Virgina Resolution: 1798. Database on-line. Available from The Avalon Project, http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/virres. htm. The Virgina Resolution was passed by the State of Virginia in protest to the alien and sedition acts enforced by the Congress of the United States. This resolution declared that such laws were not enforceable within their territory as the same were not in accordance with the compact which the states of the federation had entered into. Thus the Virginia Resolution viewed the Constitution as a compact or agreement between the states which delineated the role of the federal government.
The resolution reflects the support of the state of the Virginia to the United States Constitution but its rejection of the alien and sedition acts. Kentucky Resolution: 1799. Database on-line. Available from The Avalon Project, http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres. htm The Kentucky Resolution followed the Virginia Resolution and affirmed the stand which the State of Virginia took as regards the Constitution of the United States being a compact between the member states.
The State of Kentucky thus clarified that its silence regarding the alien and sedition acts should not be regarded as meek acquiescence to the principle that the federal government had free reign to enact laws and place limitations on the federal states. Therefore, the State of Virginia upheld the right of the member states to question the constitutionality of laws passed by the federal government and to limit the exercise of power by said government over their territorial jurisdictions. Amendments to the Constitution Proposed by the Hartford Convention, 1814.
Database on-line. Available from The Avalon Project, http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/amerdoc/hartconv. htm The Hartford Convention produced several proposals for constitutional amendments that might be observed in the United States. These amendments focused on the accountability of the federal government to its member states. Thus, the Hartford Convention provided a means for the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to exercise the individuality recognized in the governance of each member state.
The amendments include such measures as the requirement of a 2/3 vote of Congress before the enactment of particular legislations and presidential orders. The Congress being composed of representatives from each member state, the amendments provided for greater accountability from the national government, particularly the legislature. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832. Database on-line. Available from The Avalon Project, http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc/ordnull. htm
The South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification focused on the declaration of a tax measure passed by Congress as null and void for being unconstitutional. The ordinance protested that the tax implementations passed by the national government were actually just mere ploys enacted to safeguard the interests of particular domestic groups. The State of South Carolina thus deemed the ordinance as without effect within its jurisdiction. The ordinance further provided safeguarding measures disallowing the prevention of ingress or egress of trade to its ports.
Furthermore, the ordinance provided for a sanction to any individual who might appeal the provisions of the ordinance to the Supreme Court. President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832. Database on-line. Available from The Avalon Project, http://www. yale. edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01. htm President Jackson’s proclamation was a response to the order of nullification enacted by the State of South Carolina.
President Jackson impressed that no single state had the power to unilaterally overthrow a legislative enactment. President Jackson further stated that it was not the role or power of the voice of the majority to rule whether or not a statute was unconstitutional. Thus President Jackson overthrew the ordinance passed by South Carolina under threat of physical and military aggression should the latter refuse to acknowledge the sovereignty of his decision.