Chuck Baldwin: ‘State Nullification: Requisite To Freedom’

Chuck Baldwin at

I was thrilled to see J.B. Williams report in that the State of Montana has a broad-based State nullification bill currently proposed in its legislature. Derek Skees (R-Whitefish) is the State legislator who has introduced this much-needed legislation.

See the story at:

The fact is, Skees’ State Nullification bill is only one of several outstanding freedom-first bills that is currently before the Montana legislature. I urge readers to go to to look at the many other fine pieces of pro-freedom legislation pending in the Montana State legislature:

Unfortunately, one of those very fine bills has already been defeated: the “Sheriffs First” bill sponsored by Senator Greg Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls). This bill is long overdue and absolutely necessary to prevent federal usurpation of State and local law enforcement. That the Montana legislature failed to pass this bill indicates just how necessary it is to elect State legislators who truly understand constitutional government. I urge readers to read the following defense of the Sheriffs First law, written by my son, Constitutional Attorney Tim Baldwin:

Look through the list of the other freedom bills presently before the Montana State legislature and one will instantly recognize the potential for this State to stand at the “tip of the spear” in the reclamation and restoration of State sovereignty, freedom, and independence. (Plus, it reinforces why my family and I made the life-changing decision to move to this beautiful and wonderful State.)

For example, there is a bill to nullify federal health care laws; a bill to eliminate the misapplication of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution; a bill to nullify the Endangered Species Act; a bill to authorize permit-less Concealed Carry; a bill to transfer management of certain federal lands; a bill to provide the State eminent domain authority for federal lands; and, of course, the Sheriffs First act, which would have required the Sheriff’s authorization for federal law enforcement agencies to conduct arrests, searches, and seizures.

I would dare say: if you are a freedom-minded individual, goose bumps ran up your spine just from reading the above summary. I got goose bumps simply writing about it. Can one imagine the kind of freedom that would be unleashed in this great State should even a handful of these bills actually become law? And think of the numbers of other State legislatures that would quickly follow suit (especially here in the West) should any State legislature pass and a State governor sign these kinds of freedom protections into law!

This is why I keep insisting that, if freedom has a chance to survive in these United States, the American people must get their eyes off of Washington, D.C., and start focusing on their individual states. The authority and power to properly defend liberty has always rested with the states. I’m not saying we should not be concerned about who our US representatives and senators are–or who is elected President. I am saying, however, that freedom will never be restored from inside the Beltway. It is State independence, resolve, and nullification that will ultimately preserve and protect our liberties. And, as the creators of the US Constitution acknowledged, State nullification is absolutely requisite to freedom’s survival.

And, fortunately, Montana is not the only State with freedom-loving men and women in its legislature. I am hearing of lawmakers in states such as Oklahoma and Virginia (and several others) who are introducing similar freedom bills in their respective State legislatures. The question is, as always, will the people of these states get behind their brave legislators and help them get these freedom bills passed? If they are preoccupied with watching the major television network news channels (that focus almost entirely on national and international politics), they will not even know that these freedom bills are being proposed (most local media ignore them, too), and, therefore, will be totally inactive and ineffective in helping to restore the freedoms they claim to love.

I repeat: if freedom is to have a new birth in America, we must stop focusing on Washington, D.C., and start focusing on our individual states! I cannot overstate it: liberty will be won or lost at the State level!

P.S. This Sunday, February 13, 2011, I will bring Part 3 of my message, “The True Meaning of Romans 13.” This message will be livestreamed this Sunday afternoon, at 2:30 pm (MST).

To watch this presentation live this Sunday afternoon, go to:

Plus, my first two messages on Romans 13 (and many other messages) may be viewed or downloaded at:

5 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: ‘State Nullification: Requisite To Freedom’

  1. AyatollahGondola

    I don’t see the logic behind this nullification effort. Kick the feds out, and you also lose their protection. Not just the army per se, but had this happened in history, Alabama would still have segrated schools

  2. Cody Quirk

    If there was ever a breakup of the US, most states could handle it and take care of themselves.

    Nullification was a big thing before the civil war, FYI.

  3. Pat

    This is great. We citizens need to hear more about these bills, so we can support them more. Let us know so we can bombard D.C. with our letters, calls, and e-mails. Anything else we can do, let us know. If all states got on the agenda at the same time, it would give some clout perhaps.

  4. Don Wills

    State nullification of unconstitutional federal laws, regulations and actions is the only thing that will hold our country together when the dollar crashes. The alternative is a fate similar to that of the USSR.

    Nullification is alive and well today – examples include medical marijuana laws, Real ID nullification and the several Firearm Freedom Acts enacted across the country.

  5. paulie Post author

    @1 disagreed. I think economic reality would have hit us here in Alabama long before now, feds or no feds. Even South Africa changed with time.

    And as for military protection, while I didn’t see Baldwin call for anything that radical, I’ll address that as though he did. The military did not protect the people in the twin towers on 9/11, even though the US spends as much on the military as the the rest of the whole world put together. But when the Japanese studied the feasibility of a land invasion on the US lower 48 mainland coast during ww2, they concluded there are too many American civilians with guns to make it worth it.

    @ 2, 3 and 4: agreed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *