User Tools

Site Tools


historicaldocuments:letters:everett1830

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revisionBoth sides next revision
historicaldocuments:letters:everett1830 [2019/08/16 19:15] Oliver Wolcotthistoricaldocuments:letters:everett1830 [2019/08/16 19:44] Oliver Wolcott
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Madison's letter to Edward Everett in 1830 ====== ====== Madison's letter to Edward Everett in 1830 ======
 /* historicaldocuments/letters/everett1830.txt · Last modified: 2015/10/22 15:34 by Oliver Wolcott */ /* historicaldocuments/letters/everett1830.txt · Last modified: 2015/10/22 15:34 by Oliver Wolcott */
 +{{tag>nullification everett madison}}
 +<WRAP center round info 60%>
 +Source: http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm
 +</WRAP>
 +
  
 To Edward Everett To Edward Everett
Line 86: Line 91:
 If any farther lights on the subject cd. be needed, a very strong one is reflected in the answers to the Resolutions by the States which protested agst. them. The main objection to these, beyond a few general complaints agst. the inflammatory tendency of the resolutions was directed agst. the assumed authy. of a State Legisle. to declare a law of the U. S. unconstitutional, which they pronounced an unwarrantable interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Ct. of the U. S. Had the resolns. been regarded as avowing & maintaining a right in an indivl. State, to arrest by force the execution of a law of the U. S. it must be presumed that it wd. have been a conspicuous object of their denunciation. If any farther lights on the subject cd. be needed, a very strong one is reflected in the answers to the Resolutions by the States which protested agst. them. The main objection to these, beyond a few general complaints agst. the inflammatory tendency of the resolutions was directed agst. the assumed authy. of a State Legisle. to declare a law of the U. S. unconstitutional, which they pronounced an unwarrantable interference with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Ct. of the U. S. Had the resolns. been regarded as avowing & maintaining a right in an indivl. State, to arrest by force the execution of a law of the U. S. it must be presumed that it wd. have been a conspicuous object of their denunciation.
  
-[[http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm|Source]]+{{page>:wiki_footer}}
historicaldocuments/letters/everett1830.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:15 by 127.0.0.1