historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison [2019/09/20 14:02] – Oliver Wolcott | historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison [2020/02/18 21:06] – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Notes on Nullification ====== | ====== Notes on Nullification ====== | ||
- | {{tag> | + | {{tag> |
<WRAP center round info 60%> | <WRAP center round info 60%> | ||
Source: [[https:// | Source: [[https:// | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
That the doctrine of nullification may be clearly understood, it must be taken as laid down in the Report of a Special Committee of the House of Representatives of S. C. in 1828. In that document it is asserted, that a single State has a Constitutional right, to arrest the execution of a law of the U. S. within its limits; that the arrest is to be presumed right & valid, and is to remain in force unless 3/4 of the States on a Convention, shall otherwise decide. | That the doctrine of nullification may be clearly understood, it must be taken as laid down in the Report of a Special Committee of the House of Representatives of S. C. in 1828. In that document it is asserted, that a single State has a Constitutional right, to arrest the execution of a law of the U. S. within its limits; that the arrest is to be presumed right & valid, and is to remain in force unless 3/4 of the States on a Convention, shall otherwise decide. | ||
- | The forbidding aspect of a naked creed according to which a process instituted by a single State is to terminate in the ascendancy of a minority of 7, over a majority of 17, has led its partizans to disguise its deformity under the position that a single State may rightfully resist an unconstitutional & tyrannical law of the U. S., keeping out of view the essential distinction between a Constitutional right, and the natural & universal right of resisting intolerable oppression. But t<wrap hi>he true question is whether a single State has a constitutional right to annul or suspend the operation of a law of the U. S. within its limits, the State remaining a member of the Union, and admitting the Constitution to be in force.</ | + | The forbidding aspect of a naked creed according to which a process instituted by a single State is to terminate in the ascendancy of a minority of 7, over a majority of 17, has led its partizans to disguise its deformity under the position that a single State may rightfully resist an unconstitutional & tyrannical law of the U. S., keeping out of view the essential distinction between a Constitutional right, and the natural & universal right of resisting intolerable oppression. But <wrap hi>the true question is whether a single State has a constitutional right to annul or suspend the operation of a law of the U. S. within its limits, the State remaining a member of the Union, and admitting the Constitution to be in force.</ |
With a like policy, the Nullifiers, passover the State of things at the date of the proceedings of Virga. and the particular doctrines and arguments to which they were opposed; without an attention to which the proceedings in this as in other cases may be insecure agst. a perverted construction. | With a like policy, the Nullifiers, passover the State of things at the date of the proceedings of Virga. and the particular doctrines and arguments to which they were opposed; without an attention to which the proceedings in this as in other cases may be insecure agst. a perverted construction. | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
These startling consequences from the nullifying doctrine have driven its partizans to the extravagant presumption, | These startling consequences from the nullifying doctrine have driven its partizans to the extravagant presumption, | ||
- | Omitting the obvious remark that in such a case the law would never have been passed, or immediately repealed; and the surprize that such a defence of the nullifying right should come from S. C. in the teeth & at the time of her own example, the presumption of such a forbearance in each of the States, or such a pliability in all, among 20 or 30 Independent Sovereignties, | + | Omitting the obvious remark that in such a case the law would never have been passed, or immediately repealed; and the surprize that such a defence of the nullifying right should come from S. C. in the teeth & at the time of her own example, the presumption of such a forbearance in each of the States, or such a pliability in all, among 20 or 30 Independent Sovereignties, |
Thus from the 3d. Resoln. itself, whether regard be had to the employment of the term States in the plural number, to the argumentative use of it, or to the object namely the " | Thus from the 3d. Resoln. itself, whether regard be had to the employment of the term States in the plural number, to the argumentative use of it, or to the object namely the " |
historicaldocuments/notes-on-nullification-madison.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:15 by 127.0.0.1