Should states be able to nullify federal law and supreme court decisions?

Should the states be able to nullify federal law and supreme court decisions?

  • Total voters
    11
Jefferson and Madison both believed in nullification, and they did so years before the Sedition Act. That said, I think they were wrong, but, if you take the politics of those two as gospel, then you have an argument for it. No idea if they ever would have supported secession.
 
The Pauper said:
Jefferson and Madison both believed in nullification, and they did so years before the Sedition Act. That said, I think they were wrong, but, if you take the politics of those two as gospel, then you have an argument for it. No idea if they ever would have supported secession.
Click to expand...
I think you meant the "Alien and Sedition Act of 1798"?

The "Sedition Act" was legislated in 1918 and signed by 3D's favorite President Woodrow Wilson to silence dissent about our entry into WWI.


Nullification Is Bad History: Advocates of nullification often point to Madison and Jefferson’s drafting of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798—which protested the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts—as proof that the Founders advocated nullification. This is incorrect and misleading.


James Madison: Madison’s Virginia Resolutions did not speak of nullification or voiding laws, asserting that the resolutions did not “annul the acts” but were only “a legislative declaration of opinion on a constitutional point.” During the Nullification Crisis of 1832, Madison strongly denied John C. Calhoun’s theory of state nullification.


Thomas Jefferson: While Jefferson referred to nullification in the draft of the first Kentucky Resolutions (by which he meant a natural right to revolution outside the constitutional structure), the final language excluded the term and called on other states to join "in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress." The 1799 version affirmed that the resolutions did not supersede federal law but were rather a “solemn protest” against the objectionable legislation.

More at: http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/02/nullification-unlawful-and-unconstitutional
 
Last edited:
Cowgirl Tuff said:
In your opinion should states be able to overturn federal law and/or supreme court decisions that would affect state's law? If so should it be one state, two states, a % of the country's states, or the majority of the country's states?

In my opinion I think that if congress passes a law that the states find to be unconstitutional or if the supreme court makes a ruling that a state finds to be unconstitutional, or a violation of a state's law, that if 10% of the country's states came together and deemed it unconstitutional that the law should be overturned. The 10% is just a starting point for the conversation but I do think that it would add one more piece of checks and balances to counter a rogue court or a bad decision by congress. What do you think?
Click to expand...


I think your argument was settled by the civil war.
 
62530455.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top