States could nullify laws of Congress
The Supreme Court can nullify an Act of Congress. They would have to say that it specifically contridicted the Constitution. The President could affect a law by refusing to enforce it.
They disagreed on practically everything but their esteem for George Washington. Specifically, however, their greatest and most significant difference on a power of Congress was whether Congress could establish a national bank (the "First Bank of the United States"). Hamilton argued that because Article I, section 9 of the Constitution did not specifically prohibit Congress from creating a national bank, then Congress was empowered to do so under Article I, section 8, clause 18 (the "implied powers clause," "necessary and proper clause," or "elastic clause"). Jefferson, who took a more limited view of Federal power, argued that because Article I, section 8 did not specify Congress could create a national bank, then it could not. Jefferson believed that only specified powers (such as power to tax, to maintain an army, to punish counterfeiters, etc.) could be exercised by Congress.
Congress could not tax and it could not control or interfere with trade between the individual states.
Because southern states no longer owed money for the war...
States could nullify laws of Congress
States could nullify federal laws. That states could and should decide when Congress was passing unconstitutional laws PLATOO against a loose interpretation of the constitution
In the debate, Webster argued that states did not have the power to nullify a federal law. He also argued that states could not secede from the Union. Daniel Webster held several offices throughout his career, including Senator from Massachusetts.
The Supreme Court can nullify an Act of Congress. They would have to say that it specifically contridicted the Constitution. The President could affect a law by refusing to enforce it.
Nullification was the idea that the states could declare acts of congress to be unconstitutional. In particular South Carolina objected to the federal tariff while Jackson was president and decided to nullify it and so not collect it or pay it.
Daniel Webster
b. state government could nullify any federal law.
This doctrine taught that any state could nullify a law of the United States that was contrary to the Constitution as they understood it.
They disagreed on practically everything but their esteem for George Washington. Specifically, however, their greatest and most significant difference on a power of Congress was whether Congress could establish a national bank (the "First Bank of the United States"). Hamilton argued that because Article I, section 9 of the Constitution did not specifically prohibit Congress from creating a national bank, then Congress was empowered to do so under Article I, section 8, clause 18 (the "implied powers clause," "necessary and proper clause," or "elastic clause"). Jefferson, who took a more limited view of Federal power, argued that because Article I, section 8 did not specify Congress could create a national bank, then it could not. Jefferson believed that only specified powers (such as power to tax, to maintain an army, to punish counterfeiters, etc.) could be exercised by Congress.
According to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the States had power to whatever the Federal Government did not have, as written in the Constitution.Examples: Schools, License plates, Birth Certificates, Death Certificates, ect...
Congress could not tax and it could not control or interfere with trade between the individual states.
Congress could not tax and it could not control or interfere with trade between the individual states.