text:
Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote that each state has the natural right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws on their own. Since the federal government is the creature of the states, the states are the final authority on whether their creature violated the compact. These are the framers’ words and is proof they supported nullification by the states.
Rodney Dodsworth Response. Among the three, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison, only Jefferson advocated legislative nullification of congressional statutes. From the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799, “That the several states who formed that instrument (the Constitution), being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.” Reason demands those who formed the compact, and not its administrators, be the judge of the extent of powers delegated to it. Despotism is assured when the general government is the exclusive judge of delegated powers.
However, acts of the larger society that are inconsistent with the powers granted by member societies are usurpations and deserve to be treated as such. Hamilton asked, “Who judges whether laws passed for executing the powers of the Union are necessary and proper?” Further, “If the federal government should overreach the just bounds of its authority, making tyrannical use of its powers, the people, who created it, must appeal to the standard they have formed and correct the injury done to the Constitution as needs may suggest and prudence justify.” Hamilton advised the people to take appropriate, measured action. Just as every infraction of the Constitution does not justify revolution, neither do they necessarily justify nullification.
Seek congressional repeal of the offending law.
Introduce a constitutional amendment through congress.
Make applications to an Article V state amendments convention.
As opposed to rendering the offensive act as void within their states, the state legislatures appeal through their senators for congressional reconsideration. Next, and through congress once again the state legislatures press their senators to seek relief through a Constitutional amendment. Finally, on behalf of the sovereign people, states make applications for an Article V convention.
When members of a republic are faced with usurpation or tyranny, they must correct the errors of the larger republic; it is admission that a government composed of reps of the people and states has tripped, if not failed. The ultimate question to be answered is, when faced with unconstitutional acts by the national government, what is the most appropriate or least objectionable response by the sovereign people?
My break with Ms. Huldah over nullification isn’t as sharp as my disagreements with her in previous posts. It isn’t that she is wrong, but nullification is not the better or more expedient solution. Legislative nullification of national laws not only invites disunity, it practically begs for the use of force. Unfortunately, where it is practiced it’s been used to oppose valid Constitutional acts of the nation! By law or practice, sanctuary cities to varying degrees protect illegal aliens from deportation. I doubt this is the sort of nullification Ms. Huldah had in mind.
While the state nullification route is destructive, the Article V convention process is unacceptably too slow to deal with rampant, unconstitutional acts in the thousands by the national government.
But, can the two approaches be melded into an acceptable form that better serves and may save our republic? Yes. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment to empower three fifths of state legislatures to repeal national laws, regulations, and supreme court decisions, strikes the balance sought by Article V supporters and opponents. Being neither objectionable nor ponderous, it would empower our state legislators, on behalf of the people, to stand athwart tyranny. Knowing this, a reinvigorated people will be naturally encouraged to closely watch and participate in statewide matters and elections. In quick time, the nation will witness improvement in the quality of state legislators, and just maybe save the republic.
For more on this subject, check out Professor Rob Natelson’s Struggling With Nullification.
1) Non-cooperation Nullification. This is the right of a state to NOT use its resources to assist the federal government in the enforcement of laws that state finds unconstitutional. For instance, the Sheriffs of the state may not arrest people breaking the unconstitutional law. It is also the right of the state to not take bribes from the states and have to abide by the strings attached to those funds. (I will discuss the taking of bribes and why it happens in a separate comment.) Non-cooperation nullification is on weak constitutional ground, but many find such actions acceptable.
2) Direct Nullification is the passage of a law in a state in direct contradiction of a federal law, ruling or regulation. For instance, it would mean REQUIRING the sheriffs of the state to forcibly stop federal agents from enforcing a federal law within the state. In another example, Under the supremacy clause, nullification is: a) unconstitutional, b) illegal, c) slow, d) ineffective. The other states in the union rejected, via letter or proclamations, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. The other states found them to be unconstitutional.
Even if “direct nullification” were constitutional, think about the practicalities: there are tens of thousands of federal laws which should rightly be nullified as outside the scope of the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 (when you keep with originalist interpretation of the general welfare and commerce clauses, which the Supreme Court has not done.) In order for a federal law to be effectively nullified, a super-majority of state legislatures would have to pass specific nullification acts — say, at least 40 states. Getting just one single state legislature to pass just one nullification act takes an enormous amount of energy. If you can get the states legislatures to cooperate with the plan (which is more than doubtful), we are talking about having 40 states nullify, one state and one federal law at a time, tens of thousands of overreaching federal laws. Do the math. This means hundreds of thousands of individual nullification acts in state legislatures across the country. This is a virtually impossible task. We’re not talking years here. And not decades. We’re talking centuries! Oh, and while the states are acting, the feds will be passing new rulings, laws and regulations faster than the states can nullify old ones.
Direct nullification is: a) unconstitutional, b) slow and c) ineffective.
Thanks! I would give credit to others, but there are too many to name, including the Founders.
I am curious as to how a state could nullify a federal law like the PPACA (Obamacare)? No state involvement is required to implement the law and no state involvement is required to enforce the law. More than 30 states tried to get the law overturned in the Supreme Court. Yet, to this day, not a single one of them has found an effective way to nullify it.
I daresay, however, the need to use nullification as a means to stop federal over-reaches would be greatly diminished if the 17th Amendment were repealed.
Agree. History has shown that republics or limited monarchies without an aristocratic chamber between the House of Reps and Executive are doomed. The 17th must go, and state legislatures must be empowered to overturn scotus opinions.
This is a document (PDF) by Natelson recently that covers Nullification etc.
I have investigated this nullification idea for some time, and it just is not the proper tool. It is un-Constitutional and abrogates Article VI (the Supremacy clause) of the Constitution to boot.
Now, some use the word “nullification” when the term “interposition” is called for. The link below goes to a document explaining the differences. The important thing is, interposition has been tried repeatedly and does not work with this out of control Federal government. The next Constitutional step is Article V.
If the country has given up on the Constitution, some may want to use nullification, which leads to civil war etc.
Neither Article V or another convention is discussed. I find that you are either not willing to take the time to understand the material or you are intentionally lying to promote rolling our Constitution into the operating room. Either, I find treasonous and offensive.
The highest sovereign capacity of the people is constitutional law-giving. Article V.
Rodney, I don’t have time at the moment — possibly a few days from now — to refute all the errors, omissions, out of context statements, and plain errors of fact in your above article.
I don’t have time either to verify your quote from James Madison about “. . . aggregate sovereignty.” but it just does not sound at all like anything Madison would say. WOULD YOU PLEASE SUPPLY YOUR SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE?
Even if it does turn out to be accurate, you have taken it out of its broader context: Madison was quite sympathetic to the strong national government views of Hamilton early on. But after the experiences with Hamilton’s first National Bank, Madison admitted that he’d made an error in supporting the kind of “aggregate sovereignty” your quoted phrase credits him with, which supports your generally flawed contentions you express in your article.
Please confirm, if you can, the source of that quote by citing its source, and please acknowledge the historical fact that Madison essentially switched sides from being a partial supporter of the views of Hamilton on these issues to becoming virtually a thorough supporter of the Jeffersonian vew that the Federal gov’t needs to be kept as weak as possible in every area except those explicitly authorizing Fed Gov powers in the Constitution.
I really don’t have the time, but as a BTW, the moral justification of our prosecution of Nazi mass murderers and torturers of civilians after WWII was that following orders is NOT a valid excuse. IE, every man must make his own judgements on what is right, and HAS A MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO, which is a part of his right to his own life and pursuit of happiness, and logically follows from them.
You are supporting the precise opposite view.
The quote is from The Confederation and the Constitution: 1783-1789, by Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin, 1905, page 178.
That’s not a valid source. Only an original source. Something written in 1905 cannot be an original source for something Madison said.
I would strongly susspect, though, that the source you cite must have footnoted or otherwise indicated the source from which HE obtained that quote. THAT would more likely be an original source.
This mushrooming of mis-information by many whose have great sympathies with the hard left (such as Meckler and Farris) and who pose as conservatives while quietly aiding and assisting hard left groups behind the scenes, has made it far more essential that we “vette” cited historical quotations as far back to the very original sources as possible — these charlatans count on the laziness of their average reader, who will almost always swallow whole anything that has a footnote, without ever actually checking the footnote.
An “original” source of a Madison quote might be, for example, his notes on the Constitutional convention of 1787, personal letters and other types of correspondence, his own personal writings about issues, his speeches and public statements, quotes of his own words by those present at the time he stated them, such as a letter from Founder A to Founder B on what Madison had told him at some prior occasion (ie, an eyewitness or “ear” witness to the statement), etc. Other not quite as reliable sources would be from then-current newspapers, or some person who knew Madison offering his own paraphrase of what he thought was Madison’s view.
As I readily admitted in my original post above, and still readily admit, the quote from Madison may well be very accurate in its specific wording. But for the reasons just given here, I can’t permit myself to repeat the errors I’ve made in trusting unsupported quotations from others in recent times, especially from sources pushing for a “COS.” (This is not to say that many supporters of a “COS” are dishonest — just that they are gullible and too trusting of the “COS” leadership, and propagate by repitition the false quotes which they have heard from sources they mistakenly trust).
Madison in particular — probably because he kept notes of the 1787 convention which directly disprove several of the claims about that convention (esp in relation to Article V) made by the COS Project charlatans. This forces them to find ways of “massaging” many of Madison’s statements into a form that seems to support their own re-write of US history. Taking things out of context, attributing actually false quotes, or citing “facts” which are the precise opposite of what those present at the time and all historians since have regarded as irrefutable truth, have become some of the methods used to convince trusting conservatives that an Art V convention is a godsend from the Founders intended to protect us from a corrupted Fed Gov. In fact, our founders were intelligent men who understood why Art V could not so protect us, and that was not their intention in adding Article V to the ’87 Constitution.
And clearly, States are not individuals.
Super. I didn’t know it was online.
Rodney, you are literally making stuff up. Yes, the states on their own decide. The courts are the final authority like mentioned in the article. No place, no place, is Article V or a convention or amending the Constitution mentioned. Those favoring Article V usage do not understand the history or many references.
PAPER doesn’t fix things so changing paper likewise does not!
Shawn, if paper does not mean anything, then what are you pretending to protect? If you really believe that changing the paper has no effect, then what harm is there is changing the paper? And why are you fighting against changing the paper?
Such utter nonsense. Please come down off your ivory tower into the real world.
Clearly paper does have an effect — women are voting, blacks are voting, the voting age is now 18, Presidents are limited to two terms. All of those were written on paper. In fact, the Bill of Rights is paper. Are you against the Bill of Rights?
Rodney that isn’t how the world works. You posted a fraudulent reference from an imaginary theory you generated. Before continuing to spew forth more propaganda and distortions, ethics demand you either clear up the prior misunderstanding or admit your error. Without accomplishing either of those, you have no credibility going forward.
Let’s talk about the how the real world works, Shawn.
What happens when one, say, tries to block an abortion clinic? They are arrested and thrown in jail. Thus, would you say that the Roe V. Wade decision, which was clearly unconstitutional, is the law of the land? It must be. No, it is. Whether it should be or not does not matter. It is the law.
How is your precious (and unconstitutional and non-existent) nullification working on that issue? How is yelling “defend, not amend” solving that problem? How are elections stopping the bloodbath?
All this talk of (unconstitutional) nullification, electing better federal officials, and “just defend, not amend” is garbage. It is useless spitting in the wind. As the saying goes, doing the same thing twice and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.
Middle America is fed up. We are taking our country back. It is either Article V or it’s the second amendment. We are trying Article V first because it is the moral, peaceful and constitutional approach. It is proper that it be tried first. And if it fails, well, our country is already on the track to failure anyway.
You and the Article V naysayers have no solution. It’s that simple. Your “solutions” have kept on on the downward spiral.
At least we are following the Founders. At least we are following the CONSTITUTIONAL solution. We are the ones truly honoring the Founder by using the tool THEY defined in Article V. We are the true protectors of the original constitution. We will be the ones to save the Republic while you stand on the sidelines yelling epithets and slinging verbal arrows. We are the three-percenters. We are the Re-founders.
You will thank us one day.
You’re welcome — in advance.
Bobo – No, the world works that when someone advances a cacamammy theory and is called out with facts and then asks the perpetrator of the fraud to clarify their position, they do or they are not credible.
Thomas Jefferson clearly stated that changing the Constitution was NOT the way to enforce it. Can you please explain why COSP decided to lie and change his written words as I have documented?
Again, Shawn, as always, you avoid the questions you cannot answer. What is YOUR solution? You have none. Instead, you put yourself above the Founders and say we should just rip out the convention from Article V and ignore it. You pay the highest DISRESPECT for our Founders with every comment you make.
Do you want to understand what the Founders did when the Constitution was mis-interpreted and abused? You need to study the 11th amendment. It was passed SPECIFICALLY to overturn a misinterpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. You are the one who has not done their homework.
You want to hide behind a bunch of malarkey, made-up, twisted arguments based on any recognition of how the real world works. We are losing our Republic. That is the fact. We have a unique opportunity, one that has not ever occurred in the century after the progressive movement started. 33 State Legislatures are controlled in both houses by Republicans. We have more people awake to the fact of their stolen liberties than ever before. Now is the time to strike. Now is the time to take back the liberties stolen from us by the federal government over the last 100+ years.
You have not done your homework on Scalia’s attitude about the convention of states to propose amendments. Scalia has been misquoted and taken out of context by Cato and a few others. It’s truly embarrassing to watch how they have twisted Scalia’s words in a desperate attempt to uphold the untenable positions on Article V.
Post your references to refute the post you claim to refute. COS webpages are not credible.
AGAIN, you have failed to address the post. COSP attorney, PR, and a state legislator since hired as a COSP adviser, CHANGED the message of Thomas Jefferson in their email directly to the legislator attendees at the COSP convention theater production. That is fraud and treason against the Constitution.
IF you fail to answer that fraud, then you endorse it. COSP has nothing. When you alter the words of the Founders, your effort is fraud.
How do you answer the COS attorney, public relations person and a state legislator lying to over 150 state legislators in their effort to roll the Constitution into the operating room?
Anything less than answering the above is endorsing it and treason. You don’t get to offer a treasonous solution and demand those that call it dishonest offer a solution themselves to void the fraud. That is a logical fallacy and insane.
Priscilla, you are just parroting the “party line”. Of course Scalia does not want a “constitutional convention” . He CLEARLY knew the difference between a constitutional convention and an Article V convention (as demonstrated by his earlier remarks). It is YOU (and the other article V naysayers) who are ascribing the meaning of his use of the term “constitutional convention” as an Article V convention. This is typical illogical misinterpretation practiced by your side.
Again, you want to deflect and debate about what Scalia said (with false interpretations) rather than go after the core issue. The core issue is that we are losing our Country. You have no solution. The FOUNDERS created the Article V convention for the exact time we are experiencing now — when Congress refuses to do what is right and no other branch of the federal government will use the checks and balances to stop them.
We will save our country. You will be sitting on the side. What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask you “what did you do during the great constitutional crisis”? The only answer you will be able to give is that you worked against the Founders and the people who sided with the Founders.
Again, you have no solution.
You are working against the Founders. You are dishonoring the FOUNDERS themselves by dishonoring the process the FOUNDERS inserted into Article V. And by “FOUNDERS”, I mean not only the 37 who signed the Constitution, but also the hundreds of FOUNDERS who ratified all of the Constitution and all of Article V — including the convention to propose amendments. You are putting yourself above the FOUNDERS, as if you are wiser and know better than them. Such arrogance. Such disrespect for the constitution and even disrespect for the very foundations of law.
Answer for us all. DID COSP commit fraud by changing the words of Thomas Jefferson to manipulate 150 legislators? It is a simple question.
Deflect, distract and deter. That is your motto. You will talk about anything else but your solution. You have no solution and it is clear at this point that any further replies to you will result in nothing.
Again, we are the people trying to save our country. You are sitting on the side and jeering, like those who jeered at the patriots who fought for independence. We are saving our country. One day you will thank us. You’re welcome — in advance.
The “core issue” is that Constitutional Convention and Convention of States are EXACTLY the SAME thing as they both use Article V to call for a convention. There is no difference. The name has been changed because Con Con efforts in the past have been resoundingly defeated due to wise leaders– and your money and handlers realize they MUST call it something else in order to get past all of the bad press. The issue of the way our nation is going is a separate one altogether. You cannot “save” our nation with a bad idea. Interesting that most of the COS convention of states people are NeverTrumpers who see no hope for this administration and the maverick leadership President Trump offers. There is always hope with prayer and sacrifice.
Why must one offer you a SOLUTION while arguing against your COS? They are two topics. However, the hope filled solution is happening and we are electing better people and staying away from globalist money funding think tanks–especially the one funding your COS movement. Koch Brothers are KNOWN for taking over small libertarian and conservative think tanks and turning them into their own globalist agenda. The great Murray Rothbard complained about what Koch did with Cato and he got away from them when he realized their agenda. Trump is draining the swamp. Join this Trump movement rather than oppose it. If you all would spend your well-funded energy lobbying and advising the new administration you would be doing some good. Instead you treat grassroots conservatives and populists, like Phyllis Schlafly and Andy Schlafly, with ill will and work to bamboozle and confuse with your false quotes from Antonin Scalia.
The reason you are asking about why you must offer a solution is because you have no other solution.
You bring up federal elections as a possible solution. (at least now I finally got you to ATTEMPT to answer the question). What about those elections? How have they been working for ya? Not! The federal government has only grown larger and larger for almost 10 decades straight in a row. 85% of Congress gets re-elected every 2 years. Yet you want to depend on elections! That’s a farcical idea. Not a solution.
You keep bringing up the Koch brothers. Do you have PROOF that they are behind the COS? Even if you did, you should know that I, along with the other almost 1 million volunteers involved in the COS project, have not received 1 penny from them. Neither are the thousand or more STATE lawmakers who have voted for the COS being manipulated by the Kock brothers. So, drop the silly tin-foil hat conspiracy theories and come back to reality.
Then you bring up Trump. Let’s examine whether Trump will be able to “drain the swamp”. Although he was clearly the better candidate over Killary, he is not, by far, a true “conservative” or “constitutionalist.” He is a populist. He will certainly stem the bleeding and may buy our country a few more years. But remember that he is fighting the establishment in Congress. Trump proposes term limits. The very quick and firm response from McConnell was that “term limits are dead on arrival”. Trump will not be able to must the 2/3 vote needed in both houses to propose term limits, and even if such an amendment were proposed, it would be the one written by Congress and will probably allow many, many terms (e.g., 24 years per chamber).
Further, what Trump does through existing powers and false interpretations of the Constitution can be undone by the next President. We are seeking for PERMANENT solutions which are not dependent on elections.
You know, you keep bringing up funding. You clearly are jealous that our ideas and our strategy are attracting the funding of over 70,000 different people (at last count). Maybe you should get a clue from the fact that your side is not attracting the same funding. Maybe people aren’t sold on your approach and your solutions. Have you thought about that?
Phyllis Schlafly and Andy Schafly have not been treated with “ill will”. I have stated, as have many hundreds of COS leaders, that the two of them have made significant contributions to the limited government movement. We do, however, strongly disagree on their Article V positions.
So, now that I have responded to everything you have slung against the wall to see what will stick, we arrive back at where we started. What is your solution? What are you proposing that is different from what has already been tried for many decades without results? You have no solution.
there you go again with jealousy over COS funding. I guess you are disappointed that you own non-existent “solutions” and ideas aren’t receiving the same level of funding. Maybe you should consider whether your ideas and “solutions” are workable and worthy of support.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V.


Russia occupies part of Moldovan territory. The Russian occupation extends over a strip of land on the east bank of Moldova’s Dniester River, known as Transdniestria.
Russia is the occupying power in the Moldovan territory of Transdniestria. Transdniestria is also spelled Transnistria. Russia exercises its authority by its overall control over the de facto government of Transdniestria, i.e. the government of the self-proclaimed ‘Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria’. In other words, Russia is using proxy forces. For further information on the use of proxy forces, see 'contemporary challenges for classification – control over proxy forces’ in our classification section. Russia assumed overall authority in July 1992, when it provided troops to monitor the ceasefire between Moldova and Transdniestrian separatists.
Transdniestria broke away from Moldova in September 1990, as a result of fears that Moldova was preparing to reunite with Romania. M. Robinson and A. Tanans, ‘After Crimea, Moldova too Fears “Unwanted “ Events on Road to EU’, Reuters, 30 March 2014; E. Rumer, Moldova Between Russia and the West: A Delicate Balance, Carnegie Endowment for Peace, 23 May 2017. The resultant civil war lasted from 1991 to July 1992 when a ceasefire was brokered. ‘Trans-Dniester Profile’, BBC, 13 December 2016. This ceasefire is today maintained by a joint peacekeeping force, comprising approximately 1,200 troops. Composed of 402 Russian, 492 Transdniestrian, and 355 Moldovan troops and 10 Ukrainian military observers, the peacekeeping forces are stationed at 15 checkpoints in key areas of the security zone, i.e. the borderland stretching along the Dniester River. K. Lungu, ‘Transnistria: From Entropy to Exodus’, European Council on Foreign Relations, 1September 2016. In a 2006 referendum, the majority of the Transdniestrian population voted not to integrate with Moldova and to retain their ‘independence.’ C.Vlas, ‘Transnistria Leader on Settlement Referendum: We Had a Referendum in 2006 on Independence and Joining Russia’, Moldova.org, 30 January 2017. However, Moldova is still recognised as sovereign. The European Court of Human Rights repeatedly confirmed that the territory under the effective control of the Transdniestrian separatist government remains that of Moldova. ECtHR, Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, §110; Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §330.General international law determines whether a secessionist entity possesses statehood. It remains debated whether recognition is a criterion. For further information and references on statehood, see 'international armed conflict - secessionist entities' in our classification section.
For a territory to be considered occupied, it must be 'under the authority of the hostile army.' Article 42, 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs on Land. For an occupation to exist, hostile foreign forces must exercise effective control. Three cumulative elements must be fulfilled for effective control to exist.
First, the armed forces of a foreign state are physically present in the territory and the territorial state did not consent to their presence.
Second, the presence of the foreign forces prevents the effective local government in place at the time of invasion from exercising its powers.
Third, the foreign forces establish their own authority. For further information, see ‘military occupation – elements of occupation’ in our classification section.
States may use proxy forces to occupy a territory: if a state exercises overall control over de facto local authorities or other local groups that exert effective control over the territory, the state can be considered an occupying force. For further information on overall control, see ‘contemporary challenges for classification – control over proxy forces’ in our classification section. Two elements must therefore exist in such a situation.
The foreign state has overall control over de facto local authorities.
The de facto authorities exercise effective control of a territory. For further infor-mation, see T. Ferraro ‘Determining the Beginning and End of an Occupation Under International Humanitarian Law’, 94 International Review of the Red Cross 885 (2012) 158 ff.
According to the European Court of Human Rights, significant indicators of overall control are: the presence of large number of troops engaged in active duties in the occupied area, and the fact that the local authority is dependent for its survival on military and other support from the occupying state. See ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §§312-315.
Russia exercises overall control over the ‘Moldovan Republic of Transdniestria’ (MRT), which, in turn, exercises effective control over Transdniestria as the de facto government. Russia provided Transdniestria with military and political support to help them set up the separatist regime. Russian military personnel supported Transdniestria in the 1991-1992 civil war. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §382. Significantly, the European Court of Human Rights held that Transdniestria only survives due to Russian support. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §275. The Court confirmed that although Transdniestria is vested with organs of power and its own administration, it ‘remains under the effective authority, or at the very least under the decisive influence, of the Russian Federation and in any event that it survives by virtue of the military, economic, financial, and political support given to it by the Russian Federation.’ ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §390-392. Such support has enabled Transdniestria to acquire a certain amount of autonomy vis-à-vis Moldova. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §382. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights held that there was little Moldova could do to re-establish its authority over Transdniestrian territory. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §341. Although the number of Russian troops stationed in Transdniestria has in fact fallen significantly since 1992, Russian weapons stocks are still present and in view of the size of this arsenal, the Russian military importance in the region and its influence persists. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §387.
The subjective views of the parties may be an indicator, but are not determinative for the classification of a situation. For further information, see ‘overview- classification based on legal criteria and facts’ in our classification section.
Russia denies occupying Transdniestria or exercising overall control over the local authorities. ECtHR, Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, §§96-99; Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §354. The Moldovan government denounced the occupation by Russian forces during the 1991-1992 war. ECtHR, Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, §18; Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §53. In July 2017, the Moldovan Parliament adopted a declaration condemning the violation of the territorial integrity of Moldova and calling for the removal of Russian troops. ‘Moldova Political Split Deepens After Demand for Russia’s Transdniester Pullout’, Radio Free Europe, 21 July 2017. In May 2017, the Constitutional Court of Moldova concluded that Russia continued to occupy the Transdniestrian region in ‘violation of constitutional provisions regarding the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and permanent neutralist of the Republic of Moldova, as well as of international law.’ Constitutional Court of the Republic of Moldova, Judgment on the Interpretation of Article 11 of the Constitution, Complaint no 37b/2014, 2 May 2017.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe repeatedly called on Russia to withdraw its troops from Moldova and to implement the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. See for example Resolution 1955(2013), Parliamentary Assembly, 2 October 2013, §§27-29; Resolution 1896 (2012), Parliamentary Assembly, 2 October 2012. §25.2. In addition, NATO has declared its firm position on the matter in a recent joint press point with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Pavel Filip. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated that NATO ‘strongly supports the territorial integrity of the Republic of Moldova’ and that the conflict in Transdnieistria, undermines Moldova’s territorial integrity. He stressed that ‘NATO allies do not, and will not, recognize Transnistria.’ See ‘Joint Press Point with NATO General Jens Stoltenberg and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Moldova, Pavel Filip (as delivered)', 30 November 2016. Finally, the European Court of Human Rights repeatedly concluded that ‘the Moldovan Government, the only legitimate government of the Republic of Moldova under international law, does not exercise authority over part of its territory, namely that part which is under the effective control of the “MRT”’ and that the local authorities are under the ‘effective authority’ or at least ‘decisive influence’ of Russia. ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App no 48787/99, 8 July 2004, §330 and §392; ECtHR, Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, Grand Chamber, Judgment, App nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, 19 October 2012, §109 and §111.
The law of military occupation is set forth in the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs on Land, the 1949 Geneva Conventions (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilians Persons in Time of War and the 1977 Additional Protocol I applicable to International Armed Conflicts.
Both Moldova and Russia are a party to the 1949 Convention, and the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Customary international humanitarian law is also applicable during occupation; it complements the protection granted by treaties and binds all parties to the conflict. Customary international law consist of unwritten rules that come from a general practice accepted as law. Based on an extensive study, the International Committee of the Red Cross maintains a database on customary international humanitarian law.
In addition to international humanitarian law, international human rights law continues to apply during times of occupation. Both Russia and Moldova are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights. Russia remains bound by its international human rights law obligations in the territory it occupies.


Sally G. Schmidt, Lake Worth, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Ken Muszynski, General Counsel Dept. HHS, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-third party-plaintiff-appellee.
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and DYER, Senior Circuit Judge.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the Federal Food Stamp voluntary quit regulation, 7 C.F.R. 273.7(c), and the regulation defining "head of household" as the household's "primary wage earner," 7 C.F.R. 273.1(d)(2) are inconsistent with the Federal Food Stamp Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2011 et seq., or are valid as a permissible construction of the Act in the exercise of the Secretary's delegated powers. The district court upheld the validity of the regulations and entered summary judgment in favor of the Secretary.
The undisputed facts are that Verna's household included her two children and her boyfriend Riley. He was the primary wage earner for the household as that term is used in the regulations notwithstanding Verna's contributions to the household. Riley quit his job without good cause, resulting in the disqualification of Verna's household in accordance with the regulation's definitions.
We agree with the district court that the regulations are not inconsistent with the Act, and adopt the district court's opinion, published at 710 F. Supp. 1339, as the opinion of this court.
Because I believe the HRS regulation conflicts with the Food Stamp Act, I respectfully dissent.
In October, 1985, Jeanette Verna applied for food stamp benefits at the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services's (HRS) food stamp office in Indian River County, Florida. On the application, Verna named herself as head of the household and listed her two children, Robert and Patricia Verna, and her boyfriend, Lawrence Riley, as members of the household. Although Riley earned more money than Verna, he was a transient member of the household, and even when present, contributed only to the rent. Verna maintained the lease and all utility accounts for the household under her name. In addition, she bought and prepared the family's food and provided for the children's educational and medical needs.
After HRS certified the family's application, Verna submitted monthly eligibility and income reports to the HRS food stamp certification office. On June 26, 1986, Verna received a notice of a case action from her HRS food stamp certification worker informing her that the household was disqualified from receiving food stamps for July — September, 1986, because Riley had voluntarily quit his job without good cause. Under the "voluntary quit" provisions of the HRS manual, any household whose primary wage earner voluntarily quits a job without good cause becomes ineligible to participate in the food stamp program for three months.
The purpose of the food stamp program is to alleviate "hunger and malnutrition" among low-income households. 7 U.S.C.S. § 2011 (1988). Congress recognized, however, that "it is still desirable for those who can do so to work in order to support themselves and their families." H.R. Rep. No. 91-1402, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1970 U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News 6025, 6034. By enacting the "voluntary quit" provisions, Congress sought to disqualify individuals and households which were otherwise eligible. See 7 U.S.C.S. § 2015 (1988). Congress sought to place less emphasis on those "who have made themselves `needy'" when it enacted the voluntary quit provisions. S.Rep. No. 97-504, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News 1641, 1677 (emphasis in original). The voluntary quit provision provides that when the "head of household" voluntarily quits his or her employment without cause, the entire household loses benefits for up to three months. Pub.L. 95-113, Title XIII, § 1301, Sept. 29, 1977. The term head of household was not defined in the Act. The Secretary of Agriculture, pursuant to statutory authority, promulgated regulations defining "head of household" as the household's primary wage earner. See 7 C.F.R. § 273.1(d)(2) (1988).
In reviewing an agency's construction of the statutory term, this court must (1) determine whether Congress has clearly expressed its intent on the precise question at issue, and (2) if congressional intent is unclear, determine whether the agency's determination is reasonable. Chevron, U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). In conducting the requisite analysis, the court need not determine whether an agency's interpretation is reasonable, if it finds that Congress's intent on the issue is clear.
My primary disagreement with the majority and the district court's opinion, is that they state the proper analysis, but proceed to incorrectly analyze the case. Rather than beginning the analysis by determining whether Congress has clearly expressed its intent on the precise question at issue, the district court proceeds to the second question and considers whether the agency's interpretation of the statute is reasonable. Beginning the analysis where we must, I conclude that when Congress passed the voluntary quit provision, it intended that the term "head of household" refer to the person with primary responsibility for the household. Consequently, I would hold that the HRS's regulation is in conflict with the statute and impermissible.
The first step in determining whether Congress has intended to give a statutory provision a particular meaning is to look to the plain meaning of the provision itself. Board of Governors v. Dimension Financial Corp., 474 U.S. 361, 106 S.Ct. 681, 88 L.Ed.2d 691 (1986). Thus, in construing a statutory term, words will be interpreted according to their ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning, unless otherwise defined. Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 314, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979). The term, "head of household," suggests on its face the person most responsible in the household; the person with primary responsibility for the household. See Anderson v. Lyng, 644 F. Supp. 1372, 1375 (M.D.Ala. 1986). Both the common dictionary definition and Black's Law Dictionary support a similar construction of the term. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 522 (1979) ("head" defined as principal, chief); Black's Law Dictionary, 648 (1979) ("head of household" defined as individual who actually supports and maintains individuals who are closely connected with him or her).
The legislative history of the voluntary quit provision also indicates that Congress intended that the term "head of household" mean the person with primary responsibility for the family. According to a House Report, prior to 1977, application to the Food Stamp Program required that "[t]he household, through its head or spouse or his or her authorized representative," fill out the application. H.R. Rep. No. 464, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., reprinted in 1977 U.S. Code Cong. Admin.News 1704, 1971, 2199. "Where it is impossible for the head of the household or the spouse to make application, a household member may be designated as the authorized representative." Id. at 2200.
The term "head of household" is used in other agencies to define a person who assumes general responsibility for the household. For example, the Social Security Administration considers an applicant/recipient of the Social Security Income Program to be a "head of household [if he or she is] responsible for the day-to-day decisions on the operation of [the] household." 20 C.F.R. § 416.1866(a) (1988). Likewise, the Bureau of Indian Affairs defines head of household as "that individual who speaks on behalf of the members of the household and who is designated by the household members to act as [the head]." 25 C.F.R. § 700.69(b) (1988).
The use of the term "primary wage earner" clearly connotes a different concept from the term "head of household." Congress could have chosen to use the term "primary wage earner" in the voluntary quit provision. Instead, the term "head of household" was the only term used in the Act for more than ten years, without any reference to the term "primary wage earner." This fact further leads me to reject any attempt by the agency to substitute one term for the other.
Interpreting the term "head of household" in accordance with its plain meaning would not frustrate the purpose of the Act. In fact, the plain-meaning interpretation is consistent with the Act's overall purpose of "safeguard[ing] the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households . . . [by] permit[ting] low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet." 7 U.S.C. § 2011. The plain-meaning interpretation would permit low income households to continue to receive a more nutritious diet by increasing the food purchasing power for all eligible households.
In the context of the voluntary quit provision, the term "head of household" describes the person whose conduct will be the sole factor in disqualifying an entire household from receiving food stamp benefits. In seeking to discourage an entire household from making itself needy, Congress undoubtedly sought to address the conduct of the leader or other responsible person in the household. It is inconceivable that Congress intended that the action of an irresponsible member of the household would disqualify the entire household, simply because that member earns more money than the person primarily responsible for the household.
Having found that Congress clearly intended that the term head of household mean the person with primary responsibility for the household, I place little significance on the fact that the term primary wage earner appeared, for the first time, in the House and Senate Conference Reports in 1981, as if it were equivalent to the term head of household. This usage of the term, four years after the voluntary quit provision was enacted, cannot substitute for the clear congressional intent which existed at the time the legislation was first enacted. See Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 411 n. 11, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2370 n. 11, 60 L.Ed.2d 980 (1979).