Nullify the Car Kill Switch

Kill Switches in Every Car

Back in 2023, Rep. Thomas Massie was the sole critic of a dubious, Orwellian, and blatantly illegal provision hidden in President Biden's Infrastructure, Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, 2021).

A provision (p. 403) which would require every new vehicle to include advanced drunk driving prevention technology that would monitor drivers and disable their vehicles if necessary:

So a bill includes a provision to require automobile manufacturers to install a piece of technology which does not exist into every passenger (>=2 seats) vehicle, in clear violation of the 4th and 5th amendments, and not a single lawsuit has been filed?

And worse, it's already been signed into law??

Back in 2023, Massie introduced an amendment to remove this provision (H. Amdt. 641). But it failed 201-229. A result only made possible by 19 Republicans choosing to vote with Big Brother Democrats. Curious, what does that make them?

As far is Wisconsin is concerned, Badger State reps performed well: every R voted "Aye" and every D voted "No." Perfectly predictable and along party lines.

But the relevance of this for today is that Rep. Massie has, again, introduced this amendment (H. Amdt. 155), and the vote has produced results even more shocking than the first.

This time, the vote failed by an even wider margin––164-268––with Democrats being joined by 57 Republicans!

Not only that, but this time one Wisconsin Republican, who previously voted for the amendment, voted against it.

What is going on here? What is Wisconsin to do when we cannot count on House representatives to prevent clearly unconstitutional laws from taking effect, and which they are duty-bound to oppose?

And what do we do if we can't depend on judges to issue correct opinions? Vote them out? Impeach them? What's the track record like for either of these methods? Are we meant to suffer quietly under tyranny so as to be "good, law-abiding citizens" even when our agents are not themselves law-abiding? As if following laws regardless of their validity is a virtue?

That doesn't sound very American to me.

In fact, I have a whole History available here at MacIver that supports exactly what I am about to recommend:

Nullification!

Nullify the Car Kill Switch

Like baseball, nullification is a uniquely American pastime. It traces its origin at least to the Stamp Act, and had as one of its most ardent supporters the great Patrick Henry.

Upon nullifying the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses via five separate resolutions, Henry is alleged to have said, "If this be treason, make the most of it!"

Later, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison defended the principle of nullification in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 that:

Writing for Kentucky while sitting as the U.S. Vice President, Jefferson said that nullification is the proper remedy for federal laws which exceed the government's enumerated powers:

This may sound like insurrection upon first hearing, but the fact that Henry, Jefferson and Madison all supported the practice of nullification ought to give us pause. To them, this was not insurrection––it was federalism, republicanism, and constitutionalism.

But how could that be when they are openly advocating for defiance of federal laws? Laws which are the "supreme law of the land"?

Wrong.

Read your constitution.

From Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause states:

The most important phrase of that much misunderstood Supremacy Clause is the following: "in Pursuance thereof." Only laws which are constitutional are supreme and valid.

When understood correctly, the Supremacy Clause states that:

"The Constitution, laws which do not violate the Constitution, and constitutionally valid Treaties apply everywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States, and take precedent over other laws which may contradict them."

According to our own founding document, laws are only valid and supreme if they are constitutional. And since Henry, Jefferson, Madison and others understood that the Constitution cannot enforce itself, the People and the States have a duty and a right to "interpose", to nullify federal laws which violate the Constitution.

States were justified in doing this because of the Compact Fact: the states created the federal government by agreeing to lease certain powers to the general government. Since they created the federal government, it was accountable to them. The general government was and is their agent. If it exceeded the scope of its delegated powers––powers which are only held conditionally––those powers are automatically null and void. So what harm is there in declaring them so, and in preventing them from being carried out?

"Really? A state can simply declare a law unconstitutional? What's to stop them from simply declaring every law they don't like unconstitutional?"

Nothing. They may nullify and interpose as much and as often as they like. And in return, the Federal government may withhold discretionary funds. And if this back and forth goes on without a meeting of minds, the state may leave, or the Union may vote to kick out the state.

When an act is declared unconstitutional by a state, most people would say "Send it to the courts! Let the judges decide!" Then, when a judge hands down a decision they disagree with, people scoff and say, "That judge is awful! What a moron!" But what cause do you have to disagree with this judge? They have a law degree and hold a high position, yet you, of all people! deem their decision incorrect? In other words, null and void?

So the ruling of a single unelected person handing down an obviously incorrect decision is somehow legitimate, and yet, when an entire people, represented in their state legislature and with the assent of their governor hand down their own judgement by nullifying a law, suddenly it's illegitimate?

Is this also the opinion of the peoples of the 40 states that permit medical marijuana? Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to regulate the use of drugs. And the federal government asserted that right long before any court approved the practice (Why, then, did they need the 18th amendment?).

All this is to say that at least 40 states are actively engaged in the practice of nullification as we speak. Yet most people, especially the readers of MacIver, would say that drug policy is a matter for the states. Is it any wonder that President Trump has recently rescheduled marijuana in light of such widespread disobedience?

So if nullification works for marijuana, why not also firearms? Why do ATF rules banning machine guns and bump stocks and side-mounted grips or open/concealed carry have any legitimacy? According to about 15 states, they don't!

So let's try a little nullification in pursuit of privacy and motor vehicles; something that preserves the right to privacy enshrined in the 4th amendment, and the right to due process in the 5th. The DOT has no authority to require anti-drunk driving technology. What, are they going to install cameras with facial recognition software in every car? Mandatory breathalyzer interlock devices? Require blood samples? Maybe it will just be a question that appears on your dashboard: have you recently consumed any alcoholic beverages?

Whatever it will be, it's all illegal. The feds do not have the authority to regulate anything of this sort, and at the very least, you can count on an extensive blackmarket of mechanics who will rip these things out of vehicles as soon as a Benjamin' greases their palm. If that's the case (and it is), then the legislature had might as well be on the right side of it, and protect their citizens by refusing to comply with this obviously illegal law. What's more, they ought to refuse to collect any fees, enforce any regulations, or exact any punishments on those found not in compliance.

If they want to be really good patriots, they will demand that state law enforcement actively obstruct any attempts to exact punishment on Wisconsinites. The feds can then judge for themselves how wedded they are to their surveillance state when face to face with the local sheriff and a few dozen deputized Cheeseheads.

The Constitution

The Constitution is not a complicated document. It does not take lawyers or lofty positions to parse its meaning. It is only seen as such because it has been complicated by centuries of unconstitutional laws deemed legitimate.

If you want to know what your federal congress can do, simply read Article I, Section VIII. If you want to know what states cannot do, simply read Article I, Section X. For clarification on these, read the Bill of Rights (Preamble included).

Notably, you will find that in Article I, Section 10, there is no prohibition against nullification or secession. Wise statesmen who wish to avoid the second will jump at the opportunity to use the first. Just like Henry. Just like Jefferson. Just like Madison.