Rhode Island’s Nullification

Rhode Island’s Nullification

Thomas Allen

Recently, Rhode Island enacted a law prohibiting US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from operating near polling places in Rhode Island. Naturally, many people strongly object to this Rhode Island law. Some even urge the arrest of the legislators who voted for the law, the governor who signed the bill into law, and any State and local official who attempts to enforce it.

Unfortunately, Rhode Island enacted this law not because it thought ICE was acting unconstitutionally in enforcing the immigration laws. Likely, it enacted the law as a protest against President Trump. Nevertheless, regardless of its motivation, does Rhode Island have the right to nullify a federal law and its enforcement?  Under the Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave the country, the answer is “yes.” (Nowhere does the Constitution deny this right to the States, and therefore the Tenth Amendment reserves it for the States. Also, Article IV, Section 4 guarantees this right.) However, under the Constitution that Lincoln gave the country, the current Constitution, the answer is “no.” (States  have only those rights that the federal government condescends to allow them.)

Whether a State can nullify a federal law within that State depends on whether a State is sovereign. If a State is sovereign, it has the right to decide for itself whether its agent (the federal government) is complying with the compact (the US Constitution) of which it is a member. Consequently, Rhode Island has the right to determine the constitutional limits of the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If a State finds that the federal government is acting unconstitutionally, it not only has the right, but also the duty, to nullify or otherwise intervene to prevent such unconstitutional acts or actions. At least this is true if sovereignty resides in “we the people” of each State independently of all other States, as Jefferson and nearly all the other founding fathers claimed. However, if, like Lincoln, the opponents of Rhode Island’s interposition believe that a State does not have this right, then the States are not sovereign, and sovereignty resides in the oligarchs who control the federal government. Like Lincoln, they seem to believe that States have only those rights that the federal government condescends to grant them. (The Lincoln Constitution reduces the States to administrative districts of the federal government. [Lincoln’s War was not a war between the States; it was a war  against the States.])

(Vermont nullified a federal law that was clearly constitutional merely because it disliked the law. Not only did it nullify the law, but it also authorized the arrest and jailing of any federal agent trying to enforce it. [See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.] However, Vermont was acting under the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and not the Constitution of Lincoln [For the differences between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.])

Opponents of nullification argue that federal courts should resolve the issues between a State and the federal government. However, this is an extremely poor solution. Being part of the federal government, federal courts are not impartial arbitrators between the States (the creator) and the federal government (the creation of the States). (See “Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution” by Thomas Allen.)

If a State lacks the right to nullify a federal law, it is not sovereign. If it is not sovereign, it does not have a republican form of government, although it may have a governmental structure that appears to be republican. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican form of government.

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees that each State has a republican form of government. Thus, if a State lacks sovereignty, the Constitution is being violated. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” and “Republican Form of Government” by Thomas Allen.)

Would the people who oppose Rhode Island enacting a law that interferes with the enforcement of the federal immigration law also oppose a State interfering with the enforcement of a federal law that they despise and urge the arrest of State officials for enacting and enforcing such a law? They would if they are consistent and believe, as Lincoln did, that the United States is a consolidated national empire instead of a federation of sovereign nations, as nearly all, if not all, of the Founding Fathers thought. (See “False States’ Rights” by Thomas Allen.)

Personally, I disagree with Rhode Island on this immigration issue and believe that federal agents have the right to apprehend illegal immigrants at polling places. However, that is an issue for “we the people” of Rhode Island, as represented by their legislature in this instance, to decide, and not for me, the federal government, or anyone else to decide.

(For more about States' rights, nullification, and the Constitution, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/political.html.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Analysis of When State Resistance Meets the Constitution

Thomas Allen

In “When State Resistance Meets the Constitution,” January 30, 2026, Benjamin Osborn (https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/when-state-resistance-meets-the-constitution/) discusses the protest against federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota. Correctly, he argues that the protestors are acting unlawfully when they attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws. Additionally, neither the governor nor city officials have any legal authority to actively interfere with federal enforcement. All that they can do legally is to refuse to aid in that enforcement. However, his argument rests on Lincoln’s unhistorical concept of the Union, and a nationalist, rather than a federalist, perspective of the Union, where the federal government is all-powerful, and the States are impotent. This analysis discusses Osborn’s disdain for States’ rights and federalism and his admiration of federal tyranny.

Osborn rejects the notion that a State has the right, duty, and authority to nullify any federal act that it, i.e., “we the people” through their legislature or special convention, finds unconstitutional. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States" by Thomas Allen.) If a State nullifies a federal act that it finds unconstitutional, that act is void in that State, i.e., does not exist in that State. Nullification is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. (See “Nullification and Interposition” by Thomas Allen.) Moreover, the way that the country was founded and the Constitution was ratified not only implies that nullification is lawful, but it also makes it a fundamental principle. Therefore, if any federal agent attempts to enforce a nullified act, he is violating the Constitution and his oath of office.

Before 1861, States could do what Vermont did to the federal fugitive slave law. Not only did Vermont nullify it, but its nullification also authorized the use of force to prevent the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. (See “Nullification and Fugitive Slave Laws” by Thomas Allen.) If he were consistent, Osborne would oppose what Vermont did. 

Unfortunately, Lincoln’s War ended that option. Now, we have what is occurring in Minnesota. (See “Blue Cities’ Response to Deporting Illegal Immigrants” by Thomas Allen.)

Osborn claims, “The Founders designed a system in which states retain meaningful sovereignty, but that does not include veto over federal execution.” For a State to have meaningful sovereignty, it must be sovereign. As a sovereign, it is and has to be the final judge of compliance with any contract that it voluntarily enters into, such as the US Constitution. Thus, it is the final judge of the constitutionality of all acts of the federal government. In other words, before a State can be sovereign, it has to have the right, duty, and power to nullify any federal act that it finds unconstitutional and the right and power to enforce the nullification, including jailing any federal agent trying to enforce the nullified law, as Vermont did when it nullified the fugitive slave law (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States" and by Thomas Allen).

Osborn cites the Supremacy Clause and argues that any law enacted by Congress and not vetoed by the US Supreme Court is constitutional. He is mistaken. The Supremacy Clause applies only to laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. Only those laws are constitutional; all other federal laws are unconstitutional. Should the creators, the States, or the creature, the federal government, decide if a law is made pursuant to the Constitution? Osborne claims that the creature decides. (He is a true Lincolnian.)

Originally, the purpose of the Supremacy Clause was to ensure that unconstitutional laws were not supreme or binding. Only federal laws implementing the specifically delegated powers of Congress were constitutional; all other laws enacted by Congress were unconstitutional.

Now, the federal government uses the Supremacy Clause to ensure that federal laws and treaties have precedence over State laws and State constitutions except in the few instances where the federal courts have declared the federal law unconstitutional. No longer do federal laws have to be made pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., be constitutional, to have precedence over State laws. (See “Four Poisonous Clauses” by Thomas Allen.) Osborn supports this usurpation of the federal government.

If a State disagrees with a federal act, it “may litigate, protest, and seek political change.” Osborne’s solution of litigation means that he supports letting the federal government decide the limits of its power; that is what litigation means, as it will occur in federal courts.

(To use an analogy, if Osborn [a State] and I [the federal government] have a dispute, he should not object to my wife [the federal courts] deciding the dispute. One branch of my marriage would be as impartial in deciding a dispute involving another branch of my marriage as one part of the federal government is impartial in deciding a dispute with another part.)

Osborn cites James Madison’s explanation of interposition. He is correct: Governors lack the authority to nullify. However, proponents of nullification claim that “we the people” of each State, through their State legislatures, do have the authority to nullify federal laws that they find unconstitutional. (Being a nationalist at heart and desiring a strong federal government, Madison, unlike Jefferson, is not the best supporter of States’ rights and nullification. His approach to nullification lacks teeth and results in failure, as the Southern States proved in the 1950s and 1960s. [See “A Nullification That Failed” by Thomas Allen.])

Osborn writes, “The American system channels disagreement into courts, elections, and legislation.” Of course, he means federal courts and federal legislation. State courts and legislatures have only those powers that the federal government allows them. They certainly have no power or authority to interfere with the federal government, no matter how tyrannical, despotic, and unconstitutional it becomes.

Osborne is a strong proponent of making the States, which created the federal government, slaves of their creator. He implies that States have only those rights and privileges that the federal government concedes to give them. He is a strong proponent of federal supremacy and States’ subservience, which is tyranny and contrary to the very foundation of the Constitution — at least the Constitution of 1788, although not of the Lincoln Constitution, which is our current constitution. (For the difference between the two, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?”) Based on this article, Osborn prefers America after Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment to America before them. (See “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

A primary reason that the country is in the turmoil that it is today is that no State has nullified any of the multitude (probably more than 85 percent) of the unconstitutional federal acts. Today, political power is centralized and concentrated in the federal government. States’ rightists’ political solution to America’s crisis is the decentralization and dispersal of political power, of which nullification is an important part.  (The major cause of America’s problems is moral decay.)

Personally, I believe the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce naturalization and immigration laws by arresting people who are in the country illegally and deporting them, although some of the tactics being used may not be legal or constitutional. However, the constitutionality is something that "we the people" of each State need to decide for themselves.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

False States’ Rights

False States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

During the Clinton and Obama administrations, left-wingers wanted State officials to enforce federal anti-gun laws — even using force if necessary to coerce the States to enforce federal laws when bribery (federal grants) and extortion (withholding federal grants) failed. On the other hand, right-wingers strongly objected to States enforcing federal gun-control laws and claimed that States were not obliged to enforce federal laws. The Supreme Court agreed with the right-wingers.

Now, the left-wingers and right-wingers have switched positions. Under the Trump administration, right-wingers want State and, by extension, local officials to enforce federal immigration laws or at least be required to aid federal officials in enforcing federal immigration laws. They approve of the federal government using bribery or extortion to reward or punish States for enforcing and aiding in the enforcement of federal laws. Left-wingers object and assert that State and local officials do not have to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Although both sides give lip service to States’ rights, neither believes in nor supports States’ rights. Both reject the notion that the United States is a federation of independent sovereign republican States. Both support the notion that the United States is a consolidated national empire with the States serving as administrative districts.

If they believed in and supported States’ rights, they would support States refusing to enforce federal laws, regardless of the law. Moreover, they would object to coercing States to enforce federal laws, even with bribery or extortion. (Extortion, i.e., withholding federal grants if a State fails to enforce a federal law, is a favorite weapon to compel a State to enforce a federal law.) 

Moreover, if they believed in States’ rights, they would support the right of “we the people” of each State to declare through their legislature or special convention, whether a federal law is constitutional. If a State (“we the people”) finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it could and should nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State and even jail federal agents who tried to enforce the nullified law. (Governors and city and county officials do not have the right to nullify federal laws; however, they may refuse to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws unless a State law requires them to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal laws.)

People who oppose a State’s right to nullify a federal law that they support oppose States having a republican form of government as guaranteed under the Constitution.[1] (see “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, they oppose sovereignty residing in “we the people” of each State. Consequently, they support sovereignty residing in the oligarchs who control the federal government.

Endnote

1.  As explained in “Returning Republican Governments to the States,” for a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Confusion About the Constitution

Confusion About the Constitution

Thomas Allen

Many people believe that we live under the Constitution ratified in 1788. We do not. We are living under the Constitution that Lincoln gave us, further developed by Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, and carried to fruition by the Warren Court. Although the words may be the same, their meaning has significantly changed. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally altered the country and its government. (For a description of some of these fundamental changes, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” and “Before and After” by Thomas Allen.)

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent sovereign republics. Also, before the Fourteenth Amendment, the United States were a monoracial country (see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen). After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government, and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated multiracial national empire. (Stripping the States of their republican form of government violates the Constitution of 1788, but not Lincoln’s Constitution. For a State to have a republican form of government, it has to have the right to decide for itself whether a federal law is constitutional or unconstitutional. If it finds that a federal law is unconstitutional, it has not only the right but also the duty to nullify that law and make it unenforceable in that State. This right is denied them under Lincoln’s Constitution. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Furthermore, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment transferred the sovereignty of “we the people” of each State to the oligarchs who controlled the federal government.

Moreover, under the Constitution of 1788, Congress was the strongest of the three branches of the federal government, and the judiciary was the weakest. Under today’s Lincoln’s Constitution, the country has a kritarchy with an imperial president and an impotent Congress.

Additionally, under the Constitution of 1788, the federal government was strictly limited to a few delegated powers. All other powers remained with the States. Under today’s Constitution, the federal government has almost unlimited powers, while the powers of the States are only those allowed by the federal government.

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Before and After

Before and After

Thomas Allen

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment made fundamental changes to the United States and the Constitution of 1788. Although they did not alter the words of the Constitution that existed in 1860, the Constitution that was ratified in 1788, they changed their meanings. Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment destroyed the fundamental principles on which the Constitution was based. Furthermore, it was illegally and unlawfully ratified (see “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen).

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment slew the Tenth Amendment. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court will occasionally resurrect it to give “we the people” of the States the illusion that they still have rights.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States were independent, sovereign republics.[1] After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the States lost their independence, sovereignty, and republican form of government and became little more than administrative districts in a consolidated national empire. (For the difference between Lincoln’s Constitution and the Constitution of 1788, see “What Is Your View of the US Constitution?” by Thomas Allen.)

Before 1860, most people who preferred a national empire to a federation of republics considered the United States as a federation of States and the federal government as having limited powers.

Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment demolished the Jeffersonian tradition of States’ rights by which the people of the States were the masters rather than the servants of the federal government. Afterwards, the federal government became the master of all, and the people, other than the oligarchs, were reduced to servants, even slaves, of the ruling elite.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, most people viewed the Constitution as restraining the federal government and not the people. Even people who wanted little or no restraint saw the Constitution limiting their lust for power, which is why they had Lincoln and the Republicans change it. Afterwards, it no longer restrained the federal government; they gave it almost unlimited powers. 

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, people became citizens of the United States by being citizens of a State. Afterwards, people were citizens of a State by being citizens of the United States. (Moreover, the United States ceased to be referred to in the plural [are] and became referred to in the singular [is].) Thus, citizenship was changed. Additionally, before, only Whites were citizens. Although a State could grant Indians and Blacks certain privileges of citizenship, they were not and could not be citizens. They were aliens.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, sovereignty resided in “we the people” of each State. Afterwards, sovereignty resided in the oligarchs who controlled the federal government. Thus, the location of sovereignty was changed.

Before Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, the country was monoracial. The founding fathers said so (for proof, see “The Constitution of 1788 Was Only for White People” by Thomas Allen; also see “For Whom Is the Constitution Written?” and “Addendum to ‘For Whom Is the Constitution Written?’” by Thomas Allen). Afterwards, it was multiracial.

As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment, the descendants of the people who built this country, i.e., Whites, Aryans, are being genocided. In 1950, 89 percent of the population was White; by 2020, only 61 percent were White.

Between Monroe and Lincoln, many of the presidents and other political leaders favored a consociated national empire and, with one exception, would not have objected to what Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment did to the country. That exception was the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country. After Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment, all presidents, except for Cleveland, supported a consolidated national empire, where the States were no longer independent republics but were districts of the empire. Moreover, before World War II, nearly all would have objected to the Fourteenth Amendment turning the United States into a multiracial country.

Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Thus, if right to vote for judicial officers of a State is denied to any eligible voter (male citizens 21 years old and older at that time), the number of Representatives in the House of Representatives shall be reduced in the proportion to the number of male citizens denied the vote to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. Only in 21 States do the voters elect all judges. In the other States, the Supreme Court and most appellate court judges are appointed or selected by the legislature. Therefore, only the 21 States where all judges are elected should have representation in the House of Representatives.

Endnote

1. Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment voided the first part of Article IV, Section 2, which guarantees States a republican form of government. Only a sovereign can have a republican form of government; only a sovereign can be a republic. Therefore, a State must be sovereign to have a republican government. As a sovereign, a State, i.e., “we the people” of that State, has the right to decide if an act of the federal government is Constitutional. If a State finds that an act of the federal government is unconstitutional, it may nullify that act and prevent its enforcement in that State. Moreover, it may withdraw from the compact, i.e., secede. However, Lincoln’s War and the Fourteenth Amendment stripped the States of their sovereignty, and, consequently, they denied the States the right to have a republican form of government. (See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2026 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Three Facts About the South

Three Facts About the South

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are the States’ right of secession, music, and the South was right.

States’ Right of Secession

Nowhere does the Constitution deny a State the right to secede. Secession is not expressly stated in the Constitution because the States reserved that right in the Tenth Amendment. 

Each of the original 13 States had seceded twice when they ratified the Constitution of 1787. First, they had seceded from Great Britain, and then they seceded from the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. That the States would deny themselves the right to secede from the Union formed by the Constitution of 1787 is absurd — especially since the Constitution did not expressly deny them this right. Even New York and Virginia declared in their ratification that they retained the right to secede. Further, the New England States claimed that they had the right to secede. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence asserted that the States (the colonies) had the right to secede. Thus, the Southern States had the right to secede in 1861.

Besides, when the States drafted the Constitution of 1787 and joined the federation created by that Constitution, they retained their sovereignty. (Because the States were republics and the Constitution guaranteed each State a republican form of government, the States could not surrender their sovereignty and still remain republics. [See “Returning Republican Governments to the States” by Thomas Allen.]) Sovereigns have the power to secede from any union or federation to which they have acceded.

When the Southern States seceded, they were merely exercising their right as sovereigns to leave the Union peacefully as the States did from the Union created by the Articles of Confederation. The Tenth Amendment guaranteed the right of secession.

For a more detailed discussion of a State’s right to secede, see Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States: Its Causes, Character, Conduct, and Results, volume 1, by Alexander H. Stephens, 1868.

Music

How long will it be before American music is outlawed? Why should American music be outlawed? Because, with rare exception, all neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians are Dixiephobes. They loathe the South and Southerners. Therefore, they disdain everything Southern.

What does this have to do with music? All significant genres or styles of American music of any significance originated in the South. Thus, American music is the product of slavocracy, Jim Crow, White supremacy, and their descendants. Rock ‘n roll, jazz (including ragtime, boogie-woogie, Dixieland, and swing), blues, country, bluegrass, rhythm and blues, soul, funk, Tejano, Cajun, zydeco, gospel, spiritual, sacred harp, barbershop, and more are Southern. All of them came out of the South.

Because of their hatred of the South, neoconservatives, establishment conservatives, liberals, progressives, and libertarians seek to destroy everything that is Southern. Consequently, American music, which is really Southern music, must be destroyed. They have to destroy Southern music before it completely contaminates the virtues of Yankeedom.

(Reference: Daniel, Tom. “Academy of Southern Music.” Abbeville Institute: The Abbeville Blog, June 1, 2021. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/bthe log/academy-of-southern-music/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d073b88d-f677-448c-9c41-191b5e0c631f accessed June 2, 2021.)

The South Was Right

In “The Power of the Powerless” (November 4, 2020), James Rutledge Roesch provides an excellent description of the Puritan Yankee mentality that wars against the South, which proves that the South was right (https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/the-power-of-the-powerless/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c24f9d1b-a791-4b69-be6a-ca8b5d96ed4b):

In the meantime, however, we can take some bittersweet solace in the fact that despite the sadistic iconoclasm against the symbols of the American South, the polarisation/radicalisation of American politics, the dysfunction of the American system of government, the corruption of the American party system, the degeneracy of American culture, and the disintegration of American society represents the ultimate vindication of the Southern critique of American millenarianism (i.e. “The City Upon A Hill” and “The Last, Best Hope for Mankind”), American gnosticism (i.e. “The More Perfect Union” and “The Indissoluble Union”), American teleocracy (i.e. “The Proposition Nation” and “The Redeemer Nation”), American hubris (i.e. “The Exceptional Nation” and “The Indispensable Nation”), and other Hebraic-Puritan “isms” and “ologies” from the Left and the Right to which our compatriots up north have proven so susceptible throughout our country’s very young life.

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More Southern articles.

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Calhoun and States’ Rights

Thomas Allen

In Chaining Down Leviathan: The American Dream of Self-Government 1776-1865 (McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021), Luigi Marco Bassani discusses John C. Calhoun’s concept of States’ rights. The following summarizes that discussion.

Calhoun used “State” to designate the people of a State and not its government, which the people (body politic of that State) created. Each State was a self-governing political community, and the people of each State were the sovereign authority — not their government. Concurrent majority and the concept that the Constitution was an agreement between the States were the core features of Calhoun’s political thoughts. Thus, he objected to the notion that a simple numerical majority should decide all political issues.

According to Calhoun, sovereignty belonged either to the States or to the Union. Because sovereignty was indivisible, it could not belong to both. He argued that sovereignty resided in the people of the individual States and not in the people of the Union as a whole.

Calhoun asserted that the Supremacy Clause invested no power in the federal government. It clearly did not establish the supremacy of the federal government. Further, he maintained that the authority of the federal government set up by the Constitution was limited to the delegated powers and that laws enacted pursuant to these delegated powers were supreme. However, the Supremacy Clause did not extend beyond these delegated powers, i.e., the supremacy of the federal government is not absolute. The States and the people of the States retained all authority not expressly delegated to the federal government.

Conflict, according to Calhoun, did not originate in society. Governmental action caused conflict by creating two opposite social classes: taxpayers and tax consumers. Moreover, suffrage led to conflict between the different interests in a community because each interest strove to obtain the power to protect itself from the others and to advance its own agenda. However, conflicting interests did not lead to a government. Politics was what caused the conflict between various interests.

Calhoun thought equalizing the fiscal appropriations of a government was impossible. Taxation and public expenditures caused two conflicting interests. While those who controlled the government benefitted from the taxes, those who did not control the government paid more in taxes than they received back in disbursements. Consequently, political power, government, is the cause of conflict in society.

For many years, Calhoun sought in the Constitution the defense against the federal government’s intrusions. He based his arguments on the individual States being contracting parties to and, therefore, the real principals of the Constitution.

The Constitution centered around the States. This centralness appeared in how Representatives and Senators were chosen. The people of the several States chose members of the House of Representatives. The legislatures of the States elected senators. (Now, the people of each State elect that State’s Senators via the seventeenth amendment.) Representatives and Senators must be inhabitants of the State from which they are elected. Moreover, Representatives were never considered a delegate of a part of the American people.

Calhoun noted that States were the source of the federal government’s political powers. Political power flowed from the States to the federal government and never vice-versa. The Constitution gave certain powers to the federal government and prohibited others. However, it never gave any powers to the States; it only prohibited certain powers. All powers that the States did not expressly delegate to the federal government, they reserved for themselves, i.e., the States retained all powers not expressly delegated. Thus, the Constitution established a federal government with highly limited powers.

For Calhoun, the States were the sole actors in the Union. Unlike Jefferson, who favored a federal-type relationship between centers of government within a State, Calhoun did not. He favored a simple administrative relationship between the State government and local authorities. However, he believed that the United States were an authentic federation.

Calhoun objected to governmental interference in the economic pursuits of individuals, who understood their own interests better than any government. Accordingly, he supported free trade and, therefore, low tariffs. Fervently, he objected to protective tariffs and the South paying disproportionately a much larger share of federal revenue than the North paid. Consequently, the North was exploiting southern producers and consumers for the benefit of the northern manufacturing industry. This redistribution of wealth was not limited to the South. It also was used against northern workers and would result in a class struggle — all courtesy of the federal government.

Furthermore, Calhoun recognized that the centralization and concentration of power in the federal government were being used for northern interest and were causing corruption that threatened the freedom of the country. Interposition by the States was the solution to this centralization of power. However, States could not interpose their authority to interfere with the powers that the Constitution expressly delegated to the federal government. Likewise, the federal government could not interfere with the powers that the States had retained for themselves.

Moreover, the Constitution was based on distinguishing between government and sovereignty. Governmental powers resided in the institutions either of the States or the federal government. Sovereignty resided in the people of each State respectively. Three-fourths of the States were the final constitutional authority.

Because the Constitution created the departments of the federal government, sovereignty did not and could not reside in any department of the federal government. Their sole purpose was to execute the provisions of the Constitution. Any act of the federal government that altered the nature of the Constitution or changed any condition of the parties to it was usurpation.

Calhoun believed that the Supreme Court might judge acts of a State whether they violated the constitutional prerogatives of the federal government. However, the Supreme Court should not and could not legitimately judge an act of the federal government whether it violated the constitutional prerogatives of a State. For the Supreme Court to do so placed it above the States that created the Constitution and vested in it the power to alter the powers of the federal government and the States. 

Calhoun recognized that the text of the Constitution could not impose practical restraints on the federal government. Reason and justice could never restrain power: Only power could restrain power. Only the States possessed sufficient power to restrain the federal government. Therefore, each State should have and did have the right to judge for itself if the federal government had violated any of its rights.

Calhoun maintained that the Constitution implicitly allowed secession because it was a contract between sovereign parties. The ratification process proved this conclusion. As distinct political entities independent from each other, the States ratified the Constitution. Moreover, no State was part of the Union under the Constitution until it ratified the Constitution. Furthermore, the Union was a union of sovereign States without a direct link between the federal government and citizens.

Secession had nothing to do with the federal government. It was an act of a State withdrawing from a partnership with the other States. Although secession was extreme, it was not foreign to the constitutional system. However, according to Calhoun, secession did not derive from the contractual nature of the Constitution; it derived from its political nature.

Calhoun rejected the notion of the will of the majority being the will of the people. For him, the “will of the majority” meant a particular interest or coalition of interests that prevailed over others. Like most people of his era, he believed that a government based on a numerical majority was tyrannical by nature. To overcome the tyranny of an absolute numerical majority, he advocated a concurrent majority on all important issues.

For Calhoun, the term “United States” was geographical and not political. However, he conceived of the United States as more than a league of States. Yet, the States should never become a centralized democracy where an absolute majority ruled. Such a rule would result in abandoning constitutional guarantees. Consequently, States should and did have the right to judge as the last resort the limits that the Constitution placed on the federal government. This right should be defended at all costs. Otherwise, the United States would become a dictatorship of the executive branch.

Both Jefferson and Calhoun considered a State to be the people of the State and not the governmental power. However, Jefferson believed that the United States were for a special purpose only while Calhoun believed them to be an assemblage of nations.

For Calhoun, nullification was peaceful in nature and did not damage the prerogatives of the federal government. When a conflict between a State and the other States could not be resolved, the State had to choose either secession or submission. As a political sovereign and partner with the other States in establishing the Union, each State acting individually and independently had the right to secede peacefully.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

The State

The State

Thomas Allen

The state is an abstraction. So, when we speak of the state doing something, we are really speaking of the elite, either as an individual or a group, who controls and acts in the name of the state. Likewise, when we speak of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the state, we are really speaking of the rights, privileges, and immunities of this controlling elite who acts in the name of the state.

Who is this elite that controls the state? Originally, it was a monarch. Now, it is the oligarchs. The oligarchs consist primarily of plutocrats and high-ranking politicians, bureaucrats, and judges. Accordingly, it is more correct to use the terms “oligarch” or “oligarchy” instead of “state.”

Instead of developing spontaneously, the state is a manmade invention — a manmade institution and political entity. It is not a discovery, nor has God preordained it. (In many respects, the state is idolatry because many people worship it and look at it as their savior.)

The state originated in Europe during the seventeenth century following the breakup of the medieval political order. Before the seventeenth century, the state as such did not exist.

Max Weber defines the state as “a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e., considered to be legitimate) violence . . . [it] is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Yoram Barzel defines the state as consisting of “(1) a set of individuals who are subject to a single ultimate third party who uses violence for enforcement and (2) a territory where these individuals reside, demarcated by the reach of the enforcer power.”

An essential attribute of a state is that it possesses a monopoly on the use of force, either legitimately or illegitimately, to impose its will.  Consequently, it must disarm the people. This assertion of a monopoly of the means of violence gives the government’s claim to provide protection more credibility and makes resistance more difficult.

To exercise its violence, the state establishes a monopolistic organization of violence over its territory and centralizes the control of violence. As a result, it increasingly monopolies public life and absorbs all other centers of power. Specifically, it concentrates power. Such concentration of power is necessary for a state to survive.

Moreover, the state represents both a domestic and international political order. It is a sovereign power.

Another essential attribute of a state is that it is territorial. It is the sovereign of a particular geographical area.  That is, it is a legal entity that occupies a definite space. Its authority is contained within this space. However, to achieve this goal, the state has to deny citizens (or more correctly subjects) all other loyalties. Consequently, the state seeks to destroy all intermediate bodies between it and individuals except associations that it approves.

Before the rise of the state, customs regulated conduct and not the law. Tax collection was difficult and sporadic. Men were not drafted for war or labor. With the arrival of the State, law replaced custom (although the law often codified customs), taxes became more collectible, and men were drafted for war. This ability of a state to demand and easily obtain “blood and money” from its subjects distinguishes it from all other political arrangements.

A great advantage of the state to the oligarchs is privileges, immunities, and other benefits that they and their associates receive that are denied to others.

With the insatiable lust for power, the state is the enemy of freedom. Freedom can only be achieved by restricting and containing the state. Historically, federalism has been highly effective in this endeavor as long as the federation lasted.

Sovereignty is another essential attribute of the state. In Europe, according to Bassani, sovereignty “is eminently juridical and implies the idea of an unlimited and illimitable concentration of power at a given center.” (Bassani, pp. 49-50) Consequently, “sovereignty requires potentially unlimited concentration of power in a territory.” (Bassani, p. 50) Thus, the European concept of sovereignty is statism, absolute political power residing in the state.

For Americans before Lincoln’s War, sovereignty meant the supreme legislative authority or the primary power to make laws. It did not imply or require the concentration and centralization of power, which federalism dispersed. For most Americans before Lincoln’s War, sovereignty resided in the States, i.e., sovereignty resided in the people of each State independent of all other States. Therefore, the American concept of sovereignty has an antistatism function.

Sovereignty is indivisible and illimitable. However, a sovereign power can delegate rights. Nevertheless, these delegated rights do not make the body receiving them sovereign because the sovereign that grants them remains the superior will. In Europe, the sovereign is the state, i.e., the oligarchs. In America before Lincoln’s War, it was the people of each individual state separately. After Lincoln’s War, the oligarchs usurped the powers of the people of the States and concentrated them in the federal government and, by that, made those who controlled the federal government, the oligarchs, sovereign.

Reference

Bassani, Luigi Marco. Chaining Down Leviathan: The Ameican Dream of Self-Government 1776–1865. McClellanville, South Carolina: Abbeville Institute Press, 2021.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.