Essay Sample on Nullifying Federal Laws

1) Under what grounds does Daniel Webster (Document #1) oppose the ability of a state to nullify federal laws, also known as the Doctrine of Nullification? What justifications does South Carolina (Document #2) employ to defend their decision to nullify federal laws? In comparing these two primary documents, whose arguments regarding the concept of nullification are most persuasive to you and why?

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Daniel Webster was an American orator, politician and a lawyer in the U.S. Supreme Court. Webster is recognized best as a passionate nationalism and as an activist of business interests. He won famous person as the champion of the constitution by disapproving nullification when South Carolina adopted it. Although Webster knew that it is possible to have an ultimate violent remedy above the state constitution and in insubordination of the constitution, which may be resorted to when an insurgency is to be justified, Webster did not admit because he believed that there are any means in which the government of a state, as a member of the Union can hamper and stop the advancement of the general government, by force of the law. Webster argued that the people of United States faithfully made the constitution, and the government is theirs, that is the people's government and answerable to them only. This means the people had authority over themselves and therefore, none is worthy of changing the law without people's recognition. The people also had made it a limited government and controlled it to the implementation of such powers as are granted and set aside to the states or the people. Therefore, none can interpret this grant of the state's people. Daniel Webster opposed the nullification also because the people had preserved their own chosen constitution, for more than forty years and had witnessed their contentment, success and popularity grow with its growth and empowered by with its power thus cannot be nullified.

2) In examining the 1851 political cartoon (Document #3), how are Southerners arguing against Northern protests of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act? To what extent does this image relate to the issues raised regarding nullification in Documents #1 and #2? How does the 1856 political cartoon (Document #4) relate to the issues arising from the Kansas-Nebraska Act? To what extent did slavery complicate the process and politics of westward expansion in the 1840s and 1850s?

South Carolina was against the federal laws and strived for its nullification of an act of Congress that forced a tariff to defend northern industry from European competition. This is because the tariff was conflicting in the South where there was no industry to shield, but where it raised price Southerners compensated for the imported products they purchased from overseas. South Carolina seceded from the union of the United States due to escalating worries that northern, non-slavery states would hinder the rights of southern states to keep slaves. They were subjected to heavy taxes and customs duties. South Carolina was also protesting against approval of service of a military or naval force against itself or any act of abolishing or closing ports.

From a personal perspective, South Carolina was a bit fighting for its right since they had a right over the ports and the United States should not have been engaged. Also, it is not rightful for a state to employ a military against the militant state hence was necessary to oppose the law. Southern, that is, the people of South Carolina argued that the United States was "one nation, inseparable," and that they were treating their slaves very well and kindly and had earned their slave's faithfulness. The Southern state argued that the Fugitive slave law was to defend their rights and was proper to carry out the constitution's necessities concerning fugitives from work. This is also clearly depicted in Daniel Webster's speech in the floor of the U.S. Webster was fighting for the rights of the citizens who had come together to make a government which some wanted to amend out of the citizens' wish and will.

3) How did the Dred Scott Decision (Document #5) support the pro-slavery arguments regarding the ability of the federal government to restrict the expansion of slavery? What position did this Supreme Court decision assign people of African descent in the United States of America? What inconsistencies does Frederick Douglass (Document #6) identify with the founding principles of the nation and the current status of people of African descent within it? In what ways does the Dred Scott Decision confirm and challenge Douglass' arguments?

The Kansas-Nebraska act was to decide for the U.S people whether or not to permit slavery within their boundaries and served to petition the Missouri negotiation of 1820 which illegalized slavery in the north latitude. This is well represented by the cartoon in document 4 which is an exaggeration of possible results of trying to force the members of the Free Soil Party to accept the conditions involving slavery and shows acts of Kansas, for example, Raid on Lawrence. Slavery led to new pressures challenging the delicate equilibrium rose again in the west and drew on fresh political party. Fight rose, and Americans were complaining suppressed wages and land stealing and went ahead over the defense of wellbeing and of slaveholders.

Dred Scott argues that as a slave Scott was not a citizen and could not prosecute in a federal court. This Dred Scott decision represented a termination of what many at that time regarded as a push to enlarge slavery. The argument that was there by then was whether the children born to slaves were citizens of United States or not and whether the slave's children can hold political positions or not. The court, in its opinion, shows that neither the imported slaves nor their children, free or not, were known to be part of the people. Dr. Dred believed had learned that Supreme Court would hand over a pro-Southern decision, slavery on ethical grounds; he assumed that the constitution support slavery thus inclined with the federal government to slave expansion. The Supreme Court assign the people of Africa as still part of the United States people even if they are still slaves or free despite the way the people of United States phrased Africans as dark pictures. Frederick Douglass had valuable instruction to give his nation about the practice and principles of its democracy precisely because he had been a slave.

4) What is the "irrepressible conflict" according to William H. Seward (Document #7) and how does he specifically define the two sides involved? How does Alexander Stephens (Document #8) define the Confederacy and why does he believe secession is justified and necessary? How does President Lincoln (Document #9) frame the Civil War and effort to restore the Union as a moral imperative?

The system in the current American political field is that the poor black man is seen as unintelligent and no matter what and is viewed as one whose purpose is to work for the state as a slave. The white man struggling with financial problems is, however, seen as one who will eventually survive the pressure and come up, they are not obliged to work as slaves at any cost. This system ties up its workers so that they are unable to avoid any of their recipes; they are sold like goods and services compromised. The free labor system allows all to possess equality in the workplace, it trains everyone for equality, and no favors are given. It calculates those whose produce can contain the economy. The opposing forces press on the poor man and cause them to lack self-worth by ensuring they are ripped of the benefits their 'rich' fellows enjoy.

President Lincoln views the civil war that has just ensued after the conception of a nation as a test to its existence and whether it is a country. He wants to stop the deaths that are occurring as a result of the violence, he emphasizes on moving the political power to the people and generating a government that will best serve the interest of the people. He rallies his people to be devoted and come together to bring peace as a sign of respect for the fallen souls and to commemorate their great sacrifice. He promotes the agenda of power by the people for the people.

5) In thinking about these primary documents and what you have learned in your course, should states have the power to nullify federal laws if they disagree with them? Why or why not? As part of your response, provide a specific case or issue (political, economic, social, or cultural) within the United States from the end of the Civil War until the present day where you could imagine a scenario in which nullification could play out and reflect upon both the positive and negative consequences of such action

Any state should not be allowed to nullify the federal laws because it could be undermining the constitution. When the state and the federal laws contradict, the state is not allowed to nullify the federal laws based on the supremacy clause in which the federal government laws apply based on the doctrine of pre-emption. The supreme clause is part of the article VI of the constitution which hold that the federal laws have jurisdictional authority in the states. The federal laws have jurisdiction over all the states in accordance to the Article Four of the constitution which holds that the Congress has power over the territories and the properties that belong to the United States. In this case, any state cannot be allowed to nullify the federal laws because this is undermining the powers of the constitution which and the unity of the United States where applicable laws and rulings should be similar and passed only by the Congress. In my opinion, the state has no authority or power to nullify federal laws. This is because the rules and laws were perfectly done by the citizens and it was after sitting down and discussing them and finally to come to one agreement to form the law. This, therefore, cannot be justifying if only some people were coming up and eliminating what millions decided. For example, nullification of tax and duty payment by the United States would have resulted in the economic crisis of South Carolina and would have resulted in negative consequences on the state.