Friday 29 April 2011

Nullification Doctrine

When nullification is spoken about, the most common point of reference is the nullification crisis of 1832. However, there is much more to nullification, other than just the crisis, which happened in the state of South Carolina. Before we turn towards the nullification doctrine, we will first try to understand the meaning of the word nullification. Nullification stands for the act of nullifying something. It can also be explained as making something null and void. Overriding the effect of something is also termed as nullification. Having understood the meaning of nullification, we will turn towards the doctrine itself.

Nullification Theory

The nullification doctrine states, that any U.S. State can rightfully nullify or invalidate any law passed by the federal government, which the state government deems unconstitutional. If one has to look at American history, it is clear that different sovereign states came together to form an Union. Since, the states together formed the Union, the final authority in regards to the deciding the limits of the power of the federal government rest with the state. In other words, the extent to which federal government can exercise their authority will be decided by the state governments. This was also called as compact theory. It is important to note, that any efforts by governments of any state to declare a federal law null and void have never been upheld. There is also an extreme case of assertion of sovereignty by the states, which is known as secession. In this, the state can decide to terminate its political affiliation with the Federal government.

Who was the Most Significant Proponent of the Nullification Doctrine?

The origin of the doctrine of nullification is said to be in the famous resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia. These resolutions were made in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts. The foremost proponents of this doctrine were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They opined, the ultimate authority of interpreting the Constitution rests with the state governments. At the same time, the state government can interfere to protect the citizens of the state from the unconstitutional laws passed by the Federal government. Over a period of time, there were talks about secession after Jefferson’s party came to power and formed the Federal government. It is important to note, that the nullification doctrine came to be more associated with matters related to slavery.

John C. Calhoun gave out the most famous statement in regards to nullification. His words appeared in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest of 1828. The nullification crisis took place in 1832. In this year, South Carolina undertook upon itself to nullify the tariff of 1832 law passed by the Federal government. Then, there was an attempt by the northern states to block enforcement of the pro-slavery Federal Fugitive Slave Acts passed in 1793 and 1850. Although, the laws were not declared nullified, the actions were such that it nullified the effectiveness of the Federal law.

The nullification doctrine came up again in the 1950’s. It was in response to Supreme Court’s decision in Brown vs. Board of Education case. According to this ruling, it was decided that segregation of schools was illegal. Almost ten schools in the South undertook different measures, whereby they preserved the segregation and did not follow Brown. However, after the Supreme court ruling, which said, "the Brown decision can neither be nullified openly or directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through schemes for segregation", that there was a stop on nullification process.

From the discussion on nullification doctrine, we have seen in this write up, it is clear that steps taken by any of the state government to nullify any of the Federal law are going to be futile. Ultimately, the Federal law will prevail on the state governments and they will have to enforce the laws.

1 comment:

  1. Well, yes, but REPUBLIC not democracy. And, one could argue that we have had--for many years--a lack of "balance of powers" between the three branches of the federal government and between the states and federal government. Something which is seriously problematic.

    ReplyDelete