I feel compelled to bite on this one...
It's all in perspective and the willingness of civil disobedience.
Yes, the feds have long since broken the bounds of the constitution. The commerce clause and others have been distorted to make the feds all powerful. You can argue the feds have no authority without interstate movement blah,blah but I suggest you consult Wickard v. Filburn. Does that mean you have to agree with it? No. I for one do not.
It does mean that you must accept the reality that the federal government believes it has this authority, which has been confirmed my the federal government (Supreme Court [funny how that works huh?]).
It's just like saying you believe all federal gun laws (read Missouri) don't apply in your state via the 2nd and 10th amendments. That is an honorable belief, and the correct one, but the beast won't go down that easy. And the feds will win in the (federal) courts [there's that funny thing again]. No one said the courts are on the side of natural law or the constitution, but that doesn't change reality does it.
A state's act of nullification of federal law requires civil disobedience on a state wide level, with the backing of the state, and the understanding that shit might get ugly, and everyone is okay with that and ready for it. If that is not the case, and instead the state legislature (and the people of that state) intended to just do some posturing and aren't willing to use their full force and power, up to and including secession (and therefore war, [see the Confederate States of America]) to that end, it is really just words on paper.
People are beginning to grow some balls. Some are growing backbones. When they begin to grow brains and hearts that truly understand and believe in the preciousness of the natural rights of man kind and their honor in preserving it, and are willing to lose everything for it, than we'll have something. But I'm betting that line won't be drawn in Kansas in July 1 2013 over a $200 tax on suppressors.
It's not as simple as 'read the tenth' or the 2nd or the law just past... the whole thing boils back down to a huge government, with the strongest praetorian guard ever assembled, operating outside of its bounds and oppressing it's citizens. But those citizens are still willingly being oppressed so the nature or severity of the governments' faults have no meaning. Liberty must be fought for and protected, and this usually isn't done 5000 miles away in caves or jungles. It is done at your doorsteps and in your towns, over the bodies of your family and children, with little to no hope of success without first falling to a low so unfathomable you simply stop imagining the scenario, submit, pay the $200 tax, and allow one more overstep of your right to self government for the time being. Is this wrong? That's up to you. You don't see me anywhere fighting a civil war so take my word FWIW, probably nothing. YM(and opinion)MV.
I leave with a quote from Robert Higgs, a Mises Institute Fellow...
"The state is the most destructive institution human beings have ever devised — a fire that, at best, can be controlled for only a short time before it o'erleaps its improvised confinements and spreads its flames far and wide.
Whatever promotes the growth of the state also weakens the capacity of individuals in civil society to fend off the state's depredations and therefore augments the public's multifaceted victimization at the hands of state functionaries. Nothing promotes the growth of the state as much as national emergency — war and other crises comparable to war in the seriousness of the threats they pose.
<b>States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war — not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects.</b> The state's most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot even exist, is robbery. The state gains its very sustenance from robbery, which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statist ideologies, and long-established routine combine to convince many people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.
They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services received, and that in the case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic aggressors against their rights to life, liberty, and property, only the government can provide the service effectively. They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order, and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution of its alleged "services" and brings violence to bear against would-be competitors. In so doing, it reveals the fraud at the heart of its impudent claims and gives sufficient proof that it is not a genuine protector, but a mere protection racket."
Hopefully that wasn't too political that I get banned. But I get frustrated with simple declarations that ignore the depth and complexity of issues and the magnitude of the sacrifice and commitment that are required to right wrongs. SO yeah, while I agree with you that it would be a step in the right direction and would be cool... don't hold your breath.
