In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and sovereignty resolutions. Specified in the constitution and pertaining to the concept of federalism, governing powers were to be delegated to both the federal and state governments. This means that even though the states were part of a Union each state had certain rights to limit the power of the federal government to avoid bias. This was arguably the most important role of the states. This being said, Article VI of the Constitution makes federal law even above state law the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," especially in judiciary circumstance (U.S. Const. art. VI, S2). As stated by Hays, scrutinizing nullification’s rejection provides insight into the role of federalism in constitutional policies, including contemporary state expressions of constitutional dissent. Throughout the nullification crisis and afterwards as well, southern states that buttressed South Carolina’s position on the Tariff of 1828 ultimately dismissed the proposed doctrine of nullification. This was the case because... ... middle of paper ... ...an, T. R. S. (2003). Constitutional dialogue and the justification of judicial review. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 23(4), 563-584. Retrieved from http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/563.full.pdf Bradley D. Hays. 2013. “Nullification and the Political, Legal, and Quasi-Legal Constitutions.” Publius: The Journal of Federalism. 43. Spring: 221-222) Chemerinsky, E. (2002, August). The rhetoric of constitutional law. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1633&context=faculty_scholarship In text: Fundamental and paramount law of the nation (U.S. Const. art. VI. S2) Reference list: U.S. Const. art. VI, S2. Levinson, Sanford. (1988). Constitutional rhetoric and the ninth amendment, Available from Vol.64. (Iss.1, Article 7) Retrieved from http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2714&context=cklawreview
Gordon Wood calls the new Federal Constitution a "radical experiment", and believes the framers of that Constitution to be political radicals, why does he believe so?
The year of 1776 was a time of revolution, independence, and patriotism. American colonists had severed their umbilical cord to the Mother Country and declared themselves “Free and Independent States”.1 The chains of monarchy had been thrown off and a new government was formed. Shying away from a totalitarian government, the Second Continental Congress drafted a document called the Articles of Confederation which established a loose union of the states. It was an attempt at self-government that ended in failure. The Articles of Confederation had many defects which included a weak central government that lacked the power to tax, regulate trade, required equal representation and a unanimous vote to amend the Articles, and had only a legislative branch. As a result the United States lacked respect from foreign countries. These flaws were so severe that a new government had to be drafted and as a result the Constitution was born. This document remedied the weak points of the federal government and created one that was strong and fair, yet still governed by the people.
The 1787 Constitutional Convention was paramount in unifying the states after the Revolutionary War. However, in order to do so, the convention had to compromise on many issues instead of addressing them with all due haste. This caused the convention to leave many issues unresolved. Most notably were the issues of slavery, race, secession, and states’ rights. Through the Civil War and the Reconstruction, these issues were resolved, and in the process the powers of the federal government were greatly expanded.
I will investigate the question of whether the national tariff policy between 1816 and 1832 impacted the development and acceptance of the nullification doctrine in South Carolina? I will evaluate the national tariff policy during the early 1800's and analyze how these tariffs may have impacted the acceptance and support of nullification in South Carolina. I will examine the economic conditions of South Carolina during this period and compare these conditions with the development of nullification as a political tool. I will also review the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to look at early examples of state sovereignty.
Roach, K. (2008). Dialogic Judicial Review and Its Critics. In D. Dyzenhaus, S. Reibetanz Moreau, & A. Ripstein, Law and Morality: Readings in Legal Philosophy (3rd Edition ed., pp. 589-644). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
The United States Constitution has received much criticism, both before and after its ratification in 1789. A wide array of thinkers from across the ages of the republic have offered criticisms about the nature, scope, and even fine details of the Constitution, sometimes providing solutions they think better themselves. Truly, however, two major schools of criticisms arise: those condemning the implications of having a document like the Constitution supreme over the nation, and those condemning specific parts and clauses of the document itself. Both criticisms based on the view that the Constitution is pro-slavery and those arguing against the nationalist nature of the document are unfounded.
U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian “Constitutional Convention and Ratification, 1787–1789” (December 22, 2013)
Political unrest within the advocating for Nullification virtually declares the United States Constitution nonexistent. To propel, and support secession is radical and creates separate entities trying to coexist amongst each other while avoiding the issue. In the matters of the government, constitutional propriety should be enforced and upheld with the upmost respect. However, when the driving force behind promoting constitutional propriety has a hidden agenda that is repugnant in nature then there is bound to be disputes. The Nullification Crisis was a result of the Tariff of 1828 and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were the result of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The similarities between the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Tariff of 1828, is that both on the surface, seemingly were actions implemented by Congress because of war. These parallel actions also were induced by political parties seizing an opportunity to publically discredit, embarrass, and fluster the opposing party. Much like today, of one political party attempting to dominate Congress, the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the Federalist controlled congress was an attempt to weaken the Jeffersonian Republicans. The passing of the Tariff of 1828 was to economically protect industries in the north, which weaken the southern states. This further aggravated the intensely growing animosity between the Northern and Southern States. Unilaterally, the Tariff of 1828 favored the northern industries and caused the southern states especially South Carolina to pay higher prices on goods that they were unable to produce.
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
By the late eighteenth century, America found itself independent from England; which was a welcomed change, but also brought with it, its own set of challenges. The newly formed National Government was acting under the Articles of Confederation, which established a “firm league of friendship” between the states, but did not give adequate power to run the country. To ensure the young nation could continue independently, Congress called for a Federal Convention to convene in Philadelphia to address the deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation. While the Congress only authorized the convention to revise and amend the Articles the delegates quickly set out to develop a whole new Constitution for the country. Unlike the Articles of Confederation, the new Constitution called for a national Executive, which was strongly debated by the delegates. There were forces on both sides of the issue trying to shape the office to meet their ideology. The Federalists, who sought a strong central government, favored a strong National Executive which they believed would ensure the country’s safety from both internal and external threats. The Anti Federalists preferred to have more power in the hands of the states, and therefore tried to weaken the national Executive. Throughout the convention and even after, during the ratification debates, there was a fear, by some, that the newly created office of the president would be too powerful and lean too much toward monarchy.
The United States government was founded on a written set of principles known as the Constitution. There have only been 17 amendments, or changes, since ratification. While the United States has evolved with time the role and function of the government, and the way the government guarantees civil rights and liberties, has also evolved. These changes have resulted from changing or broadening of the interpretation of the constitution. Although the core of the constitution has not changed, it has expanded and its interpretation has changed to keep up with societal demands.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
As the weakness that the Articles possessed became apparent, people began wanting changes in their government. Eventually as more interest was gained by more states, meetings were set up in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787. This was the Constitutional Convention. Many were very suspicious of the intentions of the convention. They suspected that it was a ploy by some to create a strong central government that would limit individual liberties and could endanger the freedom of the individual people. George Washington was nominated to preside over the convention, which was a good thing in that Washington was an extremely trusted man, and having him preside eased the fears of some of the participants. At first the intentions of the convention were to make necessary changes to the Articles of Confederation. It was quickly realized that this would not be sufficient, and that a whole new document would need to be created, this le...