Nullification Proclamation - Revision history

John James: added see also

2012-04-22T00:27:56Z

added see also

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 22 April 2012
Line 71:		Line 71:

	He finishes with a threat, saying that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON," and that he will not allow it to go unpunished. He intends "to preserve the Union by all constitutional means," including the use of force, if required, but hopes that it is not.		He finishes with a threat, saying that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON," and that he will not allow it to go unpunished. He intends "to preserve the Union by all constitutional means," including the use of force, if required, but hopes that it is not.

			==See also==
			* ''[[Nullification (book)\|Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century]]''

	==Links==		==Links==

Pesterbot: /* Links */External Links to Links, replaced: ==External links== → ==Links==

2011-06-21T19:08:01Z

Links: External Links to Links, replaced: ==External links== → ==Links==

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:08, 21 June 2011
Line 72:		Line 72:
	He finishes with a threat, saying that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON," and that he will not allow it to go unpunished. He intends "to preserve the Union by all constitutional means," including the use of force, if required, but hopes that it is not.		He finishes with a threat, saying that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON," and that he will not allow it to go unpunished. He intends "to preserve the Union by all constitutional means," including the use of force, if required, but hopes that it is not.

	==~~External links~~==		==Links==
	*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_43 Proclamation Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina]		*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_43 Proclamation Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina]
	*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Exposition_of_the_Virginia_Resolutions_of_1798 An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] by [[Abel P. Upshur]]		*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Exposition_of_the_Virginia_Resolutions_of_1798 An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] by [[Abel P. Upshur]]

RayBirks: /* External links */ add cat Argumentation, though article tells only one side--so far

2010-12-05T17:01:13Z

External links: add cat Argumentation, though article tells only one side--so far

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 5 December 2010
Line 77:		Line 77:

	[[Category:History of the United States]]		[[Category:History of the United States]]
			[[Category:Argumentation]]

RayBirks: /* Secession */ wikify word secession

2010-12-05T16:58:48Z

Secession: wikify word secession

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 5 December 2010
Line 45:		Line 45:

	===Secession===		===Secession===
	Livingston then turns to the ordinance's threat of secession if the laws should be executed by the federal government. He rejects the [[compact theory]] of the federal government, arguing instead that the people, though they acted in state conventions to ratify the Constitution, are collectively represented. The president, vice-president, and house of representatives, he argues, are all representatives of the people, not the states, and that this means that any attempt to secede would not be a simple act of disunion of a member of a league, but an offensive action causing the destruction of a nation:		Livingston then turns to the ordinance's threat of [[Secession\|secession]] if the laws should be executed by the federal government. He rejects the [[compact theory]] of the federal government, arguing instead that the people, though they acted in state conventions to ratify the Constitution, are collectively represented. The president, vice-president, and house of representatives, he argues, are all representatives of the people, not the states, and that this means that any attempt to secede would not be a simple act of disunion of a member of a league, but an offensive action causing the destruction of a nation:

	{{Quote\|To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense.}}		{{Quote\|To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation, because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offense.}}

Forgottenman: /* Secession */ agreement

2010-11-23T15:42:30Z

Secession: agreement

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:42, 23 November 2010
Line 55:		Line 55:
	*A compact forming a nation, with express power to sanction a member in the case of a breach		*A compact forming a nation, with express power to sanction a member in the case of a breach

	Livingston quickly rejects the first and instead describes the Constitution as the second and third type. First, a federal power of self-defense is implied, allowing it to punish any state that ~~commit~~ the "offense" of destroying a government by force of arms. Second, he paraphrases the [[necessary and proper clause]], and claims that this clause expressly gives Congress the power to punish obstruction of its laws.		Livingston quickly rejects the first and instead describes the Constitution as the second and third type. First, a federal power of self-defense is implied, allowing it to punish any state that commits the "offense" of destroying a government by force of arms. Second, he paraphrases the [[necessary and proper clause]], and claims that this clause expressly gives Congress the power to punish obstruction of its laws.

	He continues by challenging any state's right to secede. First he argues that the states have not retained their entire sovereignty – that they surrendered powers related to foreign affairs and "exclusive judicial and legislative powers" – and that this transfered the citizenship of individuals from state to nation and made them owe allegiance to the United States Constitution, not their states. This, he claims, is especially evident in the fact that the right to punish treason was ceded to the federal government in the Constitution.		He continues by challenging any state's right to secede. First he argues that the states have not retained their entire sovereignty – that they surrendered powers related to foreign affairs and "exclusive judicial and legislative powers" – and that this transfered the citizenship of individuals from state to nation and made them owe allegiance to the United States Constitution, not their states. This, he claims, is especially evident in the fact that the right to punish treason was ceded to the federal government in the Constitution.

Forgottenman: finish

2010-11-23T15:41:18Z

finish

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:41, 23 November 2010
Line 64:		Line 64:

	===Conclusion===		===Conclusion===
	Livingston begins his conclusion by ~~presenting~~ two alternatives:		Livingston begins his conclusion by distilling two alternatives:

	{{Quote\|These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members.}}		{{Quote\|These are the alternatives that are presented by the convention: A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of our Union by the secession of one of its members.}}

			Speaking for Jackson, Livingston quotes Article II of the Constitution, requiring that the president faithfully execute the laws, to warn South Carolina. He goes on to implore its citizens to turn away from those people advising disunion, not to profane the country fought for by their fathers, and to instead consider themselves citizens of America.

			He finishes with a threat, saying that "disunion, by armed force, is TREASON," and that he will not allow it to go unpunished. He intends "to preserve the Union by all constitutional means," including the use of force, if required, but hopes that it is not.

	==External links==		==External links==

Forgottenman: +section

2010-11-22T23:13:42Z

+section

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 {{Quote|You must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day would recur whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to be a nation.}}
 The fourth point Livingston briefly dispatches by suggesting that the supposedly unconstitutional spending should be challenged separately and not be considered unconstitutional simply because of how it was made possible.
 ==External links==

Forgottenman: +a section

2010-11-22T21:41:31Z

+a section

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 The '''Nullification Proclamation''' was a presidential proclamation written by [[Edward Livingston]] and issued by [[President of the United States|President]] [[Andrew Jackson]] on December 10, 1832.  It was made in response to [[South Carolina]]'s [[Ordinance of Nullification]], in the midst of the [[Nullification Crisis]].
-==Structure==
+==Argument==
 Livingston argues that the [[Ordinance of Nullification]] espouses a doctrine both unconstitutional and rebellious.  He sees nullification as a doctrine giving states unlimited power, allowing them to take advantage of all the benefits of the constitution but none of its responsibilities:
@@ Line 17: / Line 18: @@
 {{Quote|I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, ''incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.''}}
 ==External links==

Forgottenman: create, WIP

2010-11-22T21:05:15Z

create, WIP

New page

The '''Nullification Proclamation''' was a presidential proclamation written by [[Edward Livingston]] and issued by [[President of the United States|President]] [[Andrew Jackson]] on December 10, 1832. It was made in response to [[South Carolina]]'s [[Ordinance of Nullification]], in the midst of the [[Nullification Crisis]].

==Structure==
Livingston argues that the [[Ordinance of Nullification]] espouses a doctrine both unconstitutional and rebellious. He sees nullification as a doctrine giving states unlimited power, allowing them to take advantage of all the benefits of the constitution but none of its responsibilities:

{{quote|The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution – that they may do this consistently with the Constitution – that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution, but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws.}}

Livingston describes nullification as a doctrine under which a state's decision to nullify is final and cannot be appealed, and suggests that any undesirable law could as a result be called "unconstitutional" and disregarded by any individual state. In the specific case of taxes, given the constitution's requirement of representative taxation, one state's refusal to collect taxes automatically makes the tax unequal and thus unconstitutional everywhere. Much better, he argues, is the system of the existing federal government, under which an unconstitutional law passed by Congress can be appealed through the judiciary or constitutional conventions.

Livingston goes on to call the doctrine of nullification an innovation not contemplated by the opponents of the excise tax on whiskey, the embargo and non-intercourse laws, the carriage tax, or the [[War of 1812]]. This, he argues, was a result of the bond between the states that had been formed while they were still colonies of [[Great Britain]]. He gives the [[Declaration of Independence]] as an example of joint action by the "United Colonies of America," and refers to the [[Articles of Confederation]] as forming a nation, drawing special attention to Article XIII:

{{Quote|Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them.|[[Articles of Confederation]], Article XIII.}}

This statement, according to Livingston, made it illegal for a state to refuse to submit to a decision of Congress, but because the Articles did not define an enforcement provision, it was not obeyed. In response to this and other weaknesses, a new Constitution was crafted with several objects in mind.

The most important of these to Livingston is "''to form a more perfect Union.''" This, he argues, is sufficient argument to dispel the idea that the Constitution is dependent on "a prevailing faction in a State":

{{Quote|I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, ''incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.''}}

==External links==
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Proclamation_43 Proclamation Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina]
*[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Exposition_of_the_Virginia_Resolutions_of_1798 An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] by [[Abel P. Upshur]]

[[Category:History of the United States]]