It is regretful, and too often at the expense of the Blessings of Liberty, the States fail to rightfully act and throw off laws and judicial rulings handed down by the National government; those laws and rulings which clearly lie outside the boundaries of the General Government described in The Constitution of the United States of America. Such inaction by the States and People may find its genesis in many accounts; be they unfamiliarity with the specific meaning of The Constitution in full orthodoxy; be they desirous of the temporary general felicity, inaction brings the perception thereof; be they fear of unconstitutional economic sanction by the General government; or be they agents of Nationalism which The Constitution of the United States of America specifically and purposefully rejects. Regardless the purpose, the very Liberty of the People, for which its securing was the specific purpose of the Constitution, is the casualty either by gradual erosion or sweeping claims of undue power over the People or the States by the General Government.
It is pure folly for one to think the perpetual union of the States and the fate of our Republic, as built by our founders should be entrusted to one man or a mere nine, knowing the corruptibility and the lust for power men are known to have. Would it be part of our Founders design to leave the Supreme Law, The Constitution, vulnerable to reinterpretation and revision by a few men posing as sages or the papacy of the Law? Indeed such assumed power to smelt and re-forge the law to suit the desires of a group, is the death of a Republic and the birth of an Oligarchy. For in a Republic, government is the keeper and enforcer of The Law. The Law is King, not the men within government, nor the ballot box. Would it be logical for one to think that a man or men may be so desirous of power that they sponsor confusion on the Law, with the truth of the original intent of the law so distorted that they declare for themselves, (perhaps with the endorsement of others) the Sage of the Law, thereby holding all the real power? The answer seems obvious, as we view the account of history. Concentrated supreme power in men ends in tyranny.
It is with sincere desire to preserve the Republic and the perpetual Union of the States; we do claim our Lawful, Righteous and reasonable rights as a state.
RESOLVED- We the Legislature of the State of Idaho, shall demand all pertinent claims of National supremacy in law, shall be derived from The Constitution of the United States of America interpreted by the most orthodox means only. These orthodox means shall include The Declaration of Independence (provides the Spirit of the Law and an outline of what conditions existed to warrant a revolution), The Constitution, viewed through the Preamble (its executive summary and mission statement), the Federalist and anti-Federalist Papers (the argument for and against provisions within the Constitution, with clarity), and period dictionaries (to provide the meaning of the words in the day they were written).
Case law and prior rulings by perhaps corruptible men of the courts shall carry no weight, unless the ruling is based upon full orthodoxy as described above.
RESOLVED- In the case of the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, and the recent ruling against it in a Federal court by Judge Malloy, on the grounds of Federal Supremacy through the “Commerce Clause”, we do hereby claim his ruling, and any higher court ruling with the same justification, NULLIFIED based upon the improper usage of this clause. Additionally, the State of Idaho will only cede power to the National government under the “Commerce Clause”, when the National Government uses the law as it was intended, which was “to make regular” (period definition of the word regulate) “the commerce between the several states...” Any assumed power by the National government under the misinterpretation of this clause, will only be honored at the pleasure of the State. Furthermore, to strengthen our claim of specific NULLIFICATION against Judge Malloy’s ruling and any other higher court ruling in regards to the Idaho Fire Arms Freedom Act, it is worthy of note that the contradictory Federal laws are specifically and blatantly an usurpation of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is inexcusable that the Second Amendment, which is so strongly worded and clearly focused on firearms, can be overruled by a completely unrelated clause that has been intentionally misused for political gain. For such illogic to stand as the rule of law, regardless of the Highness of the judge, is suicide for the Republic and would constitute malpractice of the legislature.