As the federal government has breached the limits imposed on it by the Constitution, especially under the administration of Barack Obama, there is much debate among the right wing as to the most appropriate response to this breach. Some, such as author and talk-show host Mark Levin, suggest amending the Constitution through the processes defined in the Constitution. Others, such as the Tenth Amendment Center, promote nullification by individual states of unconstitutional or oppressive statutes. And others suggest more radical solutions, including secession of states from the Union or violent armed revolution against the government. There has been much contention between the "amenders" — my term those who prefer to preserve the Union and reform the government by amending the Constitution — and the "nullifiers" — the term I will use for those who believe the federal government is irredeemably corrupt, cannot be reformed by Constitutional means, and must be resisted by the individual states.

As a person of strong moral sense, I believe that we have a moral obligation to oppose the tyranny of the current administration in particular and the federal government in general, by whatever means necessary. I thus have a general support for all of these means. However, I and most reformers also seek to preserve the civility of our society. Very few people of sound mind and moral character truly want a civil war or other sort of destructive, bloody insurrection of the people against the government. The only way that we would justify armed rebellion is as an in-kind response to such action on the part of the government itself.

Let us acknowledge that the amenders have a sincere desire to preserve the Union and the vision of the founding fathers.

But let us also acknowledge that the nullifiers also have valid points. The main grounds for nullification is that the federal government is already acting outside of its authority. What reason do we have, they argue, to believe that since they refuse to obey the limits currently imposed on them by the Constitution, they would obey any new limits imposed by amendments?