JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. You must have JavaScript enabled in your browser to utilize the functionality of this website. Series: Constitutional Thinking. Add to Cart. The Missouri legislature passes a bill to flout federal gun-control laws it deems unconstitutional. President Andrew Jackson took immediate action. He outlined his position to Secretary of State Edward Livingston, who helped draft the text of the proclamation issued December 10, Former Senator Hayne, by then the governor of South Carolina, began to organize an armed resistance to the collection of the tariff.
Congress passed the Force Bill in early , which allowed the President to send armed troops to enforce tariff collections. Calhoun negotiated a compromise Tariff of which allowed both sides to back down. South Carolina repealed its Ordinance of Nullification.
One object The Hermitage does not have in our collections is this pro-Jackson political cartoon which shows what Jackson thought nullification might logically lead to—Despotism.
The levels in the cartoon show the steps on the road to that end. Our research identified over 1, proposals introduced from to that invoke nullification principles to question federal statutes. These state nullification proposals occurred about policies across the ideological spectrum.
Although we expected and found Republican state resistance to policies like the Affordable Care Act and the Common Core, we also identified instances where nullification was invoked to resist policies like police militarization that are more closely aligned to conservative preferences.
And we also found it invoked in connection with other policies like license plate tracking that are more difficult to place on partisan spectrum. Nor is nullification just posturing. We also identify considerable variation in the strength of the state nullification proposals put forward in the past decade. True nullification legislation declares federal policies null and void in the state; non-acquiescent nullification legislation does not explicitly question constitutionality but prevents state implementation; and procedural nullification legislation does not prevent implementation but modifies state statutes to render them out of step with federal expectations.
Our analysis finds that all three types have been used by states during this period of heightened intergovernmental tensions. Although true nullification is rare, both non-acquiescent and procedural nullification have been frequently invoked by states in the past decade. Although all 50 states have participated, we find that nullification activity is more common in states controlled by Republican legislatures, and also in more populous states.
Larger states like Texas may be more likely to see themselves as independent entities that do not want or need federal intervention. Finally, poorer states are more likely to pursue nullification, probably because they are concerned about the financial impact of new national policies on state budgets.
Four years later in Marbury v. Madison , Chief Justice John Marshall resolved that oversight. The Framers concurred. It acknowledged that states can declare federal laws unconstitutional; but the declaration would have no legal effect unless the courts agreed. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect. Madison also published Notes on Nullification in There, he wrote that an individual state cannot unilaterally invalidate a federal law.
That process requires collective action by the states.
0コメント