Counties' Power Play: Can They Nullify State Law?

Nullification is a legal theory in United States history that holds that individual states can invalidate federal laws that they deem to be unconstitutional. This theory has never been upheld by federal courts, which have consistently held that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be negated by them. Despite this, nullification has played a significant role in shaping the balance of power between state and federal authority in the United States, and continues to be a contentious issue in modern debates over healthcare, immigration, gun control, and abortion. This paragraph will explore the history and implications of nullification and discuss whether counties or states can nullify state law.

Nullification is not a constitutional doctrine

Nullification is a legal theory in United States history that holds that individual states can invalidate or nullify federal laws or judicial decisions that they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. The theory is based on the view that the states formed the Union through an agreement or "compact" among themselves and that they are, therefore, the ultimate interpreters of the federal government's authority, not the federal courts.

However, nullification is not a constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the theory of nullification, holding that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law. The power to interpret the Constitution and make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal judiciary, not the states. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that states may not nullify federal law, and this view has been affirmed by federal courts. The Constitution does not contain any clause expressly providing states with the power to nullify federal laws or declare them unconstitutional.

The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. Notable historical attempts by states to nullify federal laws include the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833, and Arkansas' attempts to nullify Brown v. Board of Education in 1957. In each instance, the legitimacy of nullification as a constitutional theory was rejected.

While nullification has been considered an extreme application of states' rights, it has never been upheld by the federal courts. The rejection of nullification by the Supreme Court and federal courts underscores the principle that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be negated or nullified by states.

The Supremacy Clause

The clause played a crucial role in federalism disputes, with the Supreme Court applying it in ways that reinforced a sharp division between federal and state powers. The Court's decisions established a precursor to the doctrine of field preemption, which holds that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting laws on the same subject. This doctrine asserts that congressional action in certain areas automatically displaces state laws in those fields.

The Alien and Sedition Acts

In terms of the ability of counties to nullify state law, nullification is a legal theory in United States constitutional history that asserts states have the right to declare null and void any federal law that they deem to be unconstitutional. This theory has never been upheld by the U.S. federal courts, which have consistently held that under the Constitution, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The Supremacy Clause of Article VI establishes that the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof are "the supreme law of the land". However, modern instances of nullification, such as the legalization of recreational marijuana use in certain states, may stand up to legal scrutiny as they do not directly alter the binding force of federal law.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

The complex legacy of the resolutions stems from questions about whether they are a defence of civil liberties or states' rights. Jefferson and Madison argued that the power to pass certain acts was not properly delegated to the national government by the states. The resolutions were also designed to gain electoral advantage and act as opposition to the Federalists. The ideas in the resolutions became a precursor to John C. Calhoun's arguments about the power of states to nullify federal laws. However, during the nullification controversy of the 1830s, Madison rejected the legitimacy of nullification, arguing that it was not part of the Virginia position in 1798.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that under the Constitution, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. The courts have rejected the compact theory, finding that the Constitution was established directly by the people, and that federal laws are superior to state laws and cannot be negated by the states. The Supreme Court first dealt with nullification in 1809 and rejected Georgia's attempt to nullify federal treaties with the Cherokees, asserting final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties. In 1958, the Court unanimously ruled that nullification is not a constitutional doctrine but "illegal defiance of constitutional authority".

The Force Bill

Nullification is a legal theory in United States constitutional history that states have the right to declare null and void any federal law that they deem to be unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. This theory has never been upheld by the US federal courts, which have consistently held that under the Constitution, states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

The bill consisted of eight sections, with Section 1 dealing with unlawful obstructions to the collection of import duties. It allowed for the protection of duty collectors by securing ports and harbors and authorized the president to use armed forces to protect customs officers. Section 2 expanded the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases arising from revenue collections and allowed injured parties in revenue cases to sue in court. It also criminalized anyone who circumvented the legal process in regaining detained property.

Section 5 addressed states or portions within a state that employed force or any other unlawful means to obstruct the execution of federal law or interfere with the process of any federal court. This section authorized the president to use whatever force was necessary to suppress such insurrections. Section 6 dealt with states that refused to jail persons imprisoned under federal law.

Frequently asked questions