Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I look forward to our conversation. The Constitution reserves nothing to the Federal Government. The Federal Government hasn't the authority to reserve for itself anything. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution on Sept 8, 1787 there was no Federal Government. The United States did not exist. The Constitution was the instrument by which guidelines and rules agreed upon by the 13 individual colonies states through the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. The thirteen colonies realized that they must establish a framework by which they may work cooperatively rather than as thirteen separate sovereigns, which was what their status essentially was post Revolutionary War. The States via the Constitution breathed life into the Federal Government. The Constitution allows the government to exist. The Revolutionary War was not a revolution at all but rather it was a war for independence. Thirteen governments cooperated to defend themselves against a foreign aggressor. In the tradition of there being strength in numbers, it followed that a continuation of mutual cooperation among the colonies or States was a prudent development. It made sense, too, that a central body was necessary so to conduct the business of affairs which affect all or several States and which could and would represent the interests of the thirteen states as a whole. By creating such an entity the founders were wise to recognize that certain boundaries needed to be established in order to define the powers, duties, and functions of this new government. The Articles of Confederation became the Constitution. Though not terribly restrictive, it defined the areas of interest in which the Government was to operate and generally through stated sentiment pointed in the general direction the path that the new government should take. There were two schools of thought: The Washingtonian (Federalist) desired a broad and far reaching government which oversaw and influenced more and more aspects of people's lives and business. The Jeffersonian school (Democratic Republican) resisted and wanted a small non intrusive government which generally left people alone. The Jeffersonians wanted a bill of rights to define precisely what authority was granted the government. The Washingtonians argued that such a bill wasn't necessary, would impede the abilities of the government to function, and was too restrictive. A Bill of Rights was not fully adopted and attached as a part of the Constitution until 1791. The Bill of Rights, reinforcing the tone established with the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) of "God given unalienable rights", is a permissive instrument rather than a restrictive one. It defines the authority given the Government and specifically states that if not granted through the Constitution, then authority isn't given; it rests with either the respective States or the people themselves. The Tenth Amendment specifically states: " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". I really don't see a lot of ambiguity there. The oft repeated counter used claims the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare clause, and the "necessary and proper" serve to negate the Tenth Amendment because it was not part of the original document (Articles of Confederation). Let's take a look at the roots of tyranny as they develop in today's world. Take, for example, the State of Arizona and their border problem. Arizona has big troubles with the flow of illegals crossing the border from Mexico. Drugs, guns, kidnapping, murders, etc. To exacerbate the problem, Arizona is required to render medical care, schooling, food, housing, etc. to these same people. The US Government has a set of Immigration laws on the books. The US will not enforce those rules for purely political reasons. Arizona is warned that its interference in the realm of immigration enforcement is illegal because the laws relating to immigration are Federal Laws, therefore Arizona has no authority to enforce them. So, Arizona passes into law its own set of Immigration Laws. With State Laws giving them authority, Arizona proceeded to enforce immigration. The US files an injunction and orders Arizona to cease and desist. Arizona goes to the Supreme Court for relief and the Court denies their claim. Only the Federal Government has the authority to enforce Immigration Law. And it has no intentions of doing so, apparently. The tyranny in this case is not caused by States Rights. The tyranny is caused by a failure of specific performance of the US Government. The Fed maintains that it has the authority, the exclusive right to enforce, but it doesn't have the responsibility or obligation to do so. Arizona, says the Fed, doesn't have either the right nor the authority even though it has laws empowering them which are identical to those which the Fed refuse to enforce. The Supreme Court has ruled that any matter regarding Federal interests or the Constitution must be heard in a Federal Court. A lesser court has no standing. A State or lesser court can not reverse a decision handed down by a Federal Court . A State may not enforce Federal Law unless delegated by the Fed to do so. Immigration Law may be the play toy of the Federal Government but the immigration problem directly affect Arizona and they are helpless to do anything to mitigate. The ability to nullify the Federal Court ruling, to open the way for Arizona to enforce its own Immigration Laws is clearly needed in this case. There is harm being done, expense incurred, laws being broken and the party that receives injury can't act to correct and the party that can act won't. No, States Rights is not the cause of the tyranny. It is because of the tyranny present due to unfair and unreasonable action on the part of the Federal Government that States Rights must be upheld and employed to the fullest. It is apparent that the Federal Government is not going to allow that to happen. The Federal Government, too, has created through the Courts a conflict of interest and ambiguity with regard to relief to those seeking it in this matter. The only avenue left for the State of Arizona, six other States experiencing similar difficulties, as well as the rest of us is to nullify, or set aside, Federal Law and allow justice and fairness to return. I look forward to your response.