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
Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.

Where does the Constitution revoke the right to secede?

How did Lincoln "enforce" the Constitution? By making war on sovereign states without a declaration from Congress? By abolishing habeas corpus? By shutting down 300 newspapers? By executing Americans without a trial? By burning down American cities? By looting, plundering and destroying the private property of American citizens? By arresting the governor and the entire state legislature of Maryland? By setting up a gulag and throwing law abiding citizens into it without a trial?

Which of those actions was intended to "enforce" the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
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).
If you leave the power of nullification to states and their courts, you would not have a completely unworkable system. I am not sure what your reasoning is, I have guesses, but I must ask why you think such a system is unworkable.

Why should states be forced to enforce laws that their elected representatives see as unconstitutional? Considering that state legislatures are more representative of the people than Congress (more members per capita) it makes sense to allow them to determine if an agreement with the states, the people, and the federal government has been broken.

If the federal government has a monopoly on determining what is constitutional, it should be painfully clear that their power will only expand beyond the limits imposed on it. If nullification were accepted, fugitive slave laws, which were unconstitutional, could have been repealed in northern states. It was the Nazis who wanted to end states rights, and centralized power is behind nearly all the atrocities in history.
 
Last edited:
The logic of the federal system demands nullification. If the very entities that formed the agreement have to power to enforce it, it makes the Constitution useless. If the power that is supposed to be limited by the constitution is the same and only power that can interpret it, the document is powerless.

The 10th amendment wont enforce itself. It would be nice of the federal government would limit itself, but that is unrealistic. Power must counteract power and the states must assert themselves when the sovereignty of the people is violated. You cannot simply have a top down approach. You need to find solutions from the bottom up, closest to the people and the 50 states rather than a single centralized body.
 
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?

Well, I suppose if you do not mind that the United States ceases to exist, and instead is comprised of 50 unique nations, you might have a point.

But what makes you think that you would be "FREE" if the masters were in the STATE government?

Are you suggesting that state governments would NOT be subject to the same kind of corruption as our Federal government is?

I mean it is very apparent to me that State governments are no less corrupt than the FEDERAL government.

What magic thinking leads you to believe that breaking the United States into 50 nations is going to be better for us?
 
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?

Well, I suppose if you do not mind that the United States ceases to exist, and instead is comprised of 50 unique nations, you might have a point.

The United States wouldn't be a nation in the sense that you understand the term, that is, a mob of servile drones who are willing to immolate themselves whenever their master's whims demand it. They would be free people who make their own decisions.

But what makes you think that you would be "FREE" if the masters were in the STATE government?

For one thing, because if the government of one state becomes oppressive, you can packup and move to another more to your liking. The ability to leave keeps the abuse of arbitrary authority in check.

Are you suggesting that state governments would NOT be subject to the same kind of corruption as our Federal government is?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. There is no check on the authority of the federal government.

I mean it is very apparent to me that State governments are no less corrupt than the FEDERAL government.

That's because, since the elimination of nullification, the states have become little more than subdivisions of the federal government.

What magic thinking leads you to believe that breaking the United States into 50 nations is going to be better for us?

There's nothing "magical" about it. It's supported historically, and by basic logic.
 
Lincoln merely enforced the Constitution. There was no right to secede.

Where does the Constitution revoke the right to secede?

There was and is no 'right' to secede explicitly or implicitly in the Constitution. When a state ratified the Constitution, it was voluntarily entering into a contractual agreement which included an explicit acknowledgement of the federal government's legal supremacy over the states.
When Fort Sumter was fired upon, it constituted an act of war. The seceding states were an armed rebellion; there can be no doubt that the Constitution sanctions the right of the president to put down an armed rebellion.
 
There was and is no 'right' to secede explicitly or implicitly in the Constitution.

Actually, there is:

The 10th Amendment:

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.

Since the right of secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, it's reserved to the states.

End of story.

When a state ratified the Constitution, it was voluntarily entering into a contractual agreement which included an explicit acknowledgement of the federal government's legal supremacy over the states.

The federal government had "supremacy" over the states only with regard to the powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. It has no authority to prevent a state from seceding. The one word in your statement that is actually correct is "voluntary." The U.S.A was originally conceived as a voluntary union of sovereign states, not some totalitarian empire populated by toadies and subjects.

When Fort Sumter was fired upon, it constituted an act of war.

If it was an act of war, the South Carolina would have to have been a soveriegn country. Fort Sumter is within the borders of South Carolina. Therefore, the federal government was occupying the territory of South Carolina. the federal government committed an act of war, not South Carolina, which was simply defending itself.

The seceding states were an armed rebellion;

Wrong, secession is not "rebellion."

there can be no doubt that the Constitution sanctions the right of the president to put down an armed rebellion.

There is every doubt that the Constitution authorizes the president to invade one of the member states on his own authority without any declaration of war from Congress.

The idea that it does is utterly absurd.
 
Last edited:
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.

That is incorrect. In fact, there's not a single thing about that which is correct. The constitution contains the supremacy clause. Had the founers wanted states to be individually empowered to the extent that they could nullify a federal law, they would not have included that clause. In fact, the entire intent of moving us from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to dis-empower the states vis a vis the federal government.
 
That is incorrect. In fact, there's not a single thing about that which is correct. The constitution contains the supremacy clause. Had the founers wanted states to be individually empowered to the extent that they could nullify a federal law, they would not have included that clause. In fact, the entire intent of moving us from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to dis-empower the states vis a vis the federal government.

The supremacy clause is moot on the subject of how we determine whether a law is Constitutional. Laws that aren't constitutional are obviously null and void. Nothing in the Constitution says the Supreme Court was to be the sole arbiter of which laws complied with the Constitution. There is also nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding. Even the servile followers of the Lincoln cult admit that.
 
There was and is no 'right' to secede explicitly or implicitly in the Constitution.

Actually, there is:

The 10th Amendment:

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.

Let's start with something simple. The Constitution delegates to the Federal Government the power to make treaties.

All states are obliged to comply with those treaties. Therefore a state CANNOT secede and thus ignore its obligation to that compliance.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Government to tax. The states are thus obligated to pay those taxes. A state, or its citizens, cannot simply stop paying taxes.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution explicitly prevents the States from making laws that conflict with federal law or the Constitution. There is no 10th amendment workaround of the Supremacy Clause.

Since no state could secede without violating the Supremacy Clause, no state can legally/constitutionally secede.
 
That is incorrect. In fact, there's not a single thing about that which is correct. The constitution contains the supremacy clause. Had the founers wanted states to be individually empowered to the extent that they could nullify a federal law, they would not have included that clause. In fact, the entire intent of moving us from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to dis-empower the states vis a vis the federal government.

The supremacy clause is moot on the subject of how we determine whether a law is Constitutional. Laws that aren't constitutional are obviously null and void. Nothing in the Constitution says the Supreme Court was to be the sole arbiter of which laws complied with the Constitution. There is also nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from seceding. Even the servile followers of the Lincoln cult admit that.

What's the point of the Constitution if nothing in it is binding or enforceable?
 
Why should states be forced to enforce laws that their elected representatives see as unconstitutional? Considering that state legislatures are more representative of the people than Congress (more members per capita) it makes sense to allow them to determine if an agreement with the states, the people, and the federal government has been broken.

Because it's the law of the land. Why should local police be forced to enforce state laws? The final arbiter of what of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof is the Supreme Court of the United States. The final arbiter of state Constitutional law is the State supreme court. The final arbiter of county or local statutes is the local government.

If the federal government has a monopoly on determining what is constitutional, it should be painfully clear that their power will only expand beyond the limits imposed on it. If nullification were accepted, fugitive slave laws, which were unconstitutional, could have been repealed in northern states.

In what way were fugitive slave laws unconstitutional? Sandford v. Scott clearly established slaves as property, and the states had no right to deny individuals in other states access to their property.

It was the Nazis who wanted to end states rights, and centralized power is behind nearly all the atrocities in history.

Oh bejeebers...just shut up. That's as obscene as it is offensive. People who believe in a strong federal government don't by default believe in gassing the jews. If you don't see the difference between the democratically elected representative government in the United States, with its 200 year history, and Nazi Germany then there's really no point in having a discussion. Let's play out that game a bit further, shall we, with a domestic example: You know who liked states rights? People who wanted to keep black people in cages and steal their children.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. In fact, there's not a single thing about that which is correct. The constitution contains the supremacy clause. Had the founers wanted states to be individually empowered to the extent that they could nullify a federal law, they would not have included that clause. In fact, the entire intent of moving us from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to dis-empower the states vis a vis the federal government.

The supremacy clause is moot on the subject of how we determine whether a law is Constitutional. Laws that aren't constitutional are obviously null and void. Nothing in the Constitution says the Supreme Court was to be the sole arbiter of which laws complied with the Constitution.

ORLY? "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,"

The concept of judicial review precedes Marbury.
 
Last edited:
So, here's a question for the pro-nullification posters here (that I have little optimism for getting answered directly)

Could a state decide that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to its citizens, and thus proceed to pass whatever gun laws it chose,

including, for example, a comprehensive ban on individual ownership of personal firearms?
 
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.

That is incorrect. In fact, there's not a single thing about that which is correct. The constitution contains the supremacy clause. Had the founers wanted states to be individually empowered to the extent that they could nullify a federal law, they would not have included that clause. In fact, the entire intent of moving us from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was to dis-empower the states vis a vis the federal government.
I was waiting for the supremacy clause argument.

The supremacy clause found in Article VI reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

But a nullifying state does not deny that the supremacy clause. In fact, it defends it. States are disputing whether the law in question is "pursuant to the Constitution" as the clause states in the first place. If an unconstitutional law is passed, the states have the duty to nullify it because it is not "made in Pursuance" of the constitution.
 
Why should states be forced to enforce laws that their elected representatives see as unconstitutional? Considering that state legislatures are more representative of the people than Congress (more members per capita) it makes sense to allow them to determine if an agreement with the states, the people, and the federal government has been broken.

Because it's the law of the land. Why should local police be forced to enforce state laws? The final arbiter of what of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof is the Supreme Court of the United States. The final arbiter of state Constitutional law is the State supreme court. The final arbiter of county or local statutes is the local government.
It is only the law of the land if it is made in pursuance of the Constitution. If the federal government is attempting to use a power that should be delegated to the states, the state has the duty to follow the constitution and nullify the law for the sake of protecting its citizens. What kind of system would limit a central government and then give the central government the sole authority of interpreting those limits? It is laughable.

In what way were fugitive slave laws unconstitutional? Sandford v. Scott clearly established slaves as property, and the states had no right to deny individuals in other states access to their property.
Sandford v. Scott was unconstitutional. You seem to be assuming the Supreme Court is infallible and always follows the Constitution. That is incorrect. That is the entire point of nullification, to check the Supreme Court. If all 3 federal branches break the Constitution (which they frequently do) the states who entered into the agreement in the first place have the right to check the power and stop unjust expansion through nullification. Slaves were not property, and the north argued that they were denied due process of law and equal protection. Furthermore, the slaves were denied jury trial, clearly in violation of the constitution. The commisioners also received a ten dollar payment if they returned the accused to slavery, but only 5 if they set the slave free. Such an arrangement rendered the whole act unconstitutional regardless of the view of slaves as property. It violated the due process clause of the 5th amendment. So yes, the laws were unconstitutional, and the south tried to block nullification through the federal government to keep blacks enslaved.

Oh bejeebers...just shut up. That's as obscene as it is offensive. People who believe in a strong federal government don't by default believe in gassing the jews.
I never said they did, so of course your strawman sounds ridiculous. I was simply pointing out that a strong central government is key to consolidating power and violating the rights of the citizen population. Hitler disliked the federal system because he felt they blocked his access to central authority.

If you don't see the difference between the democratically elected representative government in the United States, with its 200 year history, and Nazi Germany then there's really no point in having a discussion. Let's play out that game a bit further, shall we, with a domestic example: You know who liked states rights? People who wanted to keep black people in cages and steal their children.
Strawman through and through. And you are incorrect about your insinuation that it was the southern states in favor of nullification. In fact, it was the north. It was the southern states and the federal government that ruled nullification of the Fugitive slave act to be inappropriate. The southern states were upset with the nullification of the north. In fact, nullification was a stronger tradition in the north than in the south, and there were far more instances of it in the north.
 
So, here's a question for the pro-nullification posters here (that I have little optimism for getting answered directly)

Could a state decide that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't apply to its citizens, and thus proceed to pass whatever gun laws it chose,

including, for example, a comprehensive ban on individual ownership of personal firearms?
Could they? Of course, and so could the federal government. Could the supreme court decide that the 2nd amendment shouldn't apply? Yes, it could. Neither the states or the federal government are infallible and both have the potential to violate the Constitution. But the states have much less incentive to do so because the legislature of a state more closely represents the people, and people can more easily move from state to state than from country to country. If the 2nd amendment were declared null in single state, the population of the state would likely decrease, depriving the state of revenue and creating a huge financial incentive not to ban the 2nd amendment (which is completely out of line with the principle of nullification anyway). If the federal government does the same thing, people can only move to other countries, which is highly unlikely. They don't have to worry about losing a tax base as the states do.

If the states can make the argument through nullification, so can the Supreme Court. But if the supreme court makes this argument, the states can nullify it, adding further protection against central government attempts to violate liberty.

Do you think it is more likely that all 50 states nullify a constitutional provision or that the Supreme Court allows for a violation of a constitutional provision? I think you need only look at history for the answer to that.
 
Last edited:
I'm happy to see ShackledNation has exposed his agenda - claiming that the south didn't favor nullification and (rather obviously) Calhoun's comments on the Nullification controversy....

And then his explanation of why a STATE could over-rule a 2nd amendment claim...

Precious.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top