Nullification

Introduction to Nullification

Nullification, in the history of American political theory, the alleged right of a state to suspend operation of a federal law within its boundaries. The right of nullification was asserted on the basis of a belief that states are the ultimate sources of sovereignty, and that the federal government is simply a league of freely associated states, the authority of which the state is free to recognize or ignore in accordance with its best interests. This belief stemmed from the beginning of the republic, when the states, jealous of their sovereignty and fearful of tyranny, agreed to yield certain of their powers to the United States, as specifically set forth in the U.S. Constitution only after the looser Articles of Confederation had proved ineffective. The principle of nullification was supported by many of the founders. In 1798 and 1799, the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, drafted by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, affirmed the validity of nullification and warned against federal usurpation of state sovereignty. The New England states nullified an unpopular embargo in 1809-1810, and 15 years later Georgia nullified federal laws relating to Native Americans.

As the development of industry and more intensive settlement linked the different parts of the country more closely together, nullification was opposed by advocates of the primacy of the federal government. One of the foremost of these, U.S. Senator Daniel Webster, in his most famous speech before the U.S. Senate, warned Senator Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina in 1830 that nullification would cause the Union to fall apart and that the American flag, “stained with the blood of fratricidal war,” would wave over “the dismembered fragments of our once glorious empire.” Soon after, in 1832, South Carolina called a state convention that declared “null, void, and no law” the high protective tariff of that year. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops to enforce the tariff in the port of Charleston. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, one of the leading advocates of nullification, joined with Senator Henry Clay of Virginia to reconcile the claims of South Carolina with those of the federal government. As a result, a compromise tariff was passed, the South Carolina convention repealed the ordinance of nullification, and both sides of the controversy claimed a victory.

A final resolution of the question of nullification was thus postponed until 1861, when South Carolina, followed by other southern states, seceded from the Union and precipitated the Civil War. Although at the cost of the “blood of fratricidal war” predicted by Webster, this great conflict confirmed the primacy of the federal government in the authority granted it by the Constitution, and no subsequent attempts have been made by any states to nullify federal laws. Nevertheless, the question of distribution of powers between the states and the federal government remains a live issue. The current proponents of states’ rights, still principally from the South, expound a point of view that, in opposing extensions of federal power, has descended lineally from the original nullification theories of Jefferson and Calhoun.” (1)

Nullification

Resources

See Also

• Void

Resources

Notes and References

• Information about Nullification in the Encarta Online Encyclopedia

Guide to Nullification

Nullification or Impairment and the GATT Policy Negotiations

In relation to the GATT Policy Negotiations, Christopher Mark (1993) provided the following explanation and/or definition of Nullification or Impairment: The adverse effect on a GA TI member’s trade interests caused by changes in the trade regime of another member, or by another member’s failure to carry out its obligations under GATI .In GATT parlance, “nullification or impairment” is the basis for initiating formal action under the dispute settlement procedures.