Posted on 01/12/2005 7:08:24 PM PST by jonestown
What States Rights Really Mean
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
William J. Watkins, Jr., Reclaiming the American Revolution:
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Ask the typical undergraduate to discuss the ideas advanced in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and you may as well be asking for an overview of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Yet these nearly forgotten documents fully merit a place among the most important political writings in American history, both in terms of the ideas they put forth and the influence they had on subsequent generations of American political thinkers. That's why William Watkins' new book is something to celebrate.
The Resolutions in effect posed and sought to answer a series of fundamental questions. How is the central government to be restrained? Are frequent elections and internal checks and balances sufficient, or does the limitation of federal power require still more institutional safeguards? Which institution, if any, possesses the definitive word on constitutional disputes between the federal government and the states? To the suggestion that the Supreme Court was the ultimate arbiter, the drafters of these documents had yet another question: how can the federal courts function as impartial umpires between the federal government and the states when they themselves are part of the federal government?
Watkins skillfully guides the reader through the context within which the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were drafted. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, passed during the Quasi War with France, alarmed Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Republican Party in general. The alien legislation, which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had "treasonable" leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans; Jefferson believed the legislation was aimed at Albert Gallatin, the important Pennsylvania Republican, who had been born in Geneva. (He later became Jefferson's own treasury secretary.)
But it was the prohibition of seditious libel that concerned them most. For Jefferson, it wasn't only that this prohibition would be enforced in a partisan way that made it objectionable – though of course it was, with Republican newspapers and spokesmen targeted for harassment, fines, and even jail time. (Watkins refers to correspondence between Jefferson and Madison at the time in which they express concern that someone might be tampering with their mail.) And it wasn't that seditious libel could be arbitrarily or loosely defined – although, again, in practice it was: one poor soul, who expressed the fond wish that the presidential saluting cannon would "hit [President John] Adams in the ass," was fined $100. The primary issue was the acts' dubious constitutionality. Jefferson based part of his objection on their violation of the First Amendment, but noted that they violated the Tenth Amendment as well. Nowhere had the states delegated any authority to the federal government to pass legislation pertaining to the freedom of speech or press. In doing so, then, the federal government had encroached on a state prerogative. For Jefferson, who spoke of binding men by the chains of the Constitution, immediate action was necessary lest such federal usurpations begin to multiply.
Was there a constitutional remedy – that is, a solution short of the extreme measures of secession or violent revolution? As far as Jefferson was concerned, there had to be. And that constitutional remedy, as so often in Jefferson's political philosophy, involved the states. Given that the states were the constituent parts of the Union, and had enjoyed an independent existence long before the Constitution had come into effect, they had to have some measure of protection against the federal government that they themselves had created. Certainly the federal government, which was merely the agent of the states, could not be permitted to have the exclusive authority to make authoritative judgments about the Constitution, since the obvious long-term consequence would be the eventual concentration of power in the federal government as it consistently handed down rulings in favor of itself. The states had to be able to make their own interpretations of the Constitution, to which they themselves had acceded, count for something. Even the centralizing Alexander Hamilton had envisioned a role for the states in restraining the federal government, arguing in Federalist #28 that "the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority."
As far as Jefferson could see, the only way in which a state could both remain in the Union and retain its liberties in the face of an unconstitutional act on the part of the federal government was for the state to declare that by virtue of its being unconstitutional, the federal action was null and void and would not be enforced within the borders of that state. (He and others did indeed entertain and reply to the various objections to such an idea.)
An anonymous Jefferson (who was vice president at the time) penned what became known as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, which spelled out the objectionable aspects of the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as the states' rightful response: nullification. Madison penned similar resolutions that were approved by the Virginia legislature. Although Virginia and Kentucky found little support in other states for these ideas in 1798, with the passage of time all sections of the country would appeal at one time or another to what became known as the "Principles of '98."
You may have noticed that these ideas are rather out of fashion today on both left and right. Watkins, however, identifies these ideas as absolutely fundamental to American liberty and as legitimate means, faithful to the spirit of the Constitution, of preventing the expansion of the federal government.
Watkins could have strengthened still further his case that the Principles of '98 merely vindicated older and settled doctrines about the nature of the federal Union by referring to some of the recent scholarship of Kevin Gutzman, a professor of history at Western Connecticut State University.
Gutzman has shown, contrary to the contentions of Straussians, neoconservatives, and left-liberals alike, that nullification was not simply a doctrine that Jefferson and Madison contrived out of nowhere as an ad hoc response to the threat to civil liberties posed by the Alien and Sedition Acts. To the contrary, the line of thought that culminated in the Resolutions of 1798 can be traced all the way back to the Virginia ratifying convention, where its central principles were laid out by prominent Virginia Federalists. (That's right: Virginia Federalists set forth these doctrines.)
The context was as follows. At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry expressed his fear that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (which said that the federal government would have all powers "necessary and proper" to carry into effect the powers granted in Article I, Section 8) would inevitably be interpreted by the federal government as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised into an unlimited government that would menace the people's liberties. He was likewise concerned about the "general welfare" clause, since government could justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare.
Edmund Randolph, the leading Federalist speaker at the convention, argued that Henry's fears were unfounded. Those phrases could not have the expansive meaning that Henry attached to them because, Randolph explained, the only powers possessed by the federal government would be those expressly conceded to it by the states. "All rights are therein declared to be completely vested in the people, unless expressly given away," he said. "Can there be a more pointed or positive reservation?"
Randolph belonged to a committee of five men whose task it was to draft the ratification instrument – that is, the statement by which Virginia would officially ratify the Constitution. George Nicholas, another member of the committee, told the convention that if Virginia assented to the Constitution it would do so on the basis of the clear and manifest meaning of that document. If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification and intent, to be, what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote; that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it, whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted – I ask whether in this case, these conditions on which he assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve? In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them.
By the slimmest of margins the Virginia convention went on to ratify the Constitution, but on the terms of their instrument of ratification, whose exegesis they had heard from Randolph and Nicholas. They had announced to the people of the other states how they understood the document, and that Virginia should be exonerated from it should the new government stray from this understanding. They had acceded to a compact establishing a federal government that possessed only those powers expressly granted to it and no more.
Already in 1790 Virginia was expressing its displeasure with the direction of the federal government. Alexander Hamilton had proposed federal assumption of the state debts, in order to bind the wealthy more closely to the success of the new federal government. (In other words, the wealthy would have a vested interest in the success of the new government since if it failed, their bonds would be worthless.) Patrick Henry introduced into the Virginia state legislature a resolution, approved by both houses, calling Hamilton's plan "repugnant to the Constitution…as it goes to the exercise of a power not expressly granted to the General Government." As the decade progressed, John Taylor of Caroline kept up this posture of vigilance vis-à-vis the federal government. What is more, Taylor argued that the state legislatures had the authority and indeed the duty to enforce the original understanding of the Constitution, and to prevent the federal government from usurping the reserved powers of the states. As Gutzman puts it, Taylor envisioned state legislatures acting "as Americans have now come to think it is normal for the United States Supreme Court to act." Thus when Jefferson and Madison penned the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, they were not introducing any radically new doctrine but merely drawing out the logical conclusions of a vigorous intellectual tradition traceable to the Virginia ratifying convention.
And it is that intellectual tradition that this book describes and vindicates so effectively. Reclaiming the American Revolution is a relatively short book, but it contains scarcely a wasted word. In some ways, it is a miniature American history in itself, as Watkins takes us on a tour of the nation's past through the lens of the Resolutions. In the manner of James J. Kilpatrick's unfortunately out-of-print classic, The Sovereign States, Watkins provides example after example of acts of state resistance to the federal government, recreating for us a time when the states were genuine actors in a constitutional drama. He likewise sketches the process by which political consolidation, the evil that the Jeffersonians sought above all else to avoid, triumphed over the Principles of '98 in the decades following Reconstruction and during the twentieth century in particular.
William Watkins has won the praise and admiration of a wide array of very fine scholars – Reclaiming the American Revolution carries some very high-powered academic endorsements – while nevertheless making clear his own sympathy for a political tradition that could hardly be less fashionable in academia (or, for that matter, in modern politics). It will take a lot more than good scholarly work to reverse the century and a half of political centralization through which the United States has passed, but in the meantime we can use excellent books like this one as a moral rebuke to those who, in defiance of American law and tradition, aid and abet the aggrandizement of the central state.
Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his Ph.D. from Columbia. He is the author of The Church Confronts Modernity (Columbia) and the forthcoming The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (Lexington). The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a New York Times bestseller, is his most recent book.
I agree with your comments. Great home page, BTW. Saved.
I don't see anything wrong, in principle, in having basic 'model' laws that apply to most people in most states/localities. A good 'for instance' is our right to concealed carry. -- It should apply nation wide.
That's why we need a constitutional amendment.
Our Constitution doesn't need to be amended, -- it just needs to be honored and supported by all of our officials & politicians, fed/state/local.
no it does need to be amended to settle the marriage issue.
The amendment only follows what has been the law of the land and enforced as law of the land when it comes to producing families for raising children.
The amendment actuall affirms the state's rights to muck around with any marriage lite they may want and make other states free to ignore it.
The amendment also removes the homosexual marriage issue from the federal areana in areas liek social secuirty and immigration spousal visas.
Those others who SCREAM for immigration reform do not seem to grasp that homosexual marriage will be used to gain immigration visas for homospouses.
The problem is that the ONLY model laws are produced by the ABA's organizations. There is no conservative or other alternative model code which the legislators may use.
ALL legislators have the new model divorce code with homosexual unions and children as accessories and provisions for homosexual sex partner standing in heterosexual divorces. They have no competition.
The ABA need competiton. The NRA should generate model laws for CCW.
Well, obviously that isn't happening.
BTT!!!!!
no it does need to be amended to settle the marriage issue. The amendment only follows what has been the law of the land and enforced as law of the land when it comes to producing families for raising children.
Just what 'law' is in the Constitution that you want to amend?
The amendment actuall affirms the state's rights to muck around with any marriage lite they may want and make other states free to ignore it.
Imo, neither States nor Feds have ever been granted the power to 'muck about' with marriage arrangements, other than in legal protections "for raising children".
The amendment also removes the homosexual marriage issue from the federal areana in areas liek social secuirty and immigration spousal visas.
'Significant others' should not be part of either area of law. Congress can correct this without constitutional amendments.
Those others who SCREAM for immigration reform do not seem to grasp that homosexual marriage will be used to gain immigration visas for homospouses.
Easily corrected by modifying immigration law.
There is no need to amend our Constitution in order to further 'protect' children & conventional marriage.
We and our children need more freedom & fewer laws..
I just read this over, very hastily. I will revisit it tomorrow.
Thank you for posting it. It is a very solid essay, that appears to be right on the mark. If it was not getting late, I would say more. This needs a wide circulation.
I will be back, tomorrow. Again, my hearty thanks.
William Flax
I agree with your comments. Great home page, BTW. Saved.
21 Eastbound
just had to quickly comment on this line from the original article:
"Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 [...] which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had "treasonable" leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans..."
Boy, the modern equivalent of this act certainly doesn't seem to be much of a problem for our MODERN "Republicans", does it? Don't portions of the Patriot Act seem kinda familiar?
Bump for later
I like the Ghost's tagline. That and the beautifully dangerous notion of "nullification" made me think of the Fully Informed Jury Act and its adherents. Click the link and check them out for yourselves (if you haven't already)
http://www.fija.org/
(or cut and paste the link if it's not in hypertext)
Here's another article on the subject:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC28/DoigPls.htm
and one from our Lone Star friends:
http://www.juryduty.org/
contains the following thumbnail description:
"Jurors in criminal trials have the power to vote "not guilty" if enforcing the law would violate their conscience because juries cannot be punished for any verdict and jury acquittals cannot be overturned. An accused party's rights to trial by jury, where government is an opposing party, includes the right to inform the jurors of their power to judge the law as well as the evidence, and to vote on the verdict according to conscience."
Not exactly the subject of this thread, but definitely related... the natural, logical conclusion to the general move away from centralized judiciary power.
neoconjob wrote:
just had to quickly comment on this line from the original article:
"The alien legislation, which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had "treasonable" leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans; Jefferson believed the legislation was aimed at Albert Gallatin, the important Pennsylvania Republican, who had been born in Geneva. (He later became Jefferson's own treasury secretary.)"
call it laziness, but I am hereby officially plagiarizing myself to comment on your Marriage Ammendment position, from another post on this site:
"I would ask that our fellow proponents of less government, especially the 'paleo conservatives', consider the notion that perhaps it is time to get government OUT of the institution of marriage entirely. Religious entities (ie churches)could and would still marry people, according to their beliefs, and the two people could and would still enter into a legally recognized contract re: property etc. but the government (whether State or Federal) would have no say over what is "sanctified". I mean, regardless of what a given majority wishes at any given period in history, do we really want to equate the blessing of God with the blessing of the state? Blasphemy and bad policy are a heady mix for some. Remember: the separation of church and state is a good idea from BOTH angles... I don't want government involved in my worship anymore than I want YOUR (generically) religious beliefs influencing MY government."
I realize this is a fringey idea, but constantly ammending our Constitution every time someone's idea of freedom clashes with your own is worse than bad policy; it's a recipe for disaster and the ultimate failure of this political experiment in tolerance and freedom that we call the United States of America.
Um, wasn't the Republican Party founded in 1850?
neoconjob wrote:
just had to quickly comment on this line from the original article:
"The alien legislation, which authorized the president to deport resident aliens who had "treasonable" leanings, was a source of concern to Jefferson and other Republicans; Jefferson believed the legislation was aimed at Albert Gallatin, the important Pennsylvania Republican, who had been born in Geneva. (He later became Jefferson's own treasury secretary.)"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.