User Tools

Site Tools


documents:answers:nullification-answered

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
documents:answers:nullification-answered [2015/11/28 14:21]
Oliver Wolcott
documents:answers:nullification-answered [2020/02/19 02:02] (current)
Oliver Wolcott [Applying the _Entire_ Tenth Amendment]
Line 18: Line 18:
 The [[historicaldocuments:​constitution-billofrights#​amendment_x|Tenth Amendment]] is a clear expression of a defining, foundational principle of the government designed by our Founders: that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. But this, in and of itself, does not imply that individual states have the authority to independently determine when the federal government has acted outside the scope of its authority; much less does it imply that an individual state, upon reaching this conclusion, may simply ignore a duly-enacted federal law. **The Tenth Amendment establishes a** //​principle//,​ **but it does not establish a** //remedy// **or** //​process//​. The [[historicaldocuments:​constitution-billofrights#​amendment_x|Tenth Amendment]] is a clear expression of a defining, foundational principle of the government designed by our Founders: that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people. But this, in and of itself, does not imply that individual states have the authority to independently determine when the federal government has acted outside the scope of its authority; much less does it imply that an individual state, upon reaching this conclusion, may simply ignore a duly-enacted federal law. **The Tenth Amendment establishes a** //​principle//,​ **but it does not establish a** //remedy// **or** //​process//​.
  
-We know from [[historicaldocuments:​constitution#​article_vi|Article VI]] that the Constitution and federal laws passed pursuant to it are the "​supreme law of the land." ​ We also know from [[historicaldocuments:​constitution#​article_iii|Article III]] that the United States Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution.<sup>[[#i|1]]</​sup> ​So according to the Constitution,​ the Supreme Court determines whether a federal law must be considered the "​supreme law of the land" when it decides whether or not that law is proper under the Constitution. The Supreme Court—not an individual state—has the final say in whether or not the federal government has acted outside the scope of its authority under the Constitution.+We know from [[historicaldocuments:​constitution#​article_vi|Article VI]] that the Constitution and federal laws passed pursuant to it are the "​supreme law of the land." ​ We also know from [[historicaldocuments:​constitution#​article_iii|Article III]] that the United States Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution.((The historical evidence supporting judicial review is overwhelming. Discussions during the Constitutional Convention indicate that James Madison, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and numerous other delegates believed that the Supreme Court would be vested with the power of judicial review. In total, around 30 convention delegates are on the record as supporting judicial review and only 5 or so are on the record as opposing it. In [[historicaldocuments:​fedpapers:​federalist78|FEDERALIST No. 78]], Alexander Hamilton discusses judicial review at length and firmly asserts that it is within the power of the federal judiciary.)) ​So according to the Constitution,​ the Supreme Court determines whether a federal law must be considered the "​supreme law of the land" when it decides whether or not that law is proper under the Constitution. The Supreme Court—not an individual state—has the final say in whether or not the federal government has acted outside the scope of its authority under the Constitution.
  
 Groups claiming that states have the power to ignore or "​nullify"​ federal laws often rely upon the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively,​ in 1798. But it is important to read and understand these documents in context, and in light of subsequent documents. Groups claiming that states have the power to ignore or "​nullify"​ federal laws often rely upon the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively,​ in 1798. But it is important to read and understand these documents in context, and in light of subsequent documents.
Line 26: Line 26:
 No other state concurred in the idea of "​nullification."​ In fact, states that responded to these Resolutions specifically declared that it was the judiciary—not individual states—which held the power to invalidate acts of Congress. Upon receipt of these responses, Jefferson wrote the 1799 Kentucky Resolution, expressing Kentucky'​s commitment to continue to "bow to the laws of the Union,"​ while solemnly protesting the Alien and Sedition Acts "in a constitutional manner."​ No other state concurred in the idea of "​nullification."​ In fact, states that responded to these Resolutions specifically declared that it was the judiciary—not individual states—which held the power to invalidate acts of Congress. Upon receipt of these responses, Jefferson wrote the 1799 Kentucky Resolution, expressing Kentucky'​s commitment to continue to "bow to the laws of the Union,"​ while solemnly protesting the Alien and Sedition Acts "in a constitutional manner."​
  
-===== Applying the _Entire_ ​Tenth Amendment =====+===== Applying the Entire ​Tenth Amendment =====
  
  
Line 50: Line 50:
  
 ---- ----
 +{{page>:​wiki_footer}}
 ===== End Notes ===== ===== End Notes =====
    
-<​BOOKMARK:​i>​1. The historical evidence supporting judicial review is overwhelming. Discussions during the Constitutional Convention indicate that James Madison, George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and numerous other delegates believed that the Supreme Court would be vested with the power of judicial review. In total, around 30 convention delegates are on the record as supporting judicial review and only 5 or so are on the record as opposing it. In [[historicaldocuments:​fedpapers:​federalist78|FEDERALIST No. 78]], Alexander Hamilton discusses judicial review at length and firmly asserts that it is within the power of the federal judiciary. 
- 
  
-[[http://​www.ConventionofStates.com|ConventionofStates.com]] 
  
  
documents/answers/nullification-answered.1448720516.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/11/28 14:21 by Oliver Wolcott