historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison [2019/09/15 11:39] – Oliver Wolcott | historicaldocuments:notes-on-nullification-madison [2019/09/15 12:32] – Oliver Wolcott | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
Thus the Report observes "The States then being the parties to the Constl. Compact, and in their highest sovereign Capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authy, to decide in the last resort, whether the Compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition" | Thus the Report observes "The States then being the parties to the Constl. Compact, and in their highest sovereign Capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authy, to decide in the last resort, whether the Compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition" | ||
- | Now apart from the palpable | + | Now apart from the __palpable |
Again, the language of the Report is, "If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers palpably witheld by the Constitution could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, & thereby preserve the Constitun. itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there wd. be an end to all relief from usurped power" | Again, the language of the Report is, "If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers palpably witheld by the Constitution could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, & thereby preserve the Constitun. itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it, there wd. be an end to all relief from usurped power" | ||
- | "But, (continues the Report) | + | "But, (continues the Report) |
* Here is a direct proof, that the Authority of the Supreme Court of the U. S. was understood by the Legislature of Virginia, to have been < > to an interposition of the States agst.of the Al: & Sed; laws. | * Here is a direct proof, that the Authority of the Supreme Court of the U. S. was understood by the Legislature of Virginia, to have been < > to an interposition of the States agst.of the Al: & Sed; laws. | ||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
X printed p. 401 | X printed p. 401 | ||
- | XFrom this view of the subject, those who will duly attend to tenor of the proceedings of Virga and to the circumstances of the period when they took place will concur in the fairness of disclaiming the inference from the undeniableness of a truth, that it could not be the truth meant to be asserted in the Resoln. The employment of the truth asserted, and the reasons for it, are too striking to be denied or misunderstood. | + | X From this view of the subject, those who will duly attend to tenor of the proceedings of Virga and to the circumstances of the period when they took place will concur in the fairness of disclaiming the inference from the undeniableness of a truth, that it could not be the truth meant to be asserted in the Resoln. The employment of the truth asserted, and the reasons for it, are too striking to be denied or misunderstood. |
More than this, the remark is obvious, that those who resolve the nullifying claim into the natural right to resist intolerable oppression, are precluded from inferring that to be the right meant by the Resoln., since that is as little denied, as the paramountship of the authy., creating a Constn; over an authy derived from it. | More than this, the remark is obvious, that those who resolve the nullifying claim into the natural right to resist intolerable oppression, are precluded from inferring that to be the right meant by the Resoln., since that is as little denied, as the paramountship of the authy., creating a Constn; over an authy derived from it. | ||
- | The true question therefore is whether there be a Constitutional right in a single state to nullify a law of the U. S. We have seen the absurdity of such a claim in its simple naked and suicidal form. Let us turn to it as modified by S. C. into a right in every State to resist within itself, the execution of a Federal law, deemed by it to be unconstitutional; | + | The true question therefore is whether there be a Constitutional right in a single state to nullify a law of the U. S. <wrap hi>We have seen the absurdity of such a claim in its simple naked and **suicidal** form.</ |
- | Thus, during the temporary nullification of the law, the results wd. be the same with those proceeding from an unqualified nullification; | + | Thus, during the temporary nullification of the law, the results wd. be the same with those proceeding from an unqualified nullification; |
Well might Virga. declare as her Legislature did by a Resolution of 183 that her Resolutions of 98-99, gave no support to the nullifying doctrine of S. C. And well may the friends of Mr. J—n disclaim any sanction to it or to any Constitutional right of nullification from his opinions. His memory is fortunately rescued from such imputations, | Well might Virga. declare as her Legislature did by a Resolution of 183 that her Resolutions of 98-99, gave no support to the nullifying doctrine of S. C. And well may the friends of Mr. J—n disclaim any sanction to it or to any Constitutional right of nullification from his opinions. His memory is fortunately rescued from such imputations, | ||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
*No example of the inconsistency of party zeal can be greater, than is seen in the value allowed to Mr Jeffersons authority by the nullifying party; whilst they disregard his repeated assertions of the Federal authority, even under the articles of Confederation, | *No example of the inconsistency of party zeal can be greater, than is seen in the value allowed to Mr Jeffersons authority by the nullifying party; whilst they disregard his repeated assertions of the Federal authority, even under the articles of Confederation, | ||
- | Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression. | + | Thus the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression. |
- | If the right of nullification meant by him had not been thus guarded agst. a perversion of it, let him be his own interpreter in his letter to Mr. Giles in Decr 1826. in which he makes the rightful remidy of a state in an extreme case to be a separation from the Union, not a resistance to its authority while remaining in it.* The authority of Mr. Jefferson therefore, belongs not to, but is directly opposed to, the nullifying party who have so unwarrantably availed themselves of it. | + | If the right of nullification meant by him had not been thus guarded agst. a perversion of it, let him be his own interpreter in his letter to Mr. Giles in Decr 1826. in which he makes the rightful remidy of a state in an extreme case to be a separation from the Union, not a resistance to its authority while remaining in it.* **The authority of Mr. Jefferson therefore, belongs not to, but is directly opposed to, the nullifying party who have so unwarrantably availed themselves of it.** |
- | It is said that in several instances the authority & laws of the U. S have been successfully nullified by particular States. This may have occurred possibly in urgent cases, and in confidence that it would not be at variance with the construction of the Fedl. Govt. or in cases where, operating within the Nullifying State alone it might be connived at, as a lesser evil than a resort to force; or in cases not falling within the Fedl. jurisdiction; | + | It is said that in several instances the authority & laws of the U. S have been successfully nullified by particular States. This may have occurred possibly in urgent cases, and in confidence that it would not be at variance with the construction of the Fedl. Govt. or in cases where, operating within the Nullifying State alone it might be connived at, as a lesser evil than a resort to force; or in cases not falling within the Fedl. jurisdiction; |
The conduct of Pena. and the opinions of Judges McKean & Tilgman have been particularly dwelt on by the Nullifiers. But the final acquiescence of the State in the authy of the Fedl. Judiciary transfers the authy. to the other scale, and it is believed that the opinions of the two judges, have been superseded by those of their brethren; which have since been & at the present time, are opposed to them. | The conduct of Pena. and the opinions of Judges McKean & Tilgman have been particularly dwelt on by the Nullifiers. But the final acquiescence of the State in the authy of the Fedl. Judiciary transfers the authy. to the other scale, and it is believed that the opinions of the two judges, have been superseded by those of their brethren; which have since been & at the present time, are opposed to them. | ||
Line 115: | Line 115: | ||
It remains however for the nullifying expositors to specify the right &. mode of interposition, | It remains however for the nullifying expositors to specify the right &. mode of interposition, | ||
- | They can not say that the right meant was a Constl. right to resist the Constitutional authy: for that is a contradiction in terms, as much as a legal right to resist a law. | + | <wrap hi>They can not say that the right meant was a Constl. right to resist the Constitutional authy: for that is a contradiction in terms, as much as a legal right to resist a law.</ |
- | They can find no middle ground, between a natural and a Constitutional right, on which a right of nullifying interposition can be placed; and it is curious to observe the awkwardness of the attempt, by the most ingenious advocates (Upsher & Berrian) | + | **They can find no middle ground, between a natural and a Constitutional right, on which a right of nullifying interposition can be placed;** and it is curious to observe the awkwardness of the attempt, by the most ingenious advocates (Upsher & Berrian) |
- | They will not rest the claim as modified by S. C. for that that has scarce an advocate out of the State, and owes the remnant of its popularity there to the disguise under which it is now kept alive; some of the leaders of the party admitting its indefensibility in its naked shape. | + | They will not rest the claim as modified by S. C. for that that has scarce an advocate out of the State, and owes the remnant of its popularity there to the disguise under which it is now kept alive; some of the leaders of the party admitting its **indefensibility** in its naked shape. |
- | The result is that the Nullifiers, instead of proving that the Resoln. meant nullification, | + | <wrap hi>The result is that the Nullifiers, instead of proving that the Resoln. meant nullification, |
- | |||
It appears from this comment, that the right asserted & exercised by the Legislature, | It appears from this comment, that the right asserted & exercised by the Legislature, | ||
Line 129: | Line 128: | ||
It appears still further that the efficacious interposition contemplated by the Legislature; | It appears still further that the efficacious interposition contemplated by the Legislature; | ||
- | It appears that the Legislature expressly | + | It appears that the Legislature expressly |
It appears that the object to be attained by the invited co-operation with Virgina, was, as expressed in the 3d. & 7th. Resol: to maintain within the several States their respective auths. rights & liberties, which could not be constitutionally different in different States, nor inconsistent with a sameness in the Authy. & laws of the U. S. in all & in each. | It appears that the object to be attained by the invited co-operation with Virgina, was, as expressed in the 3d. & 7th. Resol: to maintain within the several States their respective auths. rights & liberties, which could not be constitutionally different in different States, nor inconsistent with a sameness in the Authy. & laws of the U. S. in all & in each. | ||
Line 141: | Line 140: | ||
What the effect might have been if Virga had remained patient & silent, and still more if she had sided with S. Carolina, in favor of the Alien & Sedition acts, can be but a matter of conjecture. | What the effect might have been if Virga had remained patient & silent, and still more if she had sided with S. Carolina, in favor of the Alien & Sedition acts, can be but a matter of conjecture. | ||
- | What would have been thought of her if she had recommended the nullifying project of S. C. may be estimated, by the reception given to it under factitious | + | What would have been thought of her if she had recommended the nullifying project of S. C. may be estimated, by the reception given to it under __factitious |
It has been sufficiently shewn from the language of the Report as has been seen, that the right in the States to interpose declarations & protests, agst. unconstitutional acts of Congress, had been denied; and that the reasoning in the Resolutions, | It has been sufficiently shewn from the language of the Report as has been seen, that the right in the States to interpose declarations & protests, agst. unconstitutional acts of Congress, had been denied; and that the reasoning in the Resolutions, | ||
Line 175: | Line 174: | ||
Yes it may be safely admitted that every right has its remedy; as it must be admitted that the remedy under the Constitution lies where it has been marked out by the Constitution; | Yes it may be safely admitted that every right has its remedy; as it must be admitted that the remedy under the Constitution lies where it has been marked out by the Constitution; | ||
- | It is painful to be obliged to notice such a Sophism as that by which this inference, is assailed. Because an unconstitutional law is no law, it is alledged that it may be constitutionally disobeyed by all who think it unconstitutional. The fallacy is so obvious that it can impose on none but the most biassed or heedless observers. It makes no distinction where the distinction is obvious, and essential, between the case of a law confessedly unconstitutional, | + | __It is painful to be obliged to notice such a Sophism as that by which this inference, is assailed. Because an unconstitutional law is no law, it is alledged that it may be constitutionally disobeyed by all who think it unconstitutional.__ **The fallacy is so obvious that it can impose on none but the most biassed or heedless observers.** It makes no distinction where the distinction is obvious, and essential, between the case of a law confessedly unconstitutional, |
The main pillar of Nullification is the assumption that Sovereignty is a unit, at once indivisible & unalienable; | The main pillar of Nullification is the assumption that Sovereignty is a unit, at once indivisible & unalienable; | ||
Line 181: | Line 180: | ||
But is it not the Constn. itself, necessarily the offspring of a Sovn. Authy? What but the highest pol: Authy. a sovereign Authy: could make such a Constn.; a Constn. wch. makes a Govt. a Govt. which makes laws; laws which operate likes the laws of all other Govts, by a penal & physical force, on the individuals subject to the laws; and finally laws declared to be the supreme law of the land; any thing in the Constn. or laws of the individual State notwithstanding. | But is it not the Constn. itself, necessarily the offspring of a Sovn. Authy? What but the highest pol: Authy. a sovereign Authy: could make such a Constn.; a Constn. wch. makes a Govt. a Govt. which makes laws; laws which operate likes the laws of all other Govts, by a penal & physical force, on the individuals subject to the laws; and finally laws declared to be the supreme law of the land; any thing in the Constn. or laws of the individual State notwithstanding. | ||
- | And where does the Sovy. which makes such a Constn. reside? | + | And where does the Sovy. which makes such a Constn. reside? |
In like manner, the Constns. of the States, made by the people, as separated into States, were made by a sovereign Authy, by a Sovereignty residing in each of the States, to the extent of the objects embraced by their respective Constitutions. And if the States be thus sovereign tho’ shorne of so many of the essential attributes of Sovereignty, | In like manner, the Constns. of the States, made by the people, as separated into States, were made by a sovereign Authy, by a Sovereignty residing in each of the States, to the extent of the objects embraced by their respective Constitutions. And if the States be thus sovereign tho’ shorne of so many of the essential attributes of Sovereignty, |
historicaldocuments/notes-on-nullification-madison.txt · Last modified: 2021/02/23 16:15 by 127.0.0.1