Download The Doctrine of Nullification

Name
Date
REVIEW
CALIFORNIA CONTENT
STANDARD 8.10.3
The Doctrine of Nullification
Specific Objective: Identify the constitutional issues posed by the doctrine of
nullification and secession and the earliest origins of that doctrine.
Read the summary below to answer the questions on the next page.
Copyright © McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin Company
Federal Government versus State Government
When the United States was new, there was much disagreement about the balance
of power between the federal and state governments. The Constitution was designed
to put those issues to rest. It defined the powers of each branch and level of government. But not everyone agreed about how to interpret the Constitution with regard
to how much power the federal government should have over the individual states.
Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
An early crisis occurred with the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.
These four laws limited the rights of recent immigrants to the United States and
upset citizens in many states, particularly Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Jefferson and Madison favored the theory of states’ rights. According to this theory,
a state could nullify, or declare “not binding,” any federal law within its borders
believed to be unconstitutional. Jefferson and Madison wrote resolutions passed
by Virginia and Kentucky stating that the Alien and Sedition Acts violated the
Constitution. No other states at the time took this position.
The Alien and Sedition Acts eventually were repealed or expired, but the issue of
nullification had been introduced.
Tariff of Abominations
In 1828, Congress passed a bill raising tariffs on raw materials and manufactured
goods. Southerners thought the new tariffs gave Northerners an unfair advantage.
They called the law the Tariff of Abominations.
Doctrine of Nullification
South Carolina was especially affected by the tariff. The vice president in 1828 was
John C. Calhoun a native of that state. He returned to the doctrine of nullification.
He said that a state could nullify a federal law that it found unconstitutional. The
state would make the law void within its own borders.
Like Jefferson and Madison before them, those who favored the doctrine of nullification said that the Union was a league of self-governing states. They thought
that each state had the right to limit the influence of the federal government. One
of a state’s rights was to judge whether federal laws were unconstitutional. If a state
decided a law was unconstitutional it was not bound to obey it. Calhoun and his supporters also thought a state could withdraw from the Union at any time.
Opponents said that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. In
addition, they agreed that the Supreme Court alone could decide if laws
were constitutional. They also pointed out that the Constitution specifically
gave Congress the right to levy tariffs.
CSS Specific Objective 8.10.3: Review 159
Name
Date
PRACTICE
CALIFORNIA CONTENT
STANDARD 8.10.3
The Doctrine of Nullification
Directions: Choose the letter of the best answer.
2
John C. Calhoun was vice president
in 1828. When he proposed the
doctrine of nullification, he was
acting in the interests of
4 The doctrine of nullification was
based on the theory of
A
checks and balances.
A
Congress.
B
federalism.
B
the Democratic Party.
C
separation of powers.
C
South Carolina.
D
states’ rights.
D
the president.
A
Civil War.
Southern states said they would
nullify laws they felt were unfair.
What else did they do to protest
unfair tariffs?
B
the Tariff of Abominations.
A
declared war
C
Kentucky Resolution.
B
boycotted goods from the North
D
Missouri Compromise.
C
asked Britain for help
D
threatened to secede
The doctrine of nullification came in
response to
3 The issue of nullification was first
raised by
A
John Quincy Adams.
B
John C. Calhoun.
C
Andrew Jackson.
D
Thomas Jefferson.
160 CSS Specific Objective 8.10.3: Practice
5
6
Opponents of Calhoun’s doctrine
of nullification pointed out that
Congress had the constitutional
right to
A
favor certain states.
B
levy tariffs.
C
rewrite the Constitution.
D
nullify state laws.
Copyright © McDougal Littell/Houghton Mifflin Company
1