An outline and history of nullification

An outline and history of nullification
This may be an overview for some of you but in may be important to others. I will not post all of information but I will tell you where to look for the information.
Nullification is a concept was first articulated by two of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in the Kentucky and Virginia resolves in 1798 and 1799. Part 1 of the Kentucky resolve lays the basis. The resolves were in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts.
1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
The merits of these rights were later the subject of the Daniel Webster/ Robert Hayne debates & the Webster/ Calhoun debates.
The first time the theory was put into effect was in 1828, in response to the “tariff of abominations”. The government set a high tariff on goods from England. In response England reduced their imports of cotton from America, further hurting the south. John Calhoun, Andrew Jackson’s vice-president, was from South Carolina, and knew full well what the tariff was doing to his state. He publically encouraged law makers in South Carolina to call a convention to pass a bill on nullification. His support of his state cost him the vice-presidency.
It should be noted they were very careful to not have the state legislature pass the bill because in legal term “the people of the state assembled” have a higher standing than the legislature does.
When the bill was received in Washington, Jackson’s response was to use military action to enforce the tariff. This in itself is unconstitutional as the state was not in rebellion. With troops on the way, Congress reached a settlement to reduce the tariff & defuse the situation.
It must be noted that nullification is not an end, but merely sends the matter back to congress for reconsideration. It is a statement that the constitution has been violated, either by congress or the president. I have heard it said that the Supreme Court has already ruled that nullification is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is a part of the federal government therefor lacks impartiality necessary to rule on the case. A party in a case cannot also be asked to judge the case.
To quote from a resolution of John Calhoun, read in the senate on January 22 1833 “Resolved, That the people of the several States, thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each State to itself, the residuary mass of powers to be exercised by its own separate government, and that, whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its power; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress.”
One of the recent examples of a state nullifying a law was the 55 MPH speed limit. It was originally put in place by executive order by President Jimmy Carter during the OPEC oil embargo as a way to save gasoline. It was maintained because it was thought to save lives. The states were told if they did not follow the law, they would lose federal highway funding. Eventually when Montana raised their speed limit, the federal government gave in and allowed all states to raise the speed limit. This showed that you don’t have to formally nullify a law to get it repealed.

Who made them boss

Who Made Them Boss
By Allen Marino
For as long as any of us can remember, the Supreme Court has been the final decision on everything. As a minor anarchist, I ask, why?
The power which is given to the Supreme Court is defined in Article 3 of the Constitution. It does not specify how many Supreme Court Justices there should be. It doesn’t say they need to have a big building to meet in. They could meet in Chief Justice Robert’s basement.
Article 3, section 2 states, in part, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority”.
The problem with the court comes when the court acts in an unconstitutional manner. When they step out of their role as judges and legislate from the bench. When the Supreme Court refuses to decide when the federal government has stepped over the line, they are giving sanction to that action.
The Federal government has used the 14th amendment and the necessary and proper clause to justify the taking over of anything they want. Our own Congress has stated that there are no limits to its powers. The Supreme Court will not stand for the Constitution against the Federal government, since it is part of that government.
When the court found that a local government could take one persons property and give it to another, for the purpose of developing it, thereby raising the amount of taxes collectable on it, they stepped on our rights as property owners.
When a government has the power to tell you what type of toilet you can have, how much water your shower can flow, we have to say get out of my bathroom.
What do we do when the court refuses to uphold the Constitution? The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the federal government to certain areas. The 10th amendment states; The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What options are left to us?
We have examples of Presidents refusing to abide by the decision of the Court.
We find that President Andrew Jackson dealt with the court by ignoring it, at least on one occasion. The case is Worcester v. Georgia. In that case the court decided that the State of Georgia could not force the Cherokee to move since it was the Cherokee Nation. As such, they were a distinct community with self-government within nation of the United States, and only the Federal Government had jurisdiction. In reaction to this President Jackson stated "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." In effect he proved that the court had no power to enforce its rulings.
Lincoln even tried to have the Chief Justice Tandy arrested for sedition.
My research also finds that during reconstruction, in 1868, the Federal Government enacted a law forbidding the Supreme Court from holding the laws against the South as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court went along with it.
If we take the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, we have the option of nullification. At the time, the belief was that the states could decide if something was unconstitutional and refuse to allow that law to take effect. I have to believe that since they were written by Jefferson and Madison, they might have known what they were talking about.
Since some people disagree with the principle of nullification, we are left with the states suing the federal government for overstepping, but that still leaves it up to the court to rule against the fed.
The other option is for congress to pass a law allowing whatever the court has overturned. But if the law in question violates the Constitution, it would mean passing an amendment to the Constitution, which takes quite some time.
This is why it is so important to get good people on the court in the first place. It has long been the habit that conservative justices retire when a Republican is in office, just as liberal justices only retire when a Democrat is in office. This means that the only time there is a shift in the makeup of the court is when a justice dies in office. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court was supposed to be above politics; unfortunately we put people on the court, not Gods.