If you want to die with dignity, go to Oregon. Need medical marijuana for chronic pain? You can move to Connecticut. Supporter of concealed carry? How's Alaska sound? Want to retire and not pay state income taxes? Then Florida's the place for you.
States can set some of their own rules, but there are plenty of federal laws that all states have to follow. Florida can't abolish federal income tax, for example, and Massachusetts can't outlaw gun ownership. Idaho can't just decide that segregated schools would be just fine with them, because the Supreme Court decided that segregation violated the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Just as in Jackson's time, because we're part of a United States, we abide by federal law.
The Constitution stated that the federal government's job was to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity […]. That leaves a whole heckuva lot open for interpretation, and states been fighting about it ever since. In fact, the framers started amending it as soon as it was written, thinking that maybe it gave the government too much authority.
When a state believes their interest is at odds with what the feds think is their territory, what's a poor state to do? They can ignore the federal law, like South Carolina did in 1832, and see what happens. They can pass laws that the feds could then appeal to the Supreme Court. And of course, they can always secede from the U.S., although that's easier said than done.
The Nullification Crisis was a prime example of a states' rights argument. South Carolina checked out the Constitution, which is the basis for federal authority, and determined that the feds didn't have the right to impose this particular tariff. Therefore, they could ignore it. It wasn't the first states' rights argument and it sure wouldn't be the last.
Even Jackson suspected that the country hadn't heard the last of it, even after South Carolina nullifiers backed down. If they couldn't break up the nation over the tariff argument, he said, they'd move on "the negro, or slavery question" as their "next pretext" (source).
He was right.
Questions About States' Rights
- Jackson was actually a big fan of states' rights. Where can you see this side of him in this document?
- Using what you know about the Constitution, would you support the states' or federal rights argument in this case?
- Since Jackson viewed nullification as an act of treason, what did he consider to be a legitimate and constitutionally legal example of a states' right to challenge the federal government?
- Was it a good idea to threaten force to put down a rebellious state? Wouldn't that just prove the state's point about federal overreach?
Chew on This
Jackson's response to South Carolina's nullification of the "Tariff of Abominations" shows that Jackson's support for states' rights wasn't very deep.
Secession is just too messy and destructive to be constitutional.