Talk:Nullification (U.S. Constitution)

Original Research and Lack of Documentation
I started to add CITATION NEEDED tags in appropriate places but found that simply too many were needed. Normally in an undocumented article like this I would simply rewrite it with citations, but here I think the main thing needed is to cut material from the article, if not totally eliminate it.

In any event, my specific concerns are as follows:

Second paragraph -- The entire paragraph should be eliminated unless each claim can be attributed to a reliable, secondary sources. While I recognize some of the claims being made, what I don’t recognize, for example, are links between nullification and either the 10th Amendment or the Articles of Confederation.

Third paragraph -- The first two sentences needs to be sourced or eliminated. It reads, “Nevertheless, states began implicitly to assert the right of nullification soon after the Constitution's adoption. Usually this took place when a state or a regional grouping of states that lacked a majority in Congress emphasized state sovereignty as a means of limiting the power of the federal government (and thus the opposing congressional majority.)”  Since the rest of the paragraph describes the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, I’m not sure what other state actions or proposals the editor had in mind.

Last two paragraphs -- With respect to personal liberty laws, I am aware of arguments that such laws HAD THE EFFECT of nullifying fugitive slave laws, but am not aware that the states that enacted them did so based on nullification theory or the model for nullification established by Calhoun. As far as the Civil War and SCOTUS decisions, I am unaware that any reliable sources relate these to nullification -- the CSA did not claim to be nullifying laws and certainly did not add the right of nullification to their own Constitution. Same problem in discussing the Civil Rights Era -- Southern state governments certainly did refuse to obey Federal legislation and court decisions, but I am unaware that they enunciated a theory of nullification as part of their actions.

My intent, if no response, is to remove the language I referred to. Also, the name of the article does not make any sense to me -- perhaps “Theory of nullification in the United States” might be better. In any event, nullification theory is not generally argued as a right granted by the Constitution but as a right existing outside of Constitutional grants or exclusions. I’m not making a formal name change proposal, but will just make the change unless the response suggests that this is a controversial move. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Having received no response, I implemented the changes (other than the name change) proposed above. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Text correctly removed from Nullification, a disambiguation page, was dumped on this article. The text contained eight bulleted items that were identified as examples of nullification in the United States. I have removed that material. Three of the issues, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Nullification Crisis, and the Hartford Convention, are already addressed in this article.  The other five were removed for reasons cited above when a large body of material was removed.  In the first place, the material is unsourced but more importantly there is no direct link between the incidents and an enunciated policy of nullification.  Simply because a state or local government takes actions that are allegedly in conflict with Federal law does not mean that the doctrine of nullification has been relied on.  Absent a specific declaration that a Federal law has been declared null and void, the doctrine of nullification has not been invoked.  If such a declaration was issued in any of the events I have deleted, then they should be readded with appropriate sourcing. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is very strange and POV interpretation and citation rather than fact-telling about Constitution.

1st That is reasonable that Federal Court can tell if Federal Law is unconstitutional. But not if it is finally constitutional. That's clear that the federal by nature Supreme Court isn't impartial regarding federal government power bounds. So Supreme Court decision must taken as given by the states only if Supreme Court are in it's bound provided by constitution (including 10th Amendment). Moreover the right to declare unconstitutionality isn't equal to right to declare constitutionality finally. According to that strange POV no matter what constitution says if it was upheld by Supreme Court it is a law. This way existence and sovereignty of the states and their power are solely in hands of several human paid by federal government.

2nd Then even worse - most statements about federal laws being SUPREME preceded with "are within the federal government's delegated powers" ... coming from judicially void references to the Federalist papers or other opinions, which contradicts the documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.55.55.41 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

March 26 Edits
I have restored the previous text. The problems with the revisions made are:

1. It is inaccurate to claim that Northern States considered secession. You cannot attribute actions of individuals and factions, who happen to live within states, with state action. Only if a state body (i.e. the legislature) considers specific actions regarding secession would the claim be accurate.

2. The claim that Garrison who had little political power somehow spoke for a state is silly.

3. The statement "These actions had the effect, in many local situations, of nullifying the effectiveness of these laws, but did not declare that the fugitive slave laws were nullified" is true. There is no justification for the deletion of the last clause. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User:Bonneau13
The above editor's only other edit, prior to this article was making, and then reverting, the following anti-Semitic text:

Bernanke grew up as a dirty jew with one thing in mind, to make israel the home of the jews (see ).

His/her second efforts have been attacks on this article. Bonneau13 is changing the text to indicate that state nullification is an established, constitutional right of states. Of course this claim has no factual basis and the editor has made no effort to provide sourcing.

I am reverting the edit yet again and am asking the user to prove that, contrary to his/her original edits, there is a serious purpose to his/her editing. Please provide whatever sourcing that supports the claim that nullification is an undisputed right. I really didn't pay much attention when I made the original reverts, but absent any serious discussion here and based on the repugnant nature of his/her original edit, I will treat future reversions as vandalism.

If any other editors feel that this editor edits should be treated as good faith, please let me know here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana?
I can't agree with the statement in the first paragraph "State efforts to nullify federal law have never been upheld, and almost certainly are ineffective." Are there not numerous examples of federal laws that states refuse to uphold, and thus, those LAWS become ineffective and repealed? Just recently with gay marriage and marijuana legalization should be examples enough. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Response regarding marijuana laws -- State legalization of marijuana does not constitute nullification of federal law. When a state "legalizes" marijuana, it makes marijuana legal only under state law. This has no effect on federal law. A state that legalizes marijuana does not attempt to declare that federal drug laws are unenforceable in the state. Rather, federal drug laws remain on the books and still may be enforced in the state, notwithstanding the state's decision to make marijuana legal under state law. So, after "legalization," marijuana offenses no longer may be prosecuted by the state under state law, but still may be prosecuted by federal authorities under federal law. If a state were to declare that federal drug laws are unconstitutional and may not be enforced in the state, that would be an attempt at nullification. But no state has tried to do that. In any event, such an attempt certainly would not be legally upheld. Elmo McGee (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal liberty laws: the section concerning them does not, in my opinion, meet the requirement for neutrality. As Thomas Morris's book Free Men All documents, most of the motivation for the Personal Liberty Laws was concern that free blacks were being kidnapped by southerners who fraudulently accused them of being fugitive slaves. The laws were intended to stop this, without stopping the return of actual fugitive slaves.

Another example of non-neutrality is the discussion of Ableman v. Booth. The Wisconsin Court didn't proclaim the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional, or proclaim that the state court had the right to nullify it. It said that the imprisonment of Sherman Booth was unconstitutional in his particular case, and that the state had a right to use the writ of habeas corpus to protect its citizens from illegal activities of the federal authorities. The Taney Court lied about what the Wisconsin decision said, and then 'overturned' an assertion Wisconsin hadn't made. Saintonge235 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Response regarding Ableman v. Booth -- The Wisconsin Supreme Court did in fact declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional. In the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision in July 1854, the court's majority held that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. Two of the three justices, Whiton and Smith, wrote lengthy opinions explicitly finding that the Fugitive Slave Act was unconstitutional. (The third judge concurred on other grounds.) The language of Smith's opinion in particular was the language of state's rights, relying on the compact theory and asserting that the federal government did not have the power to act beyond the scope of the Constitution and that it was the duty of state officials to declare void any unconstitutional act of Congress. Smith did not use the word "nullification," but that's essentially what he was arguing. His opinion rested on the same principles as John C. Calhoun's nullification theory. That decision was one of the two decisions that was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ableman v. Booth. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to respond to the Supreme Court's writ of error, denying that the Supreme Court had the power to review its decision. This attempt by the Wisconsin Supreme Court to have the "last word" on the constitutional issue was effectively an act of attempted nullification. Here's a summary from the Wisconsin Court System's website -- click on In re Booth: http://www.wicourts.gov/about/organization/supreme/famouscases.htm Elmo McGee (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Revisions of 25 September 2011 regarding Printz and New York cases
I've deleted the September 25 revision regarding Printz v. United States and New York v. United States, and have reverted to the prior version. The September 25 revision was inaccurate because Printz and New York were not nullification cases. The underlying theory of nullification is that the states have the final, unreviewable power to determine the constitutionality of federal laws, and that a state's determination of unconstitutionality cannot be reviewed or reversed by the federal government. Under the theory of nullification, a state has the power to declare that a federal law is unconstitutional and may not be enforced within the state, and the state's declaration cannot be overruled by federal courts. That is not what happened in Printz and New York. State officials in those cases did not attempt unilaterally to nullify the federal statutes in question. Rather, the state officials followed the well-established method of challenging the constitutionality of federal statutes -- they sued in federal court seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality. Those cases eventually went up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided that the statutes were unconstitutional. That is not state nullification because the ultimate decision was made by the federal courts, not by the state legislature or state courts. If these were instances of nullification, the states simply would have declared the statutes in question to be unconstitutional and would have prohibited enforcement of those statutes within the state, and the states would have rejected any attempt by the federal courts to review their determination. By recognizing the authority of the federal courts to make the final determination on constitutionality, the states chose to use the accepted constitutional method for challenging a statute, rather than attempting nullification. I've added a new subsection explaining the difference between nullification and bringing a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of a federal statute. Elmo McGee (talk) 23:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Modern Day usage
We may want to mention some modern day attempts at this by some states. For instance, Georgia upheld the principle of nullification a few year ago in their state legislature. (They didn't actually nullify anything, but said that they have the right to do so). And just yesterday, the VA Senate passed a bill that would effectively nullify the NDAA within the state of Virginia and prohibit anyone working for the state of Virginia from assisting in the execution of detaining/assassinating citizens by the Federal Government under this law.-- White Shadows One eye watching you 04:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

May 3, 2014 edits
A number of the recent edits to this article are not accurate. They have introduced inaccuracies into the article that are slanted toward a particular ideological view. These edits are not supported by good citations to authority, and are not accurate statements of the law. Today's edits largely revert to previous, more accurate versions of this article, such as the version of 25 May 2013. Elmo McGee

Legal nullification of a State resident
How is one picked by the state's government to be legally null and void 172.103.64.234 (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about exactly what you are asking about? Maybe you could give examples of what sort of "nullification" of a person you are referring to.  Without more detail, your question is unclear and is unlikely to get any meaningful response.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)