Thomas E. Woods Jr.'s recent Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century is a must-read book to understand what is at stake for each of us in the states, and what we the people can do to restore our constitutionally protected liberties.

But before we can restore anything, we must first be clear about what is lost, and how we lost it. In Chapter 4, "What Is (or Are) the United States, Anyway?" Woods opens with a fascinating inquiry: "Was the United States created by a group of independent political societies that established a federal government as their agent, reserving all undelegated powers to themselves? Or was the United States the creation of a single, undifferentiated American people?"

Woods asserts that the federal government was created by America's original 13 colonies, operating as separate and distinct states, which established a compact, known as the Constitution for the United States of America, for dealing with foreign nations, common defense when necessary, and commerce between the 13 chartered states.

History, when studied in earnest, reveals that the various states' ratification documents accepting the Constitution emphasized one dominant, overarching principle: Powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government in the Constitution are automatically retained by the individual states. No exceptions.

Republican Terry Branstad was sworn into office as Iowa's 41st governor Friday and used his inaugural address to issue calls for service, less government, more integrity and transparency, a reduced and simplified tax system, and a renewed commitment to education.

"It is time for a new covenant between Iowans and their government," Branstad said. "It is a covenant that is founded upon principles of limited government, service above self, transparency and integrity, world-class schools, and celebrating the success of Iowans. These are the principles that will guide my days as your governor."

Governor-elect Terry Branstad and incoming Department of Management Director Dave Roederer said Thursday that state expenditures are expected to exceed revenues by $605 million in Fiscal Year 2012 - more than twice as large as the gap projected by the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency.

"We've got a big challenge," Branstad said. "A lot of one-time money has been used for ongoing expenses. We want to stop what we consider to be bad budgeting practices and really get us back into an affordable, sustainable way to deliver the best quality services in the most efficient and economical way that we can."

In a budget presentation Thursday at the Capitol to reporters and editors, Roederer said the projected budget "deficit" would be $1 billion for Fiscal Year 2013, nearly $1.2 billion for Fiscal Year 2014, and $1.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2015.

(Editor's note: This is a response to the guest commentary "Attack Tyranny at Its Weakest Link: Enforcement.")

In his 1849 essay "Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau seemed disinterested in the systemic mechanisms available to battle injustice. "They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone," he wrote. "I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."

Thoreau's hatred of government was no secret. In the opening paragraph of that essay, he made this blanket statement: "That government is best which governs not at all."

Those sentiments are clearly the roots of "Attack Tyranny at Its Weakest Link - Enforcement," by Kevin Carson of the Center for a Stateless Society. The piece can be summarized by its conclusion: "Don't waste time trying to change the law. Just disobey it."

Within that guest commentary, there are trenchant observations, especially the argument that the current United States political system makes grassroots legislative reform difficult if not impossible. (This frustration with democratic niceties is hardly new; as Thoreau wrote: "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it. It is only expressing to men feebly your desire that it should prevail.")

Carson argues that in that context, it is far more efficient to simply disobey the law than to try to reform it: "Public agitation against a law may be very fruitful indeed - but not so much by creating pressure to change the law as by creating a climate of public opinion such that it becomes a dead letter."

The article obviously comes from an anarchist perspective, and it's true to the anti-state nature of that philosophy. But the commentary's arguments are problematic for those who believe in the necessity of the state - even those who distrust or hate government but see a role for it, no matter how limited. And Carson ignores the moral elements of Thoreau's essay, which specifically advocates disobedience of laws that would compel one to act unjustly toward others. Carson's piece is either woefully incomplete or shockingly immature.