Interposition

Last updated

Interposition is a claimed right of a U.S. state to oppose actions of the federal government that the state deems unconstitutional. Under the theory of interposition, a state assumes the right to "interpose" itself between the federal government and the people of the state by taking action to prevent the federal government from enforcing laws that the state considers unconstitutional.

Contents

The theory of interposition is grounded in the text of the Tenth Amendment, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

In Cooper v. Aaron , 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States rejected interposition explicitly. The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have consistently held that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal judiciary, not with the states. The courts have held that interposition is not a valid constitutional doctrine when invoked to block enforcement of federal law. [1]

Interposition is closely related to the theory of nullification, which holds that the states have the right to nullify federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional and to prevent enforcement of such laws within their borders.

Though interposition and nullification are similar, there are some differences. Nullification is an act of an individual state, while interposition was conceived as an action that would be undertaken by states acting jointly. [2] Nullification is a declaration by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional accompanied by a declaration that the law is void and may not be enforced in the state. Interposition also involves a declaration by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional, but interposition as originally conceived does not result in a declaration by the state that the federal law may not be enforced in the state. Rather, the law would still be enforced. [3] Thus, interposition may be seen as more moderate than nullification.

There are various actions that a state might take to "interpose" itself once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. These actions include communicating with other states about the unconstitutional law, attempting to enlist the support of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a constitutional convention. [4]

Interposition and nullification often are discussed together, and many of the same principles apply to both theories. [5] In practice, the terms nullification and interposition often have been used indistinguishably. John C. Calhoun indicated that these terms were interchangeable, stating: "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may – State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name – I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system." [6] During the fight over desegregation of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states tried to preserve their segregated schools by passing so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually would have had the effect of nullification, if they had been valid. [7] These acts were struck down by the courts, whether labelled acts of interposition or nullification.

Virginia Resolution

Interposition was first suggested in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, written by James Madison, which stated:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states 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 to them.

By this statement, James Madison asserted that the states are "duty bound to interpose" to prevent the harm that would result from a "deliberate, palpable, and dangerous" unconstitutional action by the federal government. Madison did not specify the procedural legal details of how this interposition would be enacted or what result it would have. The Virginia Resolution, unlike the contemporaneous Kentucky Resolutions, did not assert that the states may declare a federal law null and void. The Virginia Resolution thus is sometimes considered to be more tempered than the Kentucky Resolutions, which assert that a state may nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were not accepted by any of the other states. Seven states formally responded to Kentucky and Virginia by rejecting the resolutions [8] and three other states passed resolutions expressing disapproval. [9] At least six states responded to the Resolutions by taking the position that the constitutionality of acts of Congress is a question for the federal courts, not the state legislatures. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "That the General Assembly of the state of Vermont do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, as being unconstitutional in their nature, and dangerous in their tendency. It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union." [10]

In 1800, the Virginia Legislature issued a report responding to the criticism of the Virginia Resolution. Madison wrote the Report of 1800. Madison affirmed each part of the Virginia Resolution, and again argued that the states have the right to interpose when they believe a federal law is unconstitutional. He explained that a state's act of interposition, unlike a judicial interpretation of the Constitution, has no legal effect. Rather, when the states interpose and declare a federal law unconstitutional, these declarations "are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with any other effect than what they may produce on opinion, by exciting reflection. The expositions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force." Madison explained that the purpose of a state's declaration of unconstitutionality is to mobilize opposition to the federal law and to enlist the cooperation of other states. Madison said that the states might take various types of joint action to remedy the situation, such as jointly applying to Congress for repeal of the law, instructing their senators to submit a constitutional amendment, or calling a convention to propose constitutional amendments. [11]

During the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, Madison further explained the concept of interposition as set forth in his Virginia Resolution. Madison denied that any single state had the right to unilaterally determine that a federal statute is unconstitutional. Madison wrote, "But it follows, from no view of the subject, that a nullification of a law of the U. S. can as is now contended, belong rightfully to a single State, as one of the parties to the Constitution; the State not ceasing to avow its adherence to the Constitution. A plainer contradiction in terms, or a more fatal inlet to anarchy, cannot be imagined." [12] Rather, the interposition contemplated by Madison would be "a concurring and cooperating interposition of the States, not that of a single State." Madison argued that interposition would involve some sort of joint action among the states, such as amending the Constitution. [13]

Interposition attempts in the 19th century

During the 19th century, several states attempted or threatened interposition or nullification. These states often referred to the Virginia Resolution and used the language of interposition, even though they often were attempting or threatening nullification. None of these interposition attempts was legally upheld. The Supreme Court ruled against various interposition and nullification attempts in a series of cases, starting in 1809. [14] The Civil War put an end to most interposition attempts.

School desegregation

Several southern states attempted to use interposition in the 1950s after the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education , which ruled that segregated schools violate the Constitution. Many people in southern states strongly opposed the Brown decision. They argued that the Brown decision was an unconstitutional infringement on states' rights, and that the states had the power to prevent that decision from being enforced within their borders. James J. Kilpatrick, an editor of the Richmond News Leader, wrote a series of editorials urging "massive resistance" to integration of the schools. Kilpatrick revived the idea of interposition by the states as a constitutional basis for resisting federal government action. [15] At least ten southern states passed interposition or nullification laws in an effort to prevent integration of their schools.

In the case of Cooper v. Aaron , 358 U.S. 1 (1958), the Supreme Court rejected the Arkansas effort to use nullification and interposition. The state of Arkansas passed several laws in an effort to prevent the integration of its schools. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that state governments had no power to nullify the Brown decision. The Supreme Court held that the Brown decision and its implementation "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation whether attempted 'ingeniously or ingenuously.'" [16] Thus, Cooper v. Aaron directly held that state attempts to nullify federal law are ineffective.

In a similar case arising from Louisiana's interposition act, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a federal district court that rejected interposition. The district court's decision reviewed the theory of interposition and found no basis in the Constitution for interposition. The district court stated: "The conclusion is clear that interposition is not a constitutional doctrine. If taken seriously, it is illegal defiance of constitutional authority. Otherwise, 'it amounted to no more than a protest, an escape valve through which the legislators blew off steam to relieve their tensions.' ... However solemn or spirited, interposition resolutions have no legal efficacy." [17]

Interposition and nullification were referenced by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his August 1963 "I Have a Dream" speech, at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom: [18]

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

Contemporary debate

Interposition and nullification have been raised recently in several state legislatures. Some legislators argue that the states should use these theories to declare unconstitutional certain acts of Congress, especially including the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Interposition or nullification bills have been introduced in several state legislatures. Opponents respond that interposition is not a valid constitutional doctrine and has been discredited.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien and Sedition Acts</span> 1798 U.S. laws restricting immigration and outlawing criticism of the government

The Alien and Sedition Acts were a set of four laws enacted in 1798 that applied restrictions to immigration and speech in the United States. The Naturalization Act increased the requirements to seek citizenship, the Alien Friends Act allowed the president to imprison and deport non-citizens, the Alien Enemies Act gave the president additional powers to detain non-citizens during times of war, and the Sedition Act criminalized false and malicious statements about the federal government. The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act expired after a set number of years, and the Naturalization Act was repealed in 1802. The Alien Enemies Act is still in effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions</span> 1798/99 resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799 in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional those acts of Congress that the Constitution did not authorize. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict construction of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United States</span> Supreme law of the US since 1789

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States. It superseded the Articles of Confederation, the nation's first constitution, on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the federal government. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the separation of powers, in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress ; the executive, consisting of the president and subordinate officers ; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts. Article IV, Article V, and Article VI embody concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article VII establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to ratify it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating states rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.

The nullification crisis was a sectional political crisis in the United States in 1832 and 1833, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, which involved a confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state. However, courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification by states.

In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess. Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term or dog whistle because of its use in opposition to federally-mandated racial desegregation and, more recently, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the United States Constitution</span>

The United States Constitution has served as the supreme law of the United States since taking effect in 1789. The document was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and was ratified through a series of state conventions held in 1787 and 1788. Since 1789, the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times; particularly important amendments include the ten amendments of the United States Bill of Rights and the three Reconstruction Amendments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Blair Jr.</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1790 to 1795

John Blair Jr. was an American Founding Father, who signed the United States Constitution as a delegate from Virginia and was appointed an Associate Justice on the first U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span>

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

The legislative veto was a feature of dozens of statutes enacted by the United States federal government between approximately 1930 and 1980, until held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). It is a provision whereby Congress passes a statute granting authority to the President and reserving for itself the ability to override, through simple majority vote, individual actions taken by the President pursuant to that authority.

In United States constitutional theory, compact theory is an interpretation of the Constitution which asserts the United States was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and that the federal government is thus a creation of the states. Consequently, under the theory, states are the final arbiters over whether the federal government has overstepped the limits of its authority as set forth in the compact. Compact theory contrasts with contract theory, which holds that the United States was formed with the consent of the people—rather than the consent of the states—and thus the federal government has supreme jurisdiction over the states. Compact theory has never been upheld by the courts.

The Taxing and Spending Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, grants the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. While authorizing Congress to levy taxes, this clause permits the levying of taxes for two purposes only: to pay the debts of the United States, and to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Taken together, these purposes have traditionally been held to imply and to constitute the federal government's taxing and spending power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial review in the United States</span> Power of courts to review laws

In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that denied the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas the right to delay racial desegregation for 30 months. On September 12, 1958, the Warren Court delivered a decision that held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagree with them, asserting the judicial supremacy established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). The decision in this case upheld the rulings in Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II that had held that the doctrine of separate but equal was unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Report of 1800</span> US 1800 government report

The Report of 1800 was a resolution drafted by James Madison arguing for the sovereignty of the individual states under the United States Constitution and against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Adopted by the Virginia General Assembly in January 1800, the Report amends arguments from the 1798 Virginia Resolutions and attempts to resolve contemporary criticisms against the Resolutions. The Report was the last important explication of the Constitution produced before the 1817 Bonus Bill veto message by Madison, who has come to be regarded as the "Father of the Constitution."

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. The Court found that under the Constitution, federal courts have the final power to decide cases arising under the Constitution and federal statutes, and that the States do not have the power to overturn those decisions. Thus, Wisconsin did not have the authority to nullify federal judgments or statutes. For example, it is illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals acting under federal laws. The Ableman decision emphasized the dual form of American government and the independence of State and federal courts from each other.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Secession in the United States</span> A state leaving the Union

In the context of the United States, secession primarily refers to the voluntary withdrawal of one or more states from the Union that constitutes the United States; but may loosely refer to leaving a state or territory to form a separate territory or new state, or to the severing of an area from a city or county within a state. Advocates for secession are called disunionists by their contemporaries in various historical documents.

The Principles of '98 refer to the American political position after 1798 that individual states could both judge the constitutionality of federal laws and decrees and refuse to enforce those that were deemed unconstitutional. That refusal is generally referred to as "nullification" but has also been expressed as "interposition:" the states' right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws. It provides that state courts are bound by, and state constitutions subordinate to, the supreme law. However, federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution; that is, they must be pursuant to the federal government's enumerated powers, and not violate other constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights—of particular interest is the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that the federal government has only those powers that are delegated to it by the Constitution. It is the responsibility of the United States Supreme Court in that case to exercise the power of judicial review: the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

References

  1. ↑ Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
  2. ↑ Joseph McGraw, "'To Secure These Rights': Virginia Republicans on the Strategies of Political Opposition, 1788-1800", 91 The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 54, 57 (1983)
  3. ↑ Ibid.
  4. ↑ See the Report of 1800, in which Madison wrote that the states may take actions such as "declaring the unconstitutionality of proceedings in the Federal Government, ... communicating the declaration to other states, and inviting their concurrence in a like declaration. ... The legislatures of the states might have made a direct representation to Congress, with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts; or, they might have represented to their respective senators in Congress their wish, that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might, by an application to Congress, have obtained a convention for the same object."
  5. ↑ Fritz, Christian G. (2023), "The Transformation of Interposition: The Theory of Nullification Emerges" , Monitoring American Federalism: The History of State Legislative Resistance, Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–226, doi:10.1017/9781009325608.008, ISBN   978-1-009-32560-8
  6. ↑ Calhoun, John C., The Fort Hill Address, July 26, 1831.
  7. ↑ See, for example, the Louisiana act of interposition, set out in the appendix to Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
  8. ↑ The seven states that transmitted rejections were Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Vermont. See Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution  . Vol. 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN   0-8337-1038-9.
  9. ↑ Maryland, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey passed resolutions that disapproved the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, but did not transmit formal responses to Kentucky and Virginia. Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions"  . American Historical Review. pp. 45–63, 225–244.{{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. ↑ Elliot, Jonathan (1907) [1836]. "Answers of the Several State Legislatures: State of Vermont"  . Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution  . Vol. 4 (expanded 2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. 538–539. ISBN   0-8337-1038-9.. The other states taking the position that the constitutionality of federal laws is a question for the federal courts, not the states, were New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. The Governor of Delaware also took this position. Anderson, Frank Maloy (1899). "Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions"  . American Historical Review. pp. 45–63, 225–244.{{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  11. ↑ See Report of 1800
  12. ↑ Madison, James "Notes, On Nullification", Library of Congress, December, 1834.
  13. ↑ Ibid.
  14. ↑ See United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809), Martin v. Hunter's Lessee , 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816), Cohens v. Virginia , 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821), Osborn v. Bank of the United States , 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824), Worcester v. Georgia , 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832), Prigg v. Pennsylvania , 41 U.S. 539 (1842), Ableman v. Booth , 62 U.S. 506 (1859).
  15. ↑ Obituary: James J. Kilpatrick
  16. ↑ Cooper, 358 U.S. at 17.
  17. ↑ Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
  18. ↑ Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream Speech - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.