Why “States Can Just Say No” Isn’t Enough

Refusing to use Article V leaves Washington’s abuses untouched, and state sovereignty undefended.

Many well-meaning patriots (can you say “JBS”?) insist that states already have all the power they need to stop unconstitutional federal actions. “Our legislature can nullify any abuse right now,” they say. “We don’t need an Article V Convention.”

That sounds bold and self-reliant, but it’s only half true, and dangerously incomplete. States can pass resolutions and defy mandates, but none of that changes the underlying structure of federal power. Without constitutional reform, Washington DC keeps its machinery of control, and every “state stand” becomes a temporary protest, not a lasting safeguard.

I’m here to tell you that the Founders foresaw this dilemma. They lived under a government that ignored local will, and they refused to rely on mere defiance as their defense. That’s why they embedded Article V, a clause allowing the states to amend the Constitution themselves when the federal government refuses to restrain itself. George Mason argued on September 15, 1787, that “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.” The rest of the delegates agreed, adding the state-led convention path as the final, peaceful check on centralized power.

By contrast, the idea that a state can “immediately stop” federal abuses through unilateral nullification has no grounding in the Constitution’s text. None whatsoever! Nullification may express rightful outrage, but it has no binding legal force under Article VI, which makes the Constitution—not a single state’s opinion of it—the supreme law of the land. Even Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, warned that interposition was a moral protest, not a structural cure. He still expected constitutional remedies to follow.

Real power requires real authority. The Founders gave the states that authority through Article V, not through defiance, but through lawful amendment. Only that process allows states collectively to change the operating rules of the Union and impose enduring limits on Washington’s reach.

History proves it works. When Congress resisted direct election of senators, it was the threat of a state-led convention that finally forced the 17th Amendment (which I disagree with but that’s discussed here). When fiscal recklessness grew in the 1980s, the Balanced Budget Amendment campaign—driven by the states—nearly reached the two-thirds threshold, compelling Congress to adopt limited reforms. In each case, the mere act of organizing for a convention moved the federal government toward accountability (even if only temporarily in this second example).

The moral core of this debate is not whether states should resist tyranny, they must. It’s about how they resist effectively. Nullification without structural reform is like shouting “Stop!” at a runaway train. Article V, by contrast, lets the states lay new tracks.

If we truly believe in state sovereignty, we should use every constitutional tool our Founders gave us. Ignoring Article V because we distrust it is like refusing a fire extinguisher because water might spill See “The Only Tool That Can Fix This“. Fear of misuse cannot excuse neglect of duty.

James 4:17 reminds us, “To him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Stated plainly; knowing the lawful, peaceful remedy and refusing to use it leaves We the People disarmed before tyranny.

So no, your state cannot “immediately stop” Washington’s abuses by declaration alone. But it can lawfully and lastingly stop them by leading the states of this Union to reclaim their rightful authority through an Article V Convention of States.

That isn’t rebellion. It’s restoration, the remedy our Founders built for a time such as this.

If you appreciate Restore First Principles posts, please consider giving them a like. It’s a simple gesture that costs you nothing but goes a long way in promoting this Stack.