Nullification is an old word in political discourse that has not been heard much since the War between the States, but is again becoming current in light of State sovereignty resolutions being introduced in Idaho, Montana, and Missouri. In the first two resolutions, the State is reserving the right to intercede against Federal enforcement of firearms laws on certain types of weapons; in Missouri, it is to intercede against Federal enforcement of parts of abortion laws.
The theoretical basis for nullification came from the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, introduced in 1798 by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. It was intended to provide an additional protection for the States against the encroachment of Federal authority in areas not authorized to the Federal government by the U.S. Constitution. I write "additional," because the original protection was the appointment of U.S. Senators by State legislatures, one that was taken away from us by the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.
It has always been a controversial subject; not only between Federal authorities and State governments, but among the people themselves. Ohio's great political philosopher, Frederick Grimke, for example, favored secession as a remedy of last resort, but opposed nullification.
This article, written for the Tenth Amendment Center by historian Thomas Woods, is a scholarly, but readable introduction to the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment