Nullification: The Lost Balance of Power

Should nullification be a state power?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 10 62.5%
  • No.

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Unsure/Maybe in some cases

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16

ShackledNation

Libertarian
Jun 16, 2011
1,885
209
130
California
Many Americans do not like the idea of nullification. I find this unfortunate. The writers of the Constitution understood the threat of having a government. This is why they separated powers among three branches. The hope was that if one branch tried to gain too much power, the other would bring it in line.

But the founders were not stupid. They feared what would happen if all three branches sided together to expand their authority (fears that have been realized). And so a federal system was desired, in which multiple governments (states) could check the central three branches even further. The primary tool of the states to check federal authority was nullification.

If a state felt a law broke the Constitution it had entered into, it could claim that law null and void. This power was vital in defense of 3 branches uniting together to expand their power. I would argue it is the most important power of the states. Yet it has been lost.

And we wonder why the government has only continually grown in the economic sphere with bailouts and welfarism, grown in the foreign sphere with nearly 1,000 military bases around the world and constant warfare and nation building, and the personal sphere by banning drugs, passing laws such as the Patriot Act, allowing the TSA to grope passengers, and countless other examples.

If only we had the power to nullify it all.
 
I like Jackson in many ways, but seriously? Endorsing the Tariff of Abomination was a an abomination.

Then Lincoln went on a rampage.
 
Many Americans do not like the idea of nullification. I find this unfortunate. The writers of the Constitution understood the threat of having a government. This is why they separated powers among three branches. The hope was that if one branch tried to gain too much power, the other would bring it in line.

But the founders were not stupid. They feared what would happen if all three branches sided together to expand their authority (fears that have been realized). And so a federal system was desired, in which multiple governments (states) could check the central three branches even further. The primary tool of the states to check federal authority was nullification.

If a state felt a law broke the Constitution it had entered into, it could claim that law null and void. This power was vital in defense of 3 branches uniting together to expand their power. I would argue it is the most important power of the states. Yet it has been lost.

And we wonder why the government has only continually grown in the economic sphere with bailouts and welfarism, grown in the foreign sphere with nearly 1,000 military bases around the world and constant warfare and nation building, and the personal sphere by banning drugs, passing laws such as the Patriot Act, allowing the TSA to grope passengers, and countless other examples.

If only we had the power to nullify it all.

So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.
 
So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.

Our country was founded upon voluntary agreement. There is no pissing in the wind.
 
If states have the power to nullify federal law, then what does it mean to be a nation?

Basically nothing at all.

The very first thing the CSA did was become much like the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that they so dispised.
 
So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.

Our country was founded upon voluntary agreement. There is no pissing in the wind.

Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.
 
So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.

Our country was founded upon voluntary agreement. There is no pissing in the wind.

It may have been founded on that, but Lincoln put an end to it when he invaded and conquered the Southern states who disagreed.
 
Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War. Lincoln's invasion and conquest of the Confederate states is the only thing that put and end to it. Nothing in the Constitution took away the right of states to secede.
 
Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War. Lincoln's invasion and conquest of the Confederate states is the only thing that put and end to it. Nothing in the Constitution took away the right of states to secede.

Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.
 
Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War.

You should tell that to John C Calhoun.

Which federal law was successfully nullified by a state? Since it was "widely practiced", I'm sure you have some examples.
 
Many Americans do not like the idea of nullification. I find this unfortunate. The writers of the Constitution understood the threat of having a government. This is why they separated powers among three branches. The hope was that if one branch tried to gain too much power, the other would bring it in line.

But the founders were not stupid. They feared what would happen if all three branches sided together to expand their authority (fears that have been realized). And so a federal system was desired, in which multiple governments (states) could check the central three branches even further. The primary tool of the states to check federal authority was nullification.

If a state felt a law broke the Constitution it had entered into, it could claim that law null and void. This power was vital in defense of 3 branches uniting together to expand their power. I would argue it is the most important power of the states. Yet it has been lost.

And we wonder why the government has only continually grown in the economic sphere with bailouts and welfarism, grown in the foreign sphere with nearly 1,000 military bases around the world and constant warfare and nation building, and the personal sphere by banning drugs, passing laws such as the Patriot Act, allowing the TSA to grope passengers, and countless other examples.

If only we had the power to nullify it all.

So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. So maybe you should have inferred that my opinion is currently the federal government is too powerful and has overstepped its constitutional limits.

You think the gross removal of state power is pissing in the wind?
 
So first you say the Founders gave the power of nullification. Then you admit we don't have the power of nullification.
Sounds like pissing n the wind to me.

Our country was founded upon voluntary agreement. There is no pissing in the wind.

Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.
Yes it was. Look up the Virginia Resolutions and the views of both Jefferson and Madison, and the Principles of '98.
 
Last edited:
Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War.

You should tell that to John C Calhoun.

Which federal law was successfully nullified by a state? Since it was "widely practiced", I'm sure you have some examples.
Plenty. And contrary to common opinion, it was quite a northern tradition.

There is the well known example of South Carolina's nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

Massachussettes nullified the embargo acts of 1807. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (to name a few) supported MA.

During the War of 1812, the federal government ordered the use of state militias. Massachusettes again declare the law null, and the supreme court of the state agreed. Connecticut followed suit.

In 1813, there was another trade embargo. Once again, MA cried foul, and the supreme court of the state agreed with the legislature.

Northern states again slavery also tried to use nullification to protect the rights of escaped slaves. The fugitive slave act of 1850 was abhorred by the north.

The efforts were not legally upheld, and that is the point. If the Supreme Court can overrule anything a state says, and the Supreme Court sides with the other two branches in taking over powers of the states and infringing upon their sovereignty, then the federal system is useless. States rights are vital to keeping a government in check. If all three branches agree that rights should be taken away, there is nothing to stop them except for the states. That is the entire purpose of a federal system.
 
Last edited:
Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War.

You should tell that to John C Calhoun.

Which federal law was successfully nullified by a state? Since it was "widely practiced", I'm sure you have some examples.
Plenty. And contrary to common opinion, it was quite a northern tradition.

There is the well known example of South Carolina's nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

Those nullifications were settled before a court determined if they were Constitutional ,hence my reference to Calhoun.
Massachussettes nullified the embargo acts of 1807. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (to name a few) supported MA.

well, MA voted to nullify the embargo. But did the embargo stop? Eh, no.

But I'm glad you spent some time reading Lew Rockwell again.
 
Our nation was founded upon voluntary agreement of states to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a contract that most importantly ceded state autonomy and power to a central government while delineating the limits of that power. Nullification was not one of the limits.

Wrong. That's a liberal myth. Nullification was widely accepted and practiced before the Civil War. Lincoln's invasion and conquest of the Confederate states is the only thing that put and end to it. Nothing in the Constitution took away the right of states to secede.

Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.
Lincoln enforced the constitution? I think you need to do some more unbiased research on Lincoln's almost tyrannical disregard of the Constitution. He banned newspaper publications in the north condemning the war as unnecessary.

Also, the constitution limits Federal power, not state power. States have every right to secede.
 
You should tell that to John C Calhoun.

Which federal law was successfully nullified by a state? Since it was "widely practiced", I'm sure you have some examples.
Plenty. And contrary to common opinion, it was quite a northern tradition.

There is the well known example of South Carolina's nullification of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832.

Those nullifications were settled before a court determined if they were Constitutional ,hence my reference to Calhoun.
Massachussettes nullified the embargo acts of 1807. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York (to name a few) supported MA.

well, MA voted to nullify the embargo. But did the embargo stop? Eh, no.

But I'm glad you spent some time reading Lew Rockwell again.
Fallacy of guilt by association. Also, I already made a point regarding the courts and their power over the states, which was ignored. I also said as you pointed out that nullification was not upheld as a right, hence the problem. So nothing you said, with all due respect, is a substantial argument.
 
If states have the power to nullify federal law, then what does it mean to be a nation?

Basically nothing at all.

The very first thing the CSA did was become much like the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that they so dispised.
It would mean we would be living as a nation within the constitution.
 
If states have the power to nullify federal law, then what does it mean to be a nation?

Basically nothing at all.

The very first thing the CSA did was become much like the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that they so dispised.

Who cares what it means "to be a nation." We would be a free people.

Why shouldn't the states have the same authority as the Supreme Court?
 
Fallacy of guilt by association. Also, I already made a point regarding the courts and their power over the states, which was ignored. I also said as you pointed out that nullification was not upheld as a right, hence the problem. So nothing you said, with all due respect, is a substantial argument.

The Federal Courts only have said power over the states if you allow federal courts to be the final determinant of whether a law is made in pursuance of the Constitution. If you leave that to the states, as some early representatives would have liked, you leave the state court with the ability to decide if a federal law is/is not in pursuance of the Constitution - and strike down those they consider not in pursuance.

Such a system is completely unworkable and would destroy the ability of the Federal government to manage domestic affairs. Yet Calhoun was adamant in supporting that system (Don't get me wrong - I agree with lot of what Calhoun supported, I just think he was on the wrong side of the nullification crisis).
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top