| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revisionNext revisionBoth sides next revision |
| authoring:cospwiki:cospdocuments:nullification-answered [2015/10/19 00:14] – Oliver Wolcott | authoring:cospwiki:answers:nullification-answered [2015/10/29 21:13] – ↷ Page moved from authoring:cospwiki:cospdocuments:nullification-answered to authoring:cospwiki:answers:nullification-answered Oliver Wolcott |
|---|
| 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>[[authoring:cospwiki:cospdocuments:nullification-answered#footnote_1|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.<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. |
| |
| 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. |
| In Madison's Report of 1800, he clarified his stance on "nullification" by specifically declaring that individual states did //not// have the right to invalidate federal laws. He explained that state resolutions (like the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions) could only be used to express the state's conviction that a federal law was unconstitutional, which might be useful for mobilizing public opinion to persuade federal officials to overturn the law. | In Madison's Report of 1800, he clarified his stance on "nullification" by specifically declaring that individual states did //not// have the right to invalidate federal laws. He explained that state resolutions (like the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions) could only be used to express the state's conviction that a federal law was unconstitutional, which might be useful for mobilizing public opinion to persuade federal officials to overturn the law. |
| |
| Finally, in a letter to Edward Everett in 1830, Madison provided further guidance on this point by describing the Article V Convention of States to propose amendments as "the final resort within the purview of the Constitution" for correcting usurpations and abuses of power by the federal government. In other words, Article V is the //ultimate// nullification procedure. | Finally, in a [[historicaldocuments:letters:everett1830#everett1830|letter to Edward Everett in 1830]], Madison provided further guidance on this point by describing the Article V Convention of States to propose amendments as "the final resort within the purview of the Constitution" for correcting usurpations and abuses of power by the federal government. In other words, Article V is the //ultimate// nullification procedure. |
| |
| In their wisdom, the drafters of the Constitution provided us with a remedy for abuses of federal power that are left unchecked by the federal judiciary. It is time for us to apply that remedy by invoking Article V's procedure to call for a Convention of the States to propose amendments that will restore the original meaning of the Constitution. | In their wisdom, the drafters of the Constitution provided us with a remedy for abuses of federal power that are left unchecked by the federal judiciary. It is time for us to apply that remedy by invoking Article V's procedure to call for a Convention of the States to propose amendments that will restore the original meaning of the Constitution. |
| ---- | ---- |
| |
| ===== Footnote 1. ===== | ===== End Notes ===== |
| | |
| 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. | <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. |
| |
| |
