States' Rights v. Federal Supremacy - Essay Example

S’ RIGHTS v. FEDERAL SUPREMACY *for you to complete, please Fundamental to the causes of the Civil War is the issue ofNullification of Federal Laws by individual States. As represented in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the nullification declarations were a real threat to the Constitution of the US, in that they went as far as threatening the secession of individual States from the Union, essentially in order to force the Federal Government to allow them near-complete sovereignty. Allied to the conflicting ideas from the Northern and Southern States, the Nullification debate served to highlight that certain points of view were unable ever to be reconciled, and that war between the North and South was, in fact, inevitable.

The South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification stated that the Tariff of 1828 “exceeded its just powers … and … the true meaning and intent of the Constitution” (Calhoun, 1832). It argued that the Tariff was not intended to impose taxes on foreign imports, but instead to favor certain domestic manufacturers, and certain preferred foreign manufacturers. It hence discriminated against classes and groups of citizens – it imposed higher tariffs unequally – and violated the Constitution, meant to “… provide(s) equality in imposing the burdens of taxation upon the several States …” (Calhoun, 1832).

Thus, the State and all its officials would not be required to enforce the laws connected to the Tariffs. Additionally, members of the Federal legislature would be actively prevented from enforcing any of the Tariffs imposed, or acknowledging any of the Federal laws stemming from this Tariff system. The Declaration goes further to indicate that the State will resist any force from the Federal government or other states, any attempts to prevent trade to the State or any attempts to enforce the Federal laws in the State and consider such attempts as reason enough for South Carolina to secede from the Union.

President Jackson’s Proclamation in response to this Nullification statement argues substantially that the Tariffs are not contrary to the Constitution, and in fact carry out the very basic principles of Union to the letter. Indeed, he argues that Nullification is in violation of the Constitution. This Ordinance is rather evidence of “…the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution .” and that a State can stay in the Union “ .

and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional .” (Jackson, 1832). If this right were to be given to States, there would be nothing to prevent all States to resist all Federal laws should they disagree with them. As the Union was able to be challenged on the constitutionality of laws passed – through the Judiciary and through referendum – the actual action contrary to the Constitution was to prevent the Judiciary in South Carolina from acting in accordance with the supreme law of the land: “.

judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” (Jackson, 1832). The confederation which formed the Union, claims Jackson, stated that every State joined into a nation would without question abide by the rulings of Congress. The Constitution emphasizes this fact again, and the Declaration therefore directly contradicts the spirit of the Union. As to the inequality of the Tariff laws, Jackson proposes that all laws must in some measure treat citizens unequally. And the States, when they ratified the Constitution did not insist on the right to veto Union laws when they did not agree with them totally.

The Constitution also puts the right to raise revenue into the hands of the Federal government, and therefore also gives it the power to distribute those revenues. If the States disagreed with the way revenue was dealt with, they did have the right to change the representative who had, in their minds, dealt badly with revenue. Again he stresses that United States laws “.shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws.” (Jackson, 1832). A final point essential to Jackson’s argument is that States had agreed to become part of a Nation, and thus did not really have the Constitutional right to secede.

In fact, he describes the Ordination of Nullification as treasonous. The strong feelings expressed on both sides of this argument serve to illustrate the growing separation of North and South, and particularly the resentment from the South against what was becoming the centre of power in the United States, the North. The ideal of a United States was indeed threatened by the crisis of Nullification. Had a single State been able to secede, the unity of this emerging nation would have been destroyed.

References Calhoun, John (1832) South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832 Jackson, President Andrew (1832) Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 Prescribed Text