Anti-commandeering doctrine, nullification

Russel Kanning posted an article in “NH Independence Drive media coverage”
about HB1156, which contained the term “anti-commandeering doctrine”.
I had never heard of nullification as an established legal doctrine. As a tactic,
yes… but I was unaware of the doctrine as established constitutional law.
I think that perhaps, just perhaps, any attempt of the federal government to
force states to remain in the union would be federal “overreach”, and the
“anti-commandeering doctrine” would be triggered.

Below are a few sites that go into the legal history of this doctrine.

1 Like

Now I have to wonder… what would happen if a state passed
a law saying, in short “The federal government shall have no
legal jurisdiction in the state of New Hampshire”.

This would essentially nullify all federal laws, but would still
permit the state to have exactly the same laws in force if it
so desired.
One example that might make a real difference… the
oaths that public officials in New Hampshire take. The
Constitutional requirement that public officials take an oath
to uphold the constitution and the laws of the United States
would essentially be the United States commandeering
public officials to act as agents for the federal government.

This is a prime example of federal government over-reach.

1 Like

reasons to leave:


The following link has been posted elsewhere, but it is
so comprehensive that posting it in only one group seems,
well, not quite enough.
This radio show covers a multitude of topics related to
what states can do to battle the feds, from Texit, to
banking, to gold, to nullification, etc.