The Constitution is a contract or compact among the states whereby the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves.As parties to the compact, the states retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact.
The Constitution is a contract or compact among the states whereby the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves.Tags: Best Homework Help WebsitesSocial Work Training CoursesAnalysis Of John Locke'S An Essay Concerning Human UnderstandingCompetitive Analysis Business PlanSonnambula DessayExamples Of Outlines For Research PapersMaster Thesis How Many PagesDissertation Project Report In Marketing
Had this action become public knowledge at the time, Jefferson may well have been impeached for treason.
After all, he was calling for outright rebellion, if needed, against a federal government of which he was serving as Vice-President.
The unrest in France was sweeping into the United States, encouraged in some instances by Republicans, some of whom were calling for secession.
The unrest was viewed by Federalists as emanating from French and French-sympathizing immigrants. Well Jefferson certainly hated John Adams as though he were Satan himself!
But these remarks do not appear to have been central to the ratification decision.
The Federalist Papers nowhere assert that the states have the power to nullify federal law. 33, 39, 44, and 78 explicitly state that federal laws are supreme over state laws and that only the federal courts have the power to pronounce federal legislation void as contrary to the Constitution.The concept of nullification appears nowhere in the United States Constitution, though its relevance may just conceivably be deduced from the wording of the Tenth Amendment.The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld, but rather has been rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States.Nevertheless, until the War of Northern Aggression ended in the defeat of the South, nullification was the most important theoretical alternative to the idea that the U. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutional controversies.So James Madison, in 1830, was not responding to a trivial question.The federal courts and not the states are empowered to determine whether federal laws are constitutional, with the Supreme Court having the final authority.The concept of nullification of federal law by the states was not discussed at the Constitutional Convention, so the records of that Convention provide no support for the theory of nullification.The federal courts — predictably of course — have systematically rejected this view.The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution was established directly by the people, as stated in the preamble: ‘We the people of the United States….’ Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the Constitution and federal laws adopted in pursuance thereof are the ‘supreme law of the land…any thing in the constitution of laws of any state to the contrary nothwithstanding.’ Federal laws are valid and are supreme, as long as those laws are consistent with the Constitution. It is long-winded because James Madison was a hypocrite on the issue of nullification, supporting the notion when it suited him, and rejecting it when it did not. Rowley Ph D, Constitutional Amendment VI, Constitutional Amendment X, Constitutional Amendment X, Federalist No. If you find the essay long-winded, you are correct in this assessment.