In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.
During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.
FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions
Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions;
Jefferson and Madison asserted in the resolves that state legislatures had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the mandate of the Constitution. Under their compact theory of the Constitution, they argued that the grant of power to the federal government was in the nature of an authorization to act as an agent for the individual state legislatures. The resolves maintained that the individual state legislatures retained the ultimate sovereignty of the people. Therefore, state legislatures, as equal parties to the Constitution, had the right to determine whether the federal government was complying with the original agency directives, and they had the right to declare noncompliance. Jefferson and Madison also argued that the states had the right to be released from the compact (the Constitution) if compliance was not forthcoming, thereby suggesting that secession from the Union was legitimate.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolves
I would hardly call history a myth by any stretch of the imagination and as for your assertions on the Arizona law that has passed both the House and the Senate here, and is set to go on 2010 ballot that law will "nullify" portions of the proposed healthcare bill, especially the mandate portion. Your take on the 10th Amendment is an interesting one to be sure and falls right in line with the "living document" theorists of the constitution as well as with the Hamilton views of the consitution which were for the most part rejected until the FDR Adminstration. If your assertion on the 10th is correct then the need to elect a President though the process of state by state elections would be rendered mute and to my knowledge this has not happened as of yet. Further, on the matter of nullification when it comes to the above mentioned state on Marijuna laws and Real ID. , those states have passed laws that run in direct contradiction to Federal Law and nullify it, so yes nullification is a valid method of asserting states rights and is only a myth in the minds of those who see this nation as a stateless entity or the states as mere subjects to Federal authority.
The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by South Carolina's 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared, by the power of the State itself, that the federal Tariff of 1828 and the federal Tariff of 1832 were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of South Carolina. The controversial, and highly protective, Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations") was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams. Opposed in the South and parts of New England, the tariff’s opponents expected that the election of Jackson as President would result in the tariff being significantly reduced.[1]
The nation had suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the change in fortunes on the national tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812 to promote American manufacturing over its British competition. [2] By 1828 South Carolina state politics increasingly organized around the tariff issue. When the Jackson administration failed to take any actions to address their concerns, the most radical faction in the state began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and his vice-president John C. Calhoun, the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification.
Nullification Crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As I have said before, and will repeat, our history has many examples of this, and it is not a myth by any stretch of the imagination regardless of how much those what would ceed their constitutional rights to a Federal authority would wish them to be. The other issue is that the Courts decide on the consituttional merits of congressional legislation, and as I have shown if that law is not constitutional the states are NOT bound by Article VI or any federal law to follow them. I have also shown many examples of nullification even in it's current form. Frankly I find it very disturbing that someone would dismiss an article in the consitution such as the 10th Amendment as just a statement as if to imply that beyond that it has no authority. That Amendment is the exact Amdnment that forms the concept of limited Govt. unless that concept has also been lost on people.
No I did not!!!!! And I have no idea how I missed that!
