Why are Democrats going back to their days of nullification to govern?

All the furor over state and local elected officials’ opposition to ICE agents coming to enforce existing immigration law and orders has the stale air of a sad period in American history surrounding it.

The sad era of “nullification” erupted as a fight over tariffs in the 1830s. “Nullification” became a rallying cry for mostly Southern states to ignore laws and orders emanating out of the new capitol in Washington, D.C., solely if their elected officials made the arbitrary decision that they were unconstitutional. No courts involved, no highfalutin “judicial review” to worry about. No high regard for “separation of powers” yet. Governors and mayors could simply make the determination on constitutionality and the federal government could be ignored.

Nullification was later associated with Southern states defending the rights of mostly Southern states to keep slavery. After all, if tariffs could be passed to the detriment of the Southern states in favor of the manufacturing Northern states, what could prevent Congress and any president from passing laws and issuing edicts to abolish slavery overnight without any input from Southern states.

Democratic governors and mayors nationwide are applying much of the same attitude today as they defy orders issued to federal ICE officials to arrest and deport illegal immigrants because they deem it to be “unconstitutional.”

It is not hard to see how such individual state or local “nullification” of federal law can and will cause chaos and perhaps tear our still young and tender federal governance structure completely apart.

Imagine the chaos if 50 governors and 1,400 elected mayors choose to decide which laws and executive actions they will enforce each day as a state or local government executive. Why would we ever have national elections if state and local executives are just going to ignore the laws and policies with which they disagree on a whimsical daily basis?

State and local elected officials are not even taking the time to take their concerns to court to test the constitutionality of such orders coming out of Washington, D.C. It is like Democratic elected officials have assumed a judicial role for themselves on top of being  elected executives for the people of their state to decide what is constitutional without the benefit of any review by an unelected judiciary.

These are dangerous political maneuvers and deserve to be scrutinized closely by the electorate in the 2026 midterms and the big election of 2028.

It is odd to see representatives of the Democratic Party advocate for the nullification or annihilation of any federal action at a moment’s notice. Wait until Republican mayors or governors return the favor once a Democrat returns to the White House and issues orders that are summarily ignored or “nullified.”

The Civil War should have answered the question of self-governance through our democratic republican system a century and a half ago. President Abraham Lincoln addressed it on Nov. 19, 1863, when he said these immortal words at Gettysburg, four months after the bloodiest battle ever on American soil:

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The government of, by and for the people was established long ago. The rules and primacy of our democratically elected representative legislative game were enshrined in the Constitution and cemented by more than 200 years of lawmaking and precedent-setting by subsequent presidents, Congress and Supreme Court decisions. At no point along the way have the American people given the right to individual executives or lawmakers to ignore existing law at the time.

People who disagree with current law or implementation have every right to petition government to change it — on top of their opportunity to run for office and change it from within the system after receiving the majority of votes to do so.

However, individual elected officials making unilateral decisions to ignore existing law or enforcement is one dangerous way to undercut the spirit of government of, by and for the people dream of which Lincoln spoke so eloquently. These were not just words of poetry. They are foundational principles of how we are to live together in peace.