State Powers Vs. National Powers

State Powers Vs. National Powers

            The debate state powers against national powers have been in place for several decades, with proficient politicians opposing sides on the topic. Historically, members of the Democratic-Republican Party have wanted more power reserved to states as opposed to the federal government as it accused the latter of leaning more to a monarchical kind of government. The Federalists, on the other hand, have preferred a central government, with the president having more powers to imprison and deport non-citizens in the nation…..

Written by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolution came to place as a result of civil liberty limitations contained in the Alien and Sedition Acts. The legislature of the state passed Kentucky resolutions on 1798 (November). According to the Bill of Rights Institute (……), the Virginia Resolution reached a firm resolution to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as well as that of Virginia State against any form of aggression. To protect the State’s Constitution, the Virginia Resolution declared Alien and Sedition Acts as void and with no force. The Alien Enemies Act gave the government authority to arrest and deport the citizens of enemy nations in the event of war, while the Sedition Act aimed to prosecute those who would speak against the Federalist government. The Sedition Act specifically violated the Constitution of the United States, First Amendment, and denied citizens the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. Both Virginia and Kentucky States wanted to have their powers and be independent of national powers of the Constitution of the United States. They both argued that the federal government did not have the authority to pass laws that are not specified constitutionally. The resolutions by both states declared the Constitution as being ‘compact’ in the sense that it was an agreement between states. With that being said, the states had the right to decide on the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress.

The article “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” was written by John C Calhoun (then U.S. vice president) in 1828 December and it mainly opposed the federal government’s move to pass the Tariff of 1828 (Tariff of Abomination). According to Calhoun, the government exceed its authority by passing the Tariff of 1828 since it deprived states their rights to collect taxes independently. The confrontation between the federal government and the South Carolina States was critical and resulted in the latter declaring the Tariff of 1828 null and void. Moreover, the State of Carolina announced that it would secede if the federal government fails to repel the tariff. As a result, Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification was proposed, and it was based on the idea that a state had the right to reject federal laws if they exceed their powers and declare them within their jurisdictions. Calhoun’s idea was later put into practice in 1832 when the Tariff of Abomination was null and void. According to the article, states would only be obliged to obey federal laws if it is supported by three-fourths of the states. The move by South Carolina to gain support from other states, however, was met with total failure. Then-President, Andrew Jackson, proclaimed to the people of South Carolina in 1832 and warned them that their disunion by armed forces was an act of treason. Afterwards, Congress (March 1833) passed the Force Bill and authorized Jackson to collect tariff duties and use the military if necessary.

The two documents, “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions” as well as “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” address similar issues concerning the ability of states to repeal national laws, especially they oppose the Constitution’s provisions. The first document (The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions) sought to repeal the Alien and Sedition Acts since they perceived them as a violation to the Constitution’s First Amendment that allowed for the freedom of the press as well as the freedom of speech. The second document (South Carolina Exposition and Protest), on the other hand, sought to repeal the federal government’s move to pass the Tariff of Abomination since South Carolina State perceived the government as exceeding its authority. Both documents are concerned with the right of states to perceive a federal as unconstitutional and refuse to them into practice. Both documents elaborate on situations where state rights are to be respected by the federal government.

The South Carolina Exposition and Protest differ from the Kentucky Resolutions in several instances. In the first place, Kentucky Resolutions focused on limiting the powers of the federal government against enacting laws that are not specified in the Constitution of the US. The South Carolina Exposition and Protest, on the other hand, focused on repelling the Tariff of Abomination of 1828 and it perceived the federal government as exceeding its authority. The first document was a result of the government passing the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), while the second document was a result of the government enforcing passing the Tariff of Abomination (1828). Concerning the Constitution of the United States, The South Carolina Exposition and Protest document sought to protect its people against the government exceeding its authority to collect tariffs among states in the Tariff of 1828. Contrarily, the Kentucky Resolutions document ensured that constitutional rights of citizens within its states concerning the First Amendment are observed.

Conclusion

In summary, the debate on state rights versus national laws has been in place for several decades. States should have the ability to nullify a national law if it opposes the fundamental rights of its people, especially if it differs to constitutional rights. States have the authority to act independently and enact laws that protect its people. Nullifying national laws that go against the specifications of state laws should be allowed among states, and the government should not take strict actions against states that try to defend the rights of its people. Most Americans agree that states should be free to set their own laws that guide their social and economic problems and should also be allowed to repel national laws if they deprive the rights of its people.