live_tv
Livestream Starting Soon
00
Hours
:
00
Minutes
:
00
Seconds
Up next in 10
Jon Roland provides a historical background for state-led nullification of federal legislation, beginning with South Carolina in 1832, protesting the Tariff of 1828, and some current proposals focused on federal heath care legislation. With Lela Pittenger. Austin Constitution Meetup Jan. 25, 2010.
Show More Show Less View Video Transcript
0:00
good
0:02
evening this is the January
0:06
25th meeting of the Constitution Meet Up
0:10
group of Austin
0:12
Texas and I'm here with you this evening
0:15
I'm John
0:16
Roland and we have with us Leela
0:19
pittinger
0:20
hello uh and we're going to be
0:23
conducting a
0:24
conversation on several
0:27
subjects uh starting with the
0:30
proposed nullification
0:33
legislation that I've come up
0:36
with
0:38
um
0:40
last uh on the
0:43
16th we had a p party type rally here in
0:48
Austin at the on the south steps of the
0:53
capital on the subject of
0:57
nullification there were about perhaps
0:59
600 under
1:00
attending people were very excited about
1:03
the concept so I naturally got to
1:06
thinking maybe this is a time to dust
1:09
off some of my old ideas on the
1:13
subject and to put them
1:16
forward it turns out there have been
1:19
several uh bills
1:22
introduced by state legislators in
1:25
various
1:26
states
1:28
to uh quote nullify
1:31
unquote unconstitutional Federal
1:37
legislation
1:41
the occasion in which this was done
1:45
before which are is often
1:48
cited for uh supporters of the
1:53
concept was done in South Carolina In
1:58
1832 in in response to the so-called
2:02
Tariff of
2:03
Abominations of
2:06
1828 that
2:09
tariff uh gave a preference to the
2:14
merchants and
2:16
manufacturers of the northern states and
2:20
greatly disadvantaged the southern
2:24
states at the time the southern states
2:27
objected to it on the grounds that it
2:30
violated the
2:32
Constitution and its uh
2:36
requirement that any legislation or
2:40
taxation be for the general welfare and
2:43
not favor one region or state over
2:48
others so they objected to it on
2:50
constitutional
2:52
grounds of course they also objected to
2:54
it on economic
2:57
grounds but uh
3:02
the argument they made was that it was
3:06
unconstitutional the Cal the South
3:09
Carolina State Legislature
3:11
adopted a uh bill or they call an
3:15
ordinance of
3:18
nullification which was based on the
3:21
idea of nullification that had first
3:23
been developed by Thomas
3:26
Jefferson in the Kentucky resolutions of
3:31
1798 that was in response to the Alien
3:34
and Sedition
3:36
Acts the kenduck resolutions of
3:40
1798 which were late another version of
3:45
which were enacted the next year in
3:48
1799 have often been cited as the
3:52
classic statement of the Jeffersonian
3:56
interpretation of the
3:58
Constitution because one of the things
4:01
that it did was to lay out what powers
4:06
delegated to Congress provided Authority
4:09
for criminal
4:12
legislation and it did not include
4:15
things
4:16
like
4:17
uh the criminal penalties that were
4:20
included in the alien ins Sedition
4:23
Acts but it would later be seen not to
4:27
include criminal penalties
4:30
for failure to pay a tax or for doing a
4:33
lot of the other things that were then
4:35
being uh
4:38
planned
4:41
so the 1832 Act created a
4:47
crisis it was a crisis in large part
4:51
because at that time the central
4:54
government depended on the states to
4:57
help them enforce their tax laws their
5:00
tariffs and without the cooperation of
5:03
State
5:04
officials they would be almost
5:07
unenforceable and without the support of
5:09
course of local juries they would also
5:13
not be enforceable in
5:15
court so with the state legislature
5:18
taking the lead in declaring the Tariff
5:22
unconstitutional and therefore null and
5:25
void this hence the name the word
5:28
nullify
5:30
it was setting up South Carolina to be
5:35
at odds with central
5:39
government the crisis it's called The
5:42
Nullification Crisis was headed
5:45
off when Congress the US Congress voted
5:49
to greatly reduce the
5:53
Tariff and they made other concessions
5:56
to South Carolina and other Southern
5:58
States to to head off the crisis and the
6:03
Nullification uh ordinance was allowed
6:07
to
6:09
expire but it did set a
6:12
pattern which people look to
6:16
today the most recent efforts in the
6:19
this regard have been things like State
6:24
resolutions uh proclaiming that it shall
6:28
be illegal to
6:30
require anyone to purchase insurance
6:34
under a federal program of such with
6:38
such a
6:40
requirement they the bills mostly don't
6:43
contain much in the way of
6:47
enforcement uh there was one apparently
6:50
introduced in New Hampshire which would
6:53
would
6:54
require uh criminal penalties of federal
6:58
agents who might try to to enforce such
7:01
things and as I pointed out that's not
7:04
going to work for several points of
7:09
view
7:13
the problem then is is there a
7:17
way for state
7:20
legislators to put pressure on
7:24
Congress to either repeal or not enforce
7:29
unconstitutional Federal
7:33
legislation what I've come up
7:36
with which is on the wall here next to
7:39
us but I won't turn the camera right now
7:41
to show it we'll in insert it
7:46
later is
7:48
the uh the notion that a state
7:53
legislature while it can't really pass
7:57
an act to make it illegal for federal
8:00
agents to enforce Federal
8:03
statutes it can require all federal All
8:08
State uh officials and agents not to
8:12
cooperate in an its
8:15
enforcement in other words they can
8:17
require
8:19
non-cooperation and they can also urge
8:22
citizens of the states not to
8:26
cooperate so that with the leadership
8:29
ship of the state
8:30
legislature and of course the governor
8:32
has to sign off on it you could have uh
8:37
an organized Civil
8:39
Disobedience that would be
8:42
Statewide which among other things might
8:44
make it very difficult
8:47
to uh get a jury that would
8:51
convict if there was either civil
8:54
litigation or criminal
8:57
prosecution
#Social Issues & Advocacy
#Legislative Branch
#Public Policy