Since the birth of this nation, the issue of federal authority verses states’ rights has been a heavily contested issue. The debate over the relationship between the federal and states governments and over the principles of interposition and nullification began well before the Civil War.
Support for federal power existed from the beginning of United States history. When Governor Randolph presented Madison’s Virginia Plan at the Constitutional Convention, calling for greater Congressional representation for the highly populated states (i.e., primarily New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania), smaller states were outraged because they were afraid that larger states would drown out their voices. To ensure that the small states were not completely overlooked, a federal power had to be established to settle disputes between the states and, as the preamble of the U.S. Constitution also mentions, to �⒬Ŕestablish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote general welfare�⒬� (Document A). Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution sets forth the Necessary and Proper clause, which implies that the federal government is allowed to take the necessary and proper measures to establish laws that benefit the greater good (Document A). Article VI of the Constitution conveys the supremacy clause, stating that the federal government’s voice shall be the �⒬ŔSupreme Law of the Land�⒬� (Document A) and that judges in every state, regardless of their individual state’s opinion on a matter, are obligated to obey the laws established by the federal government, which is a requirement still expected of judges today.
In the 1803 court case MARBURY v. MADISON, the concept of judicial review was set forth when it was said,�⒬Ŕa law repugnant to the Constitution is void and that courts, as well as other department, are bound to that instrument�⒬� (Document G). When South Carolina drafted an ordinance of Nullification against the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 (Document E), which hindered their individual state economy, but benefited the federal government, President Jackson responded on December 10, 1832 by saying, �⒬ŔI consider then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union. According to Jackson, the federal government must have dominant power in order to protect the rights of the greater good even if it means negatively affecting the minority (such as South Carolina in this situation).
Of course, many people were more concerned about the welfare of their individual communities, counties, and states than the well-being of their fellow Americans across the country, and therefore demanded a stronger state authority than federal authority. On November 24, 1832, South Carolina issued an ordinance of nullification (Document E) on the federal tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 because the tariffs were only hindering them economically. South Carolinians felt that it was their right to protect themselves first and concern themselves with what was best for the rest of America later. The Report and Resolutions of the Hartford Convention (January 4, 1815) essentially says the same thing: �⒬ŔThat it be and hereby is recommended to the legislatures of the several states represented in the Convention to adopt all such measure as may be necessary effectually to protect the citizens of said state from the operation and effects of all acts which have been or may be passed by the Congress of the United States�⒬��⒬� (Document D). According to this resolution, the states must fend for themselves and do whatever is best for their own futures. The Kentucky Resolutions set forth the idea that the states must govern themselves, as well. Like the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, the Kent Resolutions also call for nullification, stating that if the federal government assumes undelegated powers then its acts are authoritative and the acts do not bind the states in any way (Document C). The Virginia Resolutions develop the concept of interposition, declaring that the �⒬Ŕstates, who are parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining them�⒬� (Document B). In other words, the states should consider their own needs first.
In conclusion, the issue of federal authority verses state rights has always existed in this country, but although there are instances in which states should be allowed to make their own decisions, it is often best for the federal government to have the ultimate say. Without a central authority, states would become independent of each other and, rather than working together, they would drift apart to satisfy their own needs first and foremost. A central authority forces the states to cooperate with one another in order to ensure the success of our country as a whole.
SOURCE: The College Board’s United States History Advanced Placement Exam
