The belief in nullification was based on the theory that the union of the states was a voluntary one, each member retaining its sovereignty, though for purposes of convenience delegating certain powers of government to an agent - the federal government.
The earliest assertions of the doctrine of nullification are found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-1799, written respectively by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts of Congress.
Nullification was first practised in 1809 by Pennsylvania, the governor ordering out the state troops to resist the execution of a decree of a Federal court.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions declared (1799) nullification to be the rightful remedy by the states for all unauthorized acts done under the pretext of the Constitution.
A closely reasoned reinforcement to the doctrine of nullification was set forth—in response to the tariff of 1828, which favored Northern interests at the expense of the South—by John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition (1828).
The political constitution of federalism in antebellum America: the nullification debate as an illustration of informal mechanisms of constitutional change.
Jurynullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged.
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby.
In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act.
Jurynullification is at least the discretion practiced directly by the people entrusted to decide a case.
The most important recent case of jurynullification was the acquittal of Susan McDougal of criminal contempt for refusing to testify in Starr's witch hunt.
Nullification imposes a level of community support for taking away freedom greater than that needed to pass laws generally, which I think is appropriate to felonies.
Given nullification's rich history in American criminal jurisprudence, and the fact that the founders intended it to be an extra layer of protection from unjust laws and laws applied unjustly, these attempts by courts and prosecutors to take nullification off the table need to be challenged.
He believes the number of instances where nullification would be acceptable are rare enough to liken the practice to "ticking time bomb" torture scenarios.
That nullification has in the past been used to achieve unjust and immoral outcomes isn't a reason not to use it to achieve outcomes that are just and moral.
Nullification is the idea, pioneered by Thomas Jefferson and John C. Calhoun, that an American state has the right to "nullify" federal legislation that it believes violates the Constitution.
His attack on my article showed him to be only very superficially acquainted with the issues at stake (he claimed, for instance, that nullification was intended to be carried out by state legislatures; why all this time did we think it was to be done in sovereign conventions?).
I’m sure the same students who reject nullification as treason against the holy will of the majority would defend the upcoming Iraq war as a reflection of the will of the people, despite the fact that "the people" had virtually no antiwar candidates to vote for.
Nullification also is profoundly undemocratic, because it allows a minority of 12 people to overrule the state legislature that passed the law that the jury is refusing to apply.
This initiative, if passed, would amend the state's constitution to allow defendants "to argue the merits, validity and applicability of the law." In other words, the defense could say that, yes, the accused is guilty, but the law under which he is accused is a bad or improperly applied law.
Juries have always considered such questions in their deliberations, and since their work is secret and not open to review, juries have often turned to nullification to free the unjustly accused.
Some go so far as to say jurynullification -- the term for jurors who outright reject the law -- represents a threat to the foundation of the American court system if it is not confronted and dealt with effectively.
Houston lawyer Clay S. Conrad, author of a new book defending jurynullification, asserts that it is not "anarchist." For the average citizen, he says, nullification is an effective way of countering prosecutorial abuse and limiting the power and intrusiveness of the legislature.
"Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court," the court said in its 1997 ruling, the strongest, most recent court decision on the topic.
He said that the O.J. verdict was an example of "jurynullification" and that the whole idea of jurynullification was a violation of the rule of law.
Jurynullification is not a violation of the rule of law because it is part of the rule of law.
One expression of righteous disobedience, short of war, was, of course, jurynullification, which Bork calls a "pernicious practice." Again, Lynch points out that Bork ignores the principles of American, and even English, philosophy and jurisprudence upon which the practice, like the American Revolution itself, was based.
Nullification, as it pertains to legislation, denotes the synthesized condition under which a law or governmental decree is rendered null and void within the boundaries of a particular state.
The ensuing nullification crisis created an air of disunity in the United States as is evidenced by the actions of Vice President John C. Calhoun, the actions of President Andrew Jackson, and the responses of South Carolinians to the Tariff of 1828 and its resulting nullification.
The nullification crisis created an air of disunity in the United States as is evidenced by the actions of Vice President John C. Calhoun, the actions of President Andrew Jackson, and the responses of South Carolinians to the Tariff of 1828 and its resulting nullification.
Nullification and Secession(Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
Under nullification, a state could choose not to enforce a US Supreme Court decision protecting the practice, abortion, or any number of liberal policies that the people of that state were opposed to, and that indicated a clear break from Constitutional authority.
Nullification offers a remedy that allows a state to remain in the union of states (and retain the benefits derived therefrom), but at the same time, protect its citizens and their interests against oppressive laws that violate the rights of the citizens of those states.
Nullification was not a method favored by President Jefferson Davis, who had a problem with nullifying laws and remaining a part of the federal government.
Jurynullification is a de facto power of the jury, and is not ordinarily described as a right.
A jurynullification advocacy group estimates that 3-4% of all jury trials involve nullification [4], and a recent rise in hung juries (from an average of 5% to nearly 20% in recent years) is considered additional evidence that juries have begun to consider the validity or fairness of the laws themselves [5].
However, the ruling could not overturn the practice of jurynullification itself because of double jeopardy: a defendant who has been acquitted of a charge cannot be charged a second time with it, even if the court later learns jurynullification played a role in the verdict.
Jurynullification takes place in a criminal case when the jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" on grounds outside of the judge's instructions on the law.
The legality of jurynullification is still recognized by federal court jury instructions, which by their terms require a jury to acquit, but never require but only permit a jury to convict.
The essence of nullification is one institution of government declining to enforce what another institution of government calls "the law".
United States History - Nullification Crisis(Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
Nullification was only the most recent in a series of state challenges to the authority of the federal government.
Clay'stariffbill -- quickly passed in 1833 -- specified that all duties in excess of 20 percent of the value of the goods imported were to be reduced by easy stages, so that by 1842, the duties on all articles would reach the level of the moderate tariff of 1816.
Nullification leaders in South Carolina had expected the support of other Southern states, but without exception, the rest of the South declared South Carolina's course unwise and unconstitutional.
Before the Civil War, certain states claimed a right of ‘nullification.’ (I think South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, was at the forefront of this.) What they meant was, in essence, the right to override or ignore federal laws with which they disagreed.
After the Civil War, the supremacy of the federal government was established, and the concept of nullification was retired, or relegated to the crackpots.
In practice, nullification is a logical outgrowth of the fact that faculty have tenure and administrators don’t.
Nullification(Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-02)
Nullification also kept fugitive slaves from being sent back to the South, when juries refused to enforce fugitive-slave laws before the Civil War.
In Colorado recently, a juror was convicted of contempt of court as a result of her refusing to vote to convict in a methamphetamine case.
If jurynullification threatens the rule of law, it is because the so-called war on drugs has created judicial injustice too severe for citizens to accept.
Nullification is a byproduct of the robust right of criminal defendants to a trial by jury.
To make jurynullification an explicit right would be to embrace a species of vigilantism within the halls of justice.
A jury's right to decide, on a case-by-case basis, that some laws are not worthy of respect, sends the message that every law is up for grabs and that each individual is entitled to decide for himself or herself whether to follow the law.
Jurynullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal.
Particular impetus for this was given by the fact that all-white juries in the southern states refused to convict whites of crimes against fls.
In recent years, jurynullification has played a role in the trials of Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, DC for drug use, Oliver North for his role in the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bernhard Goetz for his assault in a New York City subway.
Jurynullification can simply be defined as a jury who believes the defendant is guilty of the charges but for their own reasons have decided to hand out a non-guilty verdict.
Jurynullification occurs when a criminal-trial jury refuses to convict a defendant despite proof of guilt because the jurors believe the law is unjust or is being unjustly applied.
Professor George Fletcher has said the term jurynullification is unfortunate and misleading, because it suggests that when the jury votes its conscience, it is always engaged in an act of disrespect toward the law.