• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

How Much Longer Do We Intend to Be Suckers?

Here’s the article I wrote in advance of the Iowa GOP event tomorrow night featuring Ron Paul and me.  Want to attend?  Register here.  I’ll also be selling and signing pre-release copies of Nullification the next day at the Campaign for Liberty booth at the Iowa GOP Convention, from 10am-12pm and then from 1-2pm.  Hope to see you there.

  • Ramus

    Woods is the man!

  • http://yintercept.com Kevin Delaney

    Dear Mr. Woods,

    I’ve come to believe that the left manipulates discourse by manipulating the language. While arguing the cause of local control, it dawned on me that the label “States Rights” is a loaded term.

    The Constitution reserved powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the States and People.

    As you have done substantial research on nullification, I would be honored if you wrote a blog post on the origin and usage of the term “States Rights.”

    I dropped an open letter in the blog post States don’t have rights. States have powers.

  • http://www.thomasewoods.com Tom Woods

    Jefferson himself referred to “state rights,” and the term was fairly common throughout early American history.

  • http://yintercept.com Kevin Delaney

    Rats, I was worried that you would say that. Once one grants that states have rights, then there is a conflict between the rights of the states and the rights of the people. Such conflicts always end up bad for the people.

    For example, arguing states rights in the healthcare debate implies that the states should own the health care resources of the state’s subjects. I support the position that health care resources should be owned by the people with local regulation of health care providers.

    I was hoping that, since rejection of the Divine Rights of kings was such an important part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89, that the Founders would have been more careful with their terminology. In much of their writing, they are careful with terminology, in other writings it becomes loose.

    Eventhough we are stuck with a bad term, I hope that people see why it’s a negative label to use in the argument for a limited government.