ella3714

21.05.2021 • 

History

To highlight this connection, please read the following article from The Atlantic. The article, entitled "Nullification. Now Coming to the Supreme Court", describes Mike Huckabee's (former Republican presidential hopeful and Arkansas
Governor) call for a modern revival of nullification. Unlike the 1830 dispute on trade policy, the concern now is same-sex
marriage. As you read the article, take particular note of how the author, David Graham, frames the current nullification
resurgence. He writes:
When the Tea Party wave arrived in 2010, it swept away much of the Republican Party's existing structure, and instituted a
more populist approach. But as waves tend to do, it left some even older debris in its wake. "Nullification" the theory that
states can invalidate federal laws that they deem unconstitutional, had its heyday in the slavery debate that preceded the
Civil War, but it has found new currency since 2010.
The theory has never been validated by a federal court yet some Republican officeholders have suggested states can
nullify laws, including Senator Joni Ernst who gave the GOP rebuttal to the State of the Union. Missouri legislators passed
a bill that would have nullified all federal gun laws and prohibited their enforcement. My colleague James Fallows has
described efforts by Republicans in Congress to block duly passed laws-refusing to confirm any director of an agency
established by an act of Congress, for example—as a new form of nullification.2
Lest you think that this approach is relegated to only the fringes or American politics, you should take note that the
10th Amendment Center has been active on this front for some time and even has a particular page dedicated to
arguing that "Nullification is not unconstitutional".
Of course you should look at this topic from the other side. To that end, visit the National Constitution Center website.
Specifically you should read Lyle Denniston's blog entitled "Constitution Check: Are state courts bound by federal court
rulings on same-sex marriage?"
So where do you stand?
• Do you think nullification is a viable approach to strengthening states' rights?
• For your blog submission, you should pick a topic where you see states and the federal government at
disagreement and dissect how/why the state could/could not invoke nullification to get its way. (You can't use the
topic of same-sex marriages.)

Ответ:

oseniiyabode123

26.02.2023

History

---

Abstract

An exclusive focus on Federalist 10 has encouraged the standard view that James Madison believed interest groups are inherently factious. His political career, which included considerable involvement with interest groups, indicates that he believed interest groups could have a beneficial effect on policy when they were nonfactious-when they supported policies that would promote the general good. Yet because he believed that factious groups-groups promoting selfish interests-would remain strong, he proposed protecting the republic through the structural remedy of pitting faction against faction in a large polity rather than relying on the strength of nonfactious groups.

---

0,0(0 оценок)