Of Prohibiting the State Nullification of Federal Laws

The laws and policies approved by the federal government, in virtue of the authority conferred upon them by the collectivity of the people of the United States, should be considered the supreme law of the land. To limit the scope of my argument, I will discuss the debates that sparked after the national government tried to pass a protective tariff in the United States with the aim of northern industries. The two sides of this debate included the ones who, such as Vice President John C. Calhoun, advocated a state’s right to individually nullify any and all laws they deemed unjust, whilst other exponents, such as Senator Daniel Webster and President Jackson, advocated for the supreme legitimacy of the policies of the Federal government over states. From my perspective, the laws approved and adopted by the national government reign supreme over any other state or local laws that may go against them.

Around the second decade of the nineteenth century the national legislature attempted to implement a series of tariffs to protect industries mostly in the northern United States. Using the argument that this piece of legislation benefitted some citizens of the nation (the northerners) while placing a burden on the rest (the southerners), southern political leaders advocated for the right of states to individually decide nullify acts of Congress that they viewed as unjust. For this point to be justified we must assume that the nation itself was created by the states individually rather than by the people collectively. However, this statement is unsubstantiated by the very realities and composition of American government.  

The argument that states have the power to veto national laws is flawed since they do not delegate powers to the federal government and therefore don’t have the authority to undermine it. Rather, it is the people collectively who participate in the national government, and it is they who decide which policies are to be implemented throughout the whole country. Andrew Jackson presents a perfect example to justify this by stating that Congress represents the will of the whole nation rather than the will of specific states. He says, “Each state elects its own representatives… When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular states where they come from” (Major Problems, page 272.) Thus, laws such as the protective tariffs that are passed in Congress are approved by the will and have the consent of the people and, therefore apply to the entirety of the states without exception. To be clear, this does not mean that President Jackson did not support states’ rights but rather that he placed the rights of the union over theirs. As “Liberty, Equality, Power” puts it, “Jackson favored states’ rights but only within a perpetual and inviolable union” (Liberty, Equality, Power, Page 396.) In other words, states had designated rights up until the point they became a threat to the unity of the nation.

Another important point that counters Calhoun’s argument is that, should a state government be permitted the right to veto any federal law, then the legitimacy of the national government would be perpetually disbanded. As “Liberty, Equality, Power” says, “To allow a state to veto a tariff would be to deny the legal existence of the United States” (Liberty, Equality, Power, Page 396.) This is so since states would no longer be legally obligated to follow the will of the people through the national government. Other than this, John Marshall made similar remarks regarding the Supremacy of the Constitution over state laws by stating that, if states may alter federal laws when they please, “then written Constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable” (Major Problems, Page 174.) Thus, in order for the people to successfully limit the powers of states, they must ensure that the supremacy of national law reigns supreme. Should states be able to undermine the authority of the federal laws, then the unity is disbanded and the nation becomes a confederation of sovereign states rather than a union.

Conclusively, the people of the United States of America, as the ones who granted power and created the union, and the federal government, acting as the undoubted representative of the collective will of the electorate, have the authority to create laws that are not to be undermined by the mandate of any individual state. Undermining the legitimacy of the laws of the national government is undermining the whole legal existence of the American union. We, the people, then, must recognize the authority of the national government over that of a state’s to preserve the integrity of the United States and truly fulfill the duty listed in our Constitution of creating “a more perfect union” (Preamble to the United States Constitution.)

-Kevin D. McClintock