• "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

These Are Too Easy

More third-grade-level articles on nullification, each of which is refuted by my book and/or my FAQ: one from the opinion police at Media Matters, one in Akron, Ohio, and one in Indiana (by “legal experts,” so you have some idea of the historical knowledge and overall erudition you can expect) about State Senator Phil Boots, who favors nullification.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Ivan

    Surprise, surprise, Media Maters quotes favorably a great libertarian thinker Randy Barnett and his opinion on nullification. :)

  • Akron native

    We call the Alron Beacon Journal the akron Leaking Urinal for a reason. Fear not; their circulation numbers in the hundreds at this point. Used to be a good paper, now a joke

  • Thomas D

    Well, in fairness, people now read it online (including people who aren’t even in Akron, like those of us who clicked the very link above!). So citing print circulation is kind of misleading.

  • Anonymous

    There is only ONE legitimate argument against nullification: a federal government that isn’t happy about it and will use force or coercive action to stop it.

    Our Constitution, the compact, it allows for nullification. Only the unwritten constitution argues against nullification, and by its nature it must be enforced by the thugs in power.

  • Robert Roddis

    David Orentlicher, a law professor at IUPUI and a former Democratic state representative, was not impressed by Boots’ proposal.

    “It really is not only inappropriate but troublesome for a legislator who has a duty to uphold the Constitution to take a position of defiance,” Orentlicher said.

    That’s fine. Let’s then disbar all of the law professors and judges who deny or ignore the Edwin Vieira explanation that the “dollar” as a coin containing 371.25 grains (troy) of fine silver.

    http://www.fame.org/HTM/Vieira_Edwin_What_is_a_Dollar_EV-002.HTM

    Or those who think the Feds have more than 17 specific powers.

  • Anonymous

    Precisely, we’re arguing about the unwritten constitution. Which, by definition is not subject to actual Constitutional argument, but rather action and force.

  • http://www.facebook.com/TylerKubik2 Tyler Kubik

    Always interesting to see the inconsistency of liberals somehow making room in the constitution for rights to abortion and obamacare, but not nullification..and conservatives who think that rights not enumerated to the federal government are reserved to the states, yet don’t include nullification as one of those rights. The only consistency is the faith in the supremacy clause and the supreme court as the ‘impartial’ arbiter

Find me on Google