it kind of gives folks a way to challenge some of the overreaching bureaucracy in the courts. And personally, from a strategic standpoint, I'm not a big fan of lawsuits, of course. I'm not a lawyer. So you know, I'm not, and I'm not. So I'm not saying that it's not a good strategy in certain instances. I'm just wary of the federal courts because they tend to side with the federal government, surprise, surprise being that they're part of the federal government. But the Chevron ruling was very positive in the fact that it gives some of that, takes some of that latitude away from these bureaucracies. And if folks don't understand, basically under the Chevron ruling, the courts were just deferring to these bureaucratic agencies and saying, well, they're the experts, so if they make a rule, then that rule stands, even if that rule wasn't really specifically intended in the statute, you know, much less from a constitutional standpoint. So it does, it does kind of, it requires the courts to defer to the law itself and ultimately the constitution instead of, you know, Joe Blow, who is the director of ABC agency that's just making stuff up as he goes along.

[22:42] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah, yeah. When we talk about local levels, so there's like, there's state legislation, one thing we hear about a lot is the power of the sheriff. What's that all about? And do you think that's an effective sort of avenue to go down to try and grab back local power?

[23:00] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, it can be. Let's make a distinction, though, first, and this again is kind of a practical definition. I believe that any official state or local has every right to refuse to enforce something that they believe is unconstitutional. But what does that mean from a practical standpoint? We also have to take that into consideration. And the relationship between local governments and state governments are very different than the relationship between a state and the federal government. So local jurisdictions, they have all the power of the state when it comes to ignoring a federal law. So, you know, Smith County, Arkansas, I don't even know if that's a thing, but we'll pretend it is. But, you know, they could decide we're not going to enforce federal gun control in our county. Perfectly right to do that. But they're going to run into a problem if they try to say we're not going to enforce state gun control in our county because counties are basically subdivisions of the state and in most states, counties have no autonomy, they have no authority, whereas states are sovereign entities. They are separate from the federal government. So people have to keep that in mind when they're looking at local strategies, especially if they're trying to go after something that the state's doing. Not saying they can't try, but I'm saying that you know, a governor could remove a sheriff from office here in Florida. They have that power. So you have to kind of know your own state and your own state laws. But to kind of more specifically address your question of the sheriffs, yes, they have a great deal of power insofar as they can maintain independence from the state authorities. But the idea is that the sheriff is elected and therefore beholden to the people. And as such, they are the highest law enforcement authority in a county. And so that gives them a great deal of latitude to make decisions and say, you know what? This is not something that we're going to enforce here in this county. Or, you know, they can try to assert jurisdiction and even stop beds from doing things within that county. Again, it gets tricky because you have a difficult time if you're at a state or local position and you try to arrest a federal agent, because it's going to end up in federal court and it's going to get booted. They're not going to get prosecuted. That said, we have specific incidences, and one that off the top of my mind was Elkhart County, Indiana, where the feds were hassling an amish farmer because he had the audacity to sell raw milk. And some of that raw milk was going across the border into another state. And so the feds were hassling this poor dude, and the county sheriff got wind that the feds were coming to do a raid on his farm and went to the end of the driveway and parked his car there and said, youre not going up there. And feds actually left. So you do have some power. And again, it really comes down to, you know, you've got to pick your battles, and you have to have a clear understanding of what the consequences could be, uh, you know, upon yourself. And I'm a firm believer that sometimes, you know, even if, even if you're putting yourself in the crosshairs, it's worth taking a stand. And you go back to California. In 1996, when they passed medical marijuana law, the feds were very aggressive in trying to shut that down. And there are a lot of people who took a stand and went to jail, lost their, you know, their possessions, lost a lot of money because they were willing to, um, to stand up and kind of take that flack in those initial years of pushback and, uh, you know, I've heard pretty incredible stories of, uh, the feds raiding medical marijuana dispensaries and, you know, shutting them down and people having them up and running again within that same day. And they were just willing to face those consequences. And sometimes you have to be willing to take risks and stand up if you truly value liberty. There's no government agency, there's no politician, there's no official anywhere that's going to give you more liberty. Their motivation is always more power for themselves, and that's just human nature. We should understand human nature. And so if youre depending on the federal government to oh, please stop doing this. No, you cant do that. I dont trust state or local governments either, and I should be clear about that. But theyre a little bit easier to control. And I talked to a state rep in Kentucky, this was a number of years ago, and he told me, hey, I never get phone calls from constituents on specific pieces of legislation. He said, if I start getting 1020 phone calls, and that's not many about a specific bill, that gets, he said, that gets my attention. And they're much more sensitive to public pressure than federal, than federal officials. But I think most people, we're kind of conditioned to run to Washington, DC with everything. If there's a problem, we're going to go to DC, call your congressman, and we're totally focused on these presidential elections and who controls Congress. We don't pay any attention at all to our state and local reps. When you start pressuring them, things change. And working at money metals, we do a lot of policy work in the area of sound money and support an organization called the Sound Money Defense League. And we have seen bills that were just dead in committee. And you motivate 2030 people to make a phone call and all of a sudden the bill gets a hearing. Wow, I've seen this over and over again, whereas I don't know if you ever, if you've ever called your congressman, my experience has always been, you know, you talk to some snotty intern who doesn't have any interest at all what you're saying, and then about three weeks later you get a form email that may or may not have anything to do with what you called to talk about.

[29:20] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah, I mean, it's been a long time since I've done anything like that. But you always get this email saying, you know, thank you for expressing your views on XYZ and then why those views are completely wrong and we'll never do anything about it.

[29:32] Mike Maharrey: Exactly. But that, that is different. And I want to emphasize this to folks that are listening, that is different. At the state level, you do. I'm not saying you have complete control over these people, but they are more sensitive to it. And you know, it's a smaller level of representation, and they know that, hey, I might run into this person at the grocery store, you know, and that's especially true when you start talking about doing stuff with city councils and things like that. Those people are, you know, you will run into them at the grocery store or church or, you know, whatever activities you're engaged in. So I really like to emphasize that, that if you are the type of person that thinks, well, you know, political action would be great, but it just doesn't do anything. Stop trying to do it at the federal level and start working state or locally. And I think you'll find that it's a little bit more satisfying in terms of results, not saying it's easy. You know, it took, it took Illinois, like, ten years to legalize marijuana, and they had to keep doing the same bill over and over and over again, session after session. But as it went along, it got more and more momentum, more and more momentum until it finally cleared the hurdle. Same thing in Kentucky where they recently passed. They call it constitutional carry. I hate that term. But permitless concealed carry, that took a number of sessions. And medical marijuana, they've been trying to get medical marijuana in Kentucky since I lived there and when I was growing up as a kid. So things take time, but they can get done at the state level a lot, I think, a lot easier.

[31:08] Bretigne Shaffer: Kentucky recently passed the, withdrew the sales tax on gold, which is big deal. That's something people here have been pushing for. And finally, I imagine it's a lot different between jurisdictions, though, too, because we came from Burbank in Southern California, where, you know, I've, I've sat through some of those city council meetings, and it's, it's enough to just.

[31:34] Mike Maharrey: Yes.

[31:36] Bretigne Shaffer: Speaking of violent revolution, I mean, it's just, it's, it's sickening. And some of, I mean, we had. Adam Schiff was, was there. You just get the sense that the people who are running things at the city level in a town like that are bought and paid for by really big interests.

[31:55] Mike Maharrey: Yeah.

[31:55] Bretigne Shaffer: But then you come here in Lexington, I was astounded. I mentioned before we started the conversation that we're operating an Airbnb in an old historic house, and so we had to go down and get a permit in order to do that. I show up at the permit hearing, and our local city council member for that district is there to speak on our behalf to help us out because she wants. And I was just, I was speechless. I was just like, I'm coming from a place where I don't want to be anywhere near the politicians. I mean, I just, they're, there is never any sense in my mind that they would ever want to do anything for me. It was so clear that, you know, it's us against them. And then here she just shows up and she's like, yeah, I'm here to speak. And I mean, it was just amazing. So I'm just saying it's a, it's a total cultural difference. And I bet that is sort of evident everywhere. You know, it's going to be different in New York City versus someplace in Tennessee. But yeah, it can be surprising.

[33:05] Mike Maharrey: And that goes back to kind of from a strategic standpoint, picking your battles, because there are some things, if you're a liberty minded person, that California is good on. Not a lot, but there are some, I mean, if you want marijuana, right. You know, you know, freedom from, from a lot of that drug intervention or California tends to be pretty good about protecting people from surveillance, which I can tell you from experience. Lexington, not so much. So, you know, it's interesting because in Michael Bolden, who's the founder and director of the 10th Amendment center, he actually lives out in California. We'll give him, people give him a hard time about it all the time. Oh, why would you live in California? He always says, I like my tyranny warm. That's his, that's his 1st. 1st comment. But he will tell you that, you know, there are some things and some things that are important to him that California is pretty good on if you're a liberty minded person. And, you know, there's some things that Kentucky's not so good on. And it's, you know, the economic truth of value is subjective. You have to figure out, okay, what's really important to me. And this is the beauty of federalism, which is the idea that the states have some autonomy and sovereignty. So you get different policies in different states. It lets you pick and choose. Right. I'm sure you went to Kentucky for a reason. There were reasons from an economic standpoint that I moved to Florida, although I also like my tyranny warm and I want it to be near a beach, you know, so you do have to kind of consider what's important to me. If guns are important to you, you don't want to live in California or New York. If privacy is important to you, maybe you do want to live in California. I still don't want to live in California. But, you know, again, it's the old adage, value is subjective. And I think that's true when it comes to liberty. So sometimes we, I think we have to cut some of our fellow liberty lovers a break if they, if they have kind of different priorities in terms of what's important to them in those terms.

[35:08] Bretigne Shaffer: Right. Right. You said earlier that something to the effect that a state couldn't just say, you know, the, the federal government no longer has jurisdiction here, no longer applies here. Why not? I mean, like, what would happen if a state say, not, not seceded? I'm not talking about secession, but if a state just said, we're just going to have a blanket policy that we're not going to enforce any federal law, you know, other than the Constitution, we're just going to enforce the constitution. That's it. Why couldn't they do that?

[35:41] Mike Maharrey: Well, yeah, they certainly could. The point that maybe, and maybe I overstated what I was trying to say. Simply saying x, y and z are void in this state is not going to have any legal force. Right. If the federal government comes in and enforces x, y and z, and you go to court and say, well, we said this is void, the courts are going to say, no, you can't do that. Right. So I'm talking about in that kind of legal sense. But when it comes to, if you, if you said, and here's an approach I really like, and this is an approach Arizona took to federal firearm laws. And I've seen some language in bills relating to the EPA that are, that are the same, basically, we are not going to enforce any federal statute. And this was, I'll use Texas as an example. They actually introduced this bill either, I think it was in their last session, and they said, we're not going to enforce any federal regulations on gas and oil production if they aren't already in state law. So, yeah, that's basically a blanket. We're not enforcing any of this federal stuff. Now, if it's, if it's a state law, we're going to enforce it. And if the state law happens to mirror federal law, fine. Arizona did this exact same approach with, with gun control. So I like that because then it kind of creates a situation where anytime you get rid of a regulation at the state level, you're also kind of getting rid of it at the federal level, too, you know, so that's kind of a strategic way that you can word that legislation. Yeah, but, yeah, to be clear, you know, there's, there's kind of, maybe I should explain this, and this will kind of help clarify it. There's, there's really two definitions of nullification. And that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about nullifying federal actions and federal laws. There is a legal definition of nullification. This happens when a court strikes down a law, right? If the Supreme Court says this law is unconstitutional, then it is gone. It is off the books, is nullified. It is no more. Then there is kind of a more common, or I like to say, a practical definition of nullification, and that's making something ineffective, unenforceable, inoperative in practice and effect. So the law may still be on the books, but in effect, it's not enforced because it can't be enforced. So the speed limit is a perfect example of a law that has been nullified in practice and effect. Go to the statute book, it still says the speed limit 70 miles an hour, but for the practical purposes, nobody's driving 70 mph. So usually at the 10th Amendment center, we'd really try to make this distinction. And from a strategic standpoint, we focus on nullification in practice and effect. What can we do to make it impossible for the feds to enforce these things and make them effectively gone? Now, I could make the argument, I can make the argument very well that the states should be able to legally challenge and nullify a state law. There should be some process for that to happen. But unfortunately, we live in a legal world where the federal courts have said, no, states can't do this, you don't have the authority, et cetera, et cetera. I argue that they're wrong because the states are sovereign, then they should have the final say. But that's an academic discussion in terms of what we're going to try to do strategically. I like to make those arguments because I think it, it reveals how far we've strayed and maybe at some point it'll drift back that way. But I really focus on what can we do in practice and effect, because that's really what I want. I want to create space for people to have more liberty, more freedom, more opportunity, get the federal government out of the way. And if I can't get them to repeal their own laws, I can at least make it impossible or more difficult for them to enforce them.

[39:41] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah. And if anything, it sounds like it's not only the more, the more practical way of getting it done, but probably easier. I mean, repealing laws is hugely expensive, especially at the federal level. It's going to be hugely expensive, and you're fighting an uphill battle against people who are funded by the state crony system. And so going up against that is, you know, it's a David and Goliath kind of situation, whereas just doing something that's going to create effective nullification at your local level seems like that's a little bit simpler and not quite as costly.

[40:20] Mike Maharrey: The other thing that it's easier from a political standpoint. Right. And when I first started with the 10th Amendment center, which has been over ten years ago now, we were really focusing more on kind of the legal type of nullification. We were trying to make the case that states are sovereign, that, you know, as Thomas Jefferson said, we were not, the states were not created to be pawns of the federal government, that the federal government can't have the final say, all very, you know, correct philosophical arguments based on the meaning of the constitution. But if you go to a committee hearing and start talking about that, they're just going to go, that's nice, Mike, and then they're going to say, but the Supreme Court said, and who wants to have that argument? When you go with an anti commandeering approach, when you simply say, we're not going to enforce this, you don't have to have that argument because the Supreme Court has already said it's in our favor. We have this tool here. Then the issue and the debate becomes the policy itself instead of whether or not you can or can't do that.

[41:30] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah.

[41:30] Mike Maharrey: So it just kind of takes away a layer of argument. So now, you know, instead of being able to kind of hide behind. Well, the Supreme Court says, and, you know, we would see this all the time, we'd start talking about something like firearms. And you get these wishy washy Republicans who, you know, they have an a plus rating from the National Rifle association and their, you know, their websites. Oh, I'm pro guna. And then you'd get these bills to actually try to not enforce federal gun control. And they'd be like, oh, yeah, but, but the constitution says, the Supreme Court says, and they would hide behind that right in order to oppose the bill and maintain their a plus NRA rating. They can't do that. When the issue is we have the right to not enforce this federal gun control, are you or are you not going to support enforcing it takes away that cover for them and makes it more difficult for them to do stupid politician stuff.

[42:29] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah. Yeah. That's awesome. There was a nullification effort several years ago where I think this was in Nevada, maybe it was elsewhere, too, where the policy was to withhold the water supply. What was that about?

[42:49] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, fascinating story. So where we really kind of became aware of this was after Edward Snowden revealed all of the malfeasance with the NSA. And we started thinking, okay, what can we do to try to rein in this surveillance state? And so Michael Bolden, he starts doing some research, and he finds out that the NSA is having a power problem. They had maxed out their power grid in Maryland, where their main headquarters is. And so they were looking for other places to put NSA facilities where they had more access to resources like electricity. Water is also an important thing for the NSA. So they built this facility in Bluffdale, Utah, and it's a massive facility there now. And it's basically just a. It's just basically a big computer storage facility. Right? So they gather all of this data from all over the world, emails, cell phone calls, electronic data, and they store it in these massive computers. Massive computers require water. And who supplies the water? The city of Bluffdale supplies the water to the NSA on a contract. Well, because the state and local governments are not required to do anything for the federal government, they could legally say, we're not going to contract with the NSA and provide water, which would be a big problem for the NSA because they got to have like 40,000 gallons of water, 40 million, some absurd amount of water they use every day at that facility in the desert, by the way. So as we started researching with this, we found out that there was a similar water issue in Nevada. And this had to do with the. The federal government was trying to find a place to bury nuclear waste. So they picked this area of Nevada because they thought they could get it done with the least amount of political resistance. Little did they know people in Nevada also don't want their waste buried in their backyard. And so when the fed started to do work, and it was called Yucca mountainous, and when they started doing work up there, they needed water in order to do drilling and stuff like that. And the state of Nevada refused to give him the water permits. And so it basically shut down the operation. So the federal government sued in federal court and said they can't deny us water. And again, surprisingly, the court sided with the state of Nevada in this, because, again, the federal government can't commandeer resources. Water belongs to Nevada, not the federal government. So there still is no nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain. It comes back up every once in a while because they really need someplace to put this stuff. So we used that and said, okay, we can turn off the water in Bluffdale, Utah. And there was a representative there at the time that actually introduced that bill to turn off the water to the NSA facility and it, you ended up getting a hearing. Pity. And once the federal government figured out that it was like they could seriously do this and it was all hands on deck to make sure it didn't pass. But still a great lesson. And I think if there had been more political will and determination in the Utah legislature, they could have actually done it. But unfortunately, when you talking about national security, then folks tend to get squeamish and bow to the feds, which I think people need to stop doing. But that's a different discussion.

[46:29] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah, they do. Well, but I still feel like that's still a great strategy. And what if that was happening all over the country? We're almost in an hour, so I'm going to let you go soon. But I wanted to mention this. I don't know if you, do you read El Gato Amalo?

[46:46] Mike Maharrey: No.

[46:47] Bretigne Shaffer: Okay. So he just had a great piece today about how it's so wonderful that people's trust in authority and government is at an all time low. And so what you're talking about there, you know, scaring people with national security, I feel like we're at a time now when those kinds of things aren't going to work anymore. They're, they're just, you know, so I'm encouraged. I feel like everything that you've talked about here, even, even things that, you know, maybe that, that didn't, that didn't succeed in that particular instance. Well, we're living in a different time in history now and there are lots of other places where you could try this out in this country. And so I dont know. Im encouraged, Im optimistic based on kind of where people are right now and how shaky the foundations of confidence in the state are, I think were at a good time. What do you think?

[47:42] Mike Maharrey: Yeah, I agree with you. I think that theres a very strong momentum towards decentralization right now. And I have long said in, you know, to, for full disclosure, if I had my way, I'd get rid of all the governments. So that's, that's my, that would be my end game. But living in the real world, I recognize that that's probably not likely, at least in my lifetime. So I've always kind of held the view that if we're going to have to have governments, then it's going to be best if we have more of them. And it's more decentralized and each power center has control over smaller areas. So you get, it's just like the marketplace. Right. You want a lot of different firms competing. It keeps prices lower. You get better products. Competition is good. I want competition in government. And we had this trend especially through the 24th or the 24th. Boy, I just put this way in the future, in the 20th century, there was this real impulse towards centralization, big nation states, right. And I think we're starting to see that erode. I think people are starting to recognize that California is different than Arizona and Arizona is different than Alaska. And maybe it would be a good idea if local people made decisions for local people instead of trying to impose one size fits all government, you know, from a central Washington, DC authority. And I think, you know, I think people on the right, conservatives, have always kind of had this impulse towards local governance and local control. But I think you're starting to see it on the left as well. You know, I think there's, I think there's some advantage to this kind of intense division in the country because there's more people that are willing to say, well, you know, let them go, let California go be California.

[49:32] Bretigne Shaffer: Right?

[49:33] Mike Maharrey: And I think there's people out there on the, on the far left in California that would be just happy if Alabama went away. So thats not a bad thing because we are all different. And thats part of the problem with trying to govern, because, again, value is subjective. We all have different priorities, different desires. We have different cultural backgrounds. So quit trying to impose things from Washington, DC. And that was really, that was one of the founding principles. If you go back and look at the ratification debates, look at the debates around the Constitution, the biggest worry, and this was universal, was that a stronger national government would create what they call consolidation. And Patrick Henry said, consolidation is the greatest thing to be feared, that we would end up with this kind of one big glob with 20 people in Washington, DC trying to rule over it, it's just not feasible where we are.

[50:31] Bretigne Shaffer: It's kind of what it feels like.

[50:32] Mike Maharrey: And that's what we ended up with. And I think people are starting to see the failure of that. As you pointed out, I think there's more impulse towards decentralization, and I think there's less and less trust in government institutions. I think coronavirus stuff went a long way towards that because no sane person can look back at that and say, oh, all of these people had our best interests, you know, no, there's no way you look at it. They were lying and they were making stuff up as they went. So I think that's a good thing, you know, that, that people don't trust that and they're more willing to say, okay, maybe we ought to try some, some different things here. So I'm pretty optimistic in that sense as well. And, you know, I vacillate back and forth. Sometimes my faith in humanity wanes, but I try to be optimistic.

[51:17] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. This has been great. Any, any final words, anything that we left out?

[51:26] Mike Maharrey: I don't think so. I think we pretty well covered it. You know, folks want to learn more about this whole nullification strategy and how, you know, what it's based on, more about the legal stuff, more about the strategy, go to 10th amendmentcenter.com. and if you're on the front page, you can scroll down a little bit and there's what we call the state of the nullification movement report. It's about a 40 50 page PDF. It's very nicely produced. It's absolutely free. You can download it and it'll give you the whole rundown. And, you know, not only the philosophy behind it and the big picture strategy, but we also go through each policy area and talk about how it specifically applies and gives you some ideas of where there's been some successes and also more work to be done. So if folks will check that out, we'd really appreciate it.

[52:19] Bretigne Shaffer: Yeah. Yeah, I've looked at that. It's a very well put together document, especially for people who are looking for tangible things you can do, things you can take action on. This is a great place to start. Right? Thank you so much.

[52:32] Mike Maharrey: Well, thanks for having me.

[52:40] Bretigne Shaffer: You've been listening to what then must we do the podcast? For those who understand the state is the problem and are seeking solutions for more episodes, go to bretany dot substack.com, that's bretigne.com, substack.com and subscribe.