DOCSLIB.ORG

Rediscovering Prigg V. Pennsylvania Andrew J

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rediscovering Prigg V. Pennsylvania Andrew J Union College Union | Digital Works Honors Theses Student Work 6-2011 Rediscovering Prigg v. Pennsylvania Andrew J. Trochanowski Union College - Schenectady, NY Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses Part of the American Politics Commons, and the Political History Commons Recommended Citation Trochanowski, Andrew J., "Rediscovering Prigg v. Pennsylvania" (2011). Honors Theses. 1078. https://digitalworks.union.edu/theses/1078 This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Work at Union | Digital Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Union | Digital Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i Rediscovering Prigg v. Pennsylvania By Andrew J. Trochanowski ********* Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Honors in the Department of Political Science UNION COLLEGE June, 2011 ii ABSTRACT Trochanowski, Andrew J. Rediscovering Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Department of Political Science, June 2011 Advisor: Prof. Clifford Brown. Special Thanks to Prof. Bradley D. Hays. The concept of federalism serves as the foundation for the American political system. The framers laid a foundation for balancing state and national tensions; and during the antebellum era American political actors wrestled with the proper application of these concepts. This paper traces the evolution of federalist principles beginning at the founding and culminating with the commonly misperceived Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania by analyzing transformative historical moments and political regimes. Prigg v. Pennsylvania currently exists within contemporary political and constitutional scholarly literature as a slavery case decided upon moralistic bias and the Court’s commitment to the institution of slavery. Closer analysis unveils the decision in Prigg’s connection with the evolution of federalist principles throughout early American history. This paper attempts to uncover how institutional relationships shape governing political principles and how a variety of political actors, specifically the Supreme Court, are influenced by these relationships. The antebellum political order struggled with stabilizing sectional ideological divides and attempted to mitigate these issues by championing doctrines of political compromise. Through this paradigm, Prigg v. Pennsylvania’s conventional status in constitutional literature can be shifted, and instead can be used as an analytical lens for understanding the antebellum political order. 1 Rediscovering Prigg v. Pennsylvania: Articulating Federalism Federalism has long driven the constitutional and political debates in American government. Defining this idea is useful for understanding a number of important political and constitutional episodes from early America up until and including the often mischaracterized Supreme Court decision Prigg v. Pennsylvania. Some contemporary political scholars tend to misinterpret past political events using their contemporary political paradigms and visions of justice. Documented history enables us to learn the language and paradigms of influential political figures and institutions in an effort to understand the governing political principles of past eras. Judging historical figures and events with twenty-first century biases clouds the reality of the application of political principles by those who have shaped this nation. Numerous contemporary paradigms, however, are useful for understanding earlier political visions. For example, Robert Dahl (1957) and Keith Whittington (2007) offer illuminating theoretical frameworks which allow us to view Courts as part of a “decision-making majority” who make judicial decisions not solely in their own vision, but also with presidential and congressional interests in mind. These inter-institutional relationships often result in the construction of the political principles which influence political action and decision making in numerous arenas. Federalism is one of, if not the most crucial tenets of the American political order. Prior to the Constitutional Convention and ratification in 1789, states wrestled with identifying their proper role within the federal system. The failure of the Articles of Confederation exists as a primary example of how an inadequate definition of the federal-state relationship can result in constitutional and political disorder. Ultimately, through the constitutional debates and other public forums, the founders attempted to structure the duality of the American system through the ratification of the United States Constitution. This document serves as the foundation for 2 analyzing the federal-state problem. However, consistent visions of this relationship have not been embraced throughout our constitutional and political history and this dissertation will attempt to uncover how these conceptions of federalism have been defined and applied throughout early America, culminating in the mischaracterized Prigg v. Pennsylvania decision. What is federalism? Federalism in American politics is the delineation of power and responsibility between federal and state governments. Both state governments and the federal government were understood to possess a certain level of sovereignty. The framers and other early political actors attempted to determine who held power in a variety of political areas. Early American citizens expressed loyalty to both the United States and their individual states and experienced difficulty in determining a hierarchy. A citizenry which expresses legitimate loyalty to a variety of different government authorities is bound to experience divisive political issues. The founders were cognizant of these competing loyalties and intended to create a document which would effectively delimit and monitor these relationships. History and experience led governing institutions to explore a variety of different methods for establishing these principles. Over time, issues continued to arise over who possessed authority to draw the structural lines and where precisely these lines should be drawn. Courts, Congress, the executive, and states all expressed their desire to shape the federal-state relationship. We will analyze the period of American politics from the founding through the decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, before slavery became the primary political issue in American government, in an attempt to determine how these lines were drawn and what influence federalism had on the American political structure. 3 The choice of this particular American period is of note. We are able to use federalism as our primary analytical tool because of the political climate during the period in question. Using slavery as an analytical tool for viewing any of the political eras in this dissertation, especially Prigg, is problematic because it had yet to become the preeminent political force in American politics. Issues had arisen with slavery implications, but the issue was not yet a primary concern. Delineating responsibility between the federal and state governments consumed the minds of early political actors, and these actions had implications across institutional lines. The initial era created the foundation through which every subsequent political actor issued their federalist paradigm; and political actors, despite the bombast, exercised varying degrees of caution in their practice and exploration of federalist principles. All of them however, felt bound by the document, regardless of how they viewed the powers within. Every political actor since the founding operate with a high level of respect for the foundational principles set forth by the governing document and the analysis which follows illustrates this reverence. How will this paper uncover this complex and often tenuous relationship? Aside from identifying specific principles applied to transformative political events, the theoretical framework adopted stems from recent scholarship in American political development. As aforementioned, many recent scholars have begun to re-analyze the lenses we use to study political motivations for establishing structural principles (Graber 2006) (Gillman 1993) (Kahn and Kersch 2006). The rise in literature concerning institutional relationships and how their structures and limits affect their ability to institute meaningful political change suggests our common conceptions of how political principles are applied are not entirely accurate (Whittington 2007) (Gillman 1993) (Graber 2006) (Levinson 2006). By viewing certain political procedures, principles, and episodes through different theoretical frameworks we are able to 4 discover (or perhaps rediscover) aspects of these procedures, principles and episodes previously unbeknownst to us. Federalism is one of these principles. Federalism very much governs the American political system. Understanding federalism and its different applications at different political moments allows us to understand executive, congressional, and judicial responses to political controversies. Political history is filled with moments which fashioned the structural definition of federalist principles (Ackerman 1993). The evolution of federalism over a sixty year period ultimately sets the table for the jurisprudence in Prigg v. Pennsylvania and identifying this evolution in a number of different political regimes proves important for understanding the culture of compromise and sectional divide in the 1840s and beyond. This dissertation will effectively
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Spirit of ’98: a Defense of Civil Or States’ Rights?
    The Kabod Volume 2 Issue 1 Fall 2015 Article 9 October 2015 The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights? William Hopchak University of Missouri, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod Part of the United States History Commons Recommended Citations MLA: Hopchak, William "The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights?," The Kabod 2. 1 (2015) Article 9. Liberty University Digital Commons. Web. [xx Month xxxx]. APA: Hopchak, William (2015) "The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights?" The Kabod 2( 1 (2015)), Article 9. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/kabod/vol2/iss1/9 Turabian: Hopchak, William "The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights?" The Kabod 2 , no. 1 2015 (2015) Accessed [Month x, xxxx]. Liberty University Digital Commons. This Individual Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Kabod by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Hopchak: The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights? Hopchak 1 The Spirit of ’98: A Defense of Civil or States’ Rights? William Hopchak HIUS 314 Jeffersonian History Dr. Schultz November 18, 2014 Published by Scholars Crossing, 2015 1 The Kabod, Vol. 2, Iss. 1 [2015], Art. 9 Hopchak 2 The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and the subsequent Virginia Report of 1800 have created a great deal of controversy since their adoption. Passed in response to the recently enacted Alien and Sedition Acts which collectively extended the naturalization period, gave the president power to expel immigrants, and criminalized criticism of the government, the Resolutions and Report denounced the Acts as unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on the Little Rock Desegregation Crisis
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1989 Confrontation as Rejoinder to Compromise: Reflections on the Little Rock Desegregation Crisis Raymond T. Diamond Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Diamond, Raymond T., "Confrontation as Rejoinder to Compromise: Reflections on the Little Rock Desegregation Crisis" (1989). Journal Articles. 290. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/290 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES CONFRONTATION AS REJOINDER TO COMPROMISE: REFLECTIONS ON THE LITTLE ROCK DESEGREGATION CRISIS* Raymond T. Diamond** In September 1957, soldiers of the IOI st Airborne Division of the United Stat es Army were called to duty in hostile territory. These soldiers were called to Little Rock, Arkansas, to keep safe nine Black children who, under a court order of desegregation, attended Little Rock's Central High School. 1 The Little Rock crisis is writ large in the history of the desegregation of the American South. Because many of the events of the crisis were performed before the television camera at a time when television was new, the Little Rock crisis was etched graphically in the American consciousness. 2 The cam­ era showed in violent detail the willingness of the South to maintain segrega­ tion, and the willingness of the federal government to support federal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverse Nullification and Executive Discretion
    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 5-2015 Reverse Nullification and Executive Discretion Michael T. Morley Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons ARTICLES REVERSE NULLIFICATION AND EXECUTIVE DISCRETION Michael T. Morley The President has broad discretion to refrain from enforcing many civil and criminal laws, either in general or under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has not only affirmed the constitutionality of such under-enforcement, but extolled its virtues. Most recently, in Arizona v. United States, it deployed the judicially created doctrines of obstacle and field preemption to invalidate state restrictions on illegal immigrants that mirrored federal law, in large part to ensure that states do not undermine the effects of the President’s decision to refrain from fully enforcing federal immigration provisions. Such a broad application of obstacle and field preemption is inconsistent with the text and original understanding of the Supremacy Clause and unnecessarily aggrandizes the practical extent of executive authority. The Supremacy Clause prohibits states from attempting to nullify or ignore federal laws that they believe are unconstitutional or unwise. It should not bar states from engaging in “reverse nullification” by enacting statutes that mirror federal law to ameliorate the effects of executive under- or non-enforcement. Far from undermining the “law of the land,” reverse nullification reinforces it by ensuring that the President cannot effectively amend or nullify federal law by declining to enforce it. The Court should craft an exception to its obstacle and field preemption doctrines to accommodate reverse nullification, and Congress should generally include an exception permitting reverse nullification in statutes’ express preemption provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Living, Dead, and Undead: Nullification Past and Present Author(S): James H
    The Jack Miller Center Living, Dead, and Undead: Nullification Past and Present Author(s): James H. Read and Neal Allen Source: American Political Thought, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Fall 2012), pp. 263-297 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667615 . Accessed: 10/07/2013 12:57 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and The Jack Miller Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Political Thought. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 152.65.133.249 on Wed, 10 Jul 2013 12:57:26 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Living, Dead, and Undead: Nullification Past and Present JAMES H. READ and NEAL ALLEN ABSTRACT Nullification is considered an antebellum relic. But recently several state legislatures have passed or introduced bills asserting a state’s right to judge federal laws uncon- stitutional and block implementation within the state. Policies today targeted for nul- lification include health care regulation, firearms law, and birthright citizenship. This essay examines the constitutional theory of nullification in its antebellum, 1950s, and contemporary variants.
    [Show full text]
  • States' Rights Apogee, 1760-1840
    “States’ Rights Apogee, 1776-1840” By Ryan M. Setliff A Thesis Submitted To The Faculty of the History Department and Graduate School At Liberty University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Masters of Arts in History December 2011 – Abstract – America’s states’ rights tradition has held much influence since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1788. In late 1798, in response to the Federalist administration’s adoption of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were formally adopted by the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky respectively. These resolutions set a lasting precedent for state interposition and nullification. As well concurrence with these doctrines can be found in the Virginia Resolves of 1790, the constitutional debates of 1787-1790, and all throughout the colonial-revolutionary period of the 1760s to 1780s. In time, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions would gain stature and would define the American political culture of the nineteenth century. They became known as the Principles of 1798. The Tariff Crisis of 1828-1832 in South Carolina may be contextualized in light of the Principles of 1798. This inquiry endeavors to answer why those principles are integral to the American constitutional tradition. The continuity of the 1798 resolves with colonial-revolutionary practice reveals them as neither rash nor innovative, but in accord with the localism innate to American political tradition. -ii- – Acknowledgments – Special thanks to my thesis committee participants for their mentorship. In particular, my thesis advisor Dr. Samuel C. Smith, Professor of History, and committee reader, Dr. Roger Schultz, Professor of History and Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, have my gratitude for their assistance and encouragement in this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Wyoming Law Review.Indd
    Comment The Disarming Nature of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act: A Constitutional Analysis of Wyoming’s Interposition Between Its Citizens and the Federal Government O. Shane Balloun* I. IntroduCtIon ........................................................................................201 II. BaCkground ...........................................................................................203 A. The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act Versus Existing Federal Law .........203 B. The Political Doctrines of Interposition and Nullification .....................205 C. The Historical Development and Meaning of the Tenth Amendment .....209 D. Current Constitutional Jurisprudence Under United States v. Lopez ....216 III. analysIs ..................................................................................................220 A. A Legal Analysis of the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act Vis-à-vis Federal Jurisprudence .........................................................................221 B. Nullification and Interposition by Wyoming ........................................230 IV. ConClusIon............................................................................................238 I. IntroduCtIon On March 11, 2010, the State of Wyoming enacted the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act (the Act), which directly opposes federal authority by declaring federal law void as to firearms, accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained inside Wyoming’s borders.1 The Act not only rejects federal power over the intrastate regulation of firearms, it
    [Show full text]
  • A Perverted Construction: James Madison, the Virginia Resolutions, and the Nullification Crisis
    A PERVERTED CONSTRUCTION: JAMES MADISON, THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, AND THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS By MATTHEW C. RAY Bachelor of Science in History/Pre-Law Oklahoma Christian University Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2010 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS July, 2013 A PERVERTED CONSTRUCTION: JAMES MADISON, THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS, AND THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS Thesis Approved: Richard Rohrs Thesis Adviser James Huston Elizabeth Williams ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are two people to whom I owe everything in this life, without whom I would be both unwilling and unable to achieve anything remotely resembling success. It was for them that I endured the agony of graduate school, and because of them that I was able to endure it. They are the two people who give me the strength, confidence, and purpose to do what I do, and the only two people who have to deal with me every day, whatever my mood or state of mind. Thus, fittingly, they are the two people whom I choose to acknowledge in these acknowledgements. The first is my wife, Jenna. You are my best friend, my lover, my soulmate, my strength, my support, and my partner. I would not have been able to accomplish any of this without you. Whatever my intellect, work ethic, or ability as a writer, without you, none of it would matter. You encouraged me when I was disheartened, and believed in me when I had no faith in myself. But more importantly, because I am married to you, and because I want to be worthy of your trust, love, and companionship, I put forth the effort to achieve everything that I have achieved in the last six years.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctuary Cities: a Study in Modern Nullification?
    Br. J. Am. Leg. Studies 8(1) (2019), DOI: 10.2478/bjals-2019-0002 Sanctuary Cities: A Study in Modern Nullification? Lorraine Marie A. Simonis* ABSTRACT Since Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States, the sanctuary movement has gained prominence as a form of resistance to federal immigration policy. Sanctuary cities and states have attempted to frustrate the Trump administration’s immigration agenda by refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) efforts to remove aliens illegally residing in the United States. Academics, pundits and politicians have compared this resistance and non-cooperation to “nullification,” a doctrine typically associated with the South Carolina Nullification Crisis of the 1830s and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. This article rejects comparisons between the sanctuary movement and nullification as false equivalencies and explains why the sanctuary movement is not a form of modern nullification. Rather, it suggests the movement is better understood as being similar to “interposition”—a doctrine related to, but distinct from, nullification. In doing so, this paper will clarify the meaning of nullification and interposition by analyzing the developments of these doctrines. Part 1 of this article discusses the historical, theoretical and practical aspects of South Carolina-style nullification, and compares these to that of the sanctuary movement. Part 2 explores the development of nullification and interposition more broadly, with a particular focus on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Finally, Part 3 directly compares the sanctuary movement, nullification and interposition, and it connects the movement to the “anti- commandeering” doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in the 1990s.
    [Show full text]
  • Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers Christian G
    FIRST PRINCIPLES FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS TO GUIDE POLITICS AND POLICY NO. 41 | FEBRUARY 21, 2012 Interposition and the Heresy of Nullification: James Madison and the Exercise of Sovereign Constitutional Powers Christian G. Fritz, Ph.D. Abstract The seemingly unstoppable growth of the federal government has led to a revival, in some circles, of the discredited notion of nullification as a legitimate constitutional mechanism for states to reassert their sovereign powers. Proponents of this doctrine invoke the authority of James Madison to defend the claim that the Constitution empowers states to nullify laws passed by Congress. In this essay, Christian Fritz explains why Madison emphatically rejected the attempt by a single state to nullify national laws. Instead, Madison embraced something very different. The practice of interposition—public opinion, protests, petitions, and legitimate actions of state legislatures—focused attention on whether the government was acting in conformity with the Constitution. Recovering Madison’s understanding of interposition offers a useful corrective to the mischaracterization of his views and makes clear that he rejected any constitutional basis for nullification. olitical arguments frequently achieve particular political objec- mischaracterization of his views. Puse history for justification. tives, whether liberal or conservative. The episodes examined in this Invariably, such efforts are less about American politics today pro- essay—the Virginia and Kentucky taking the past on its own terms vides a good
    [Show full text]
  • To Federal Health Care Reform? the Onsc Titutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law Ryan Card
    BYU Law Review Volume 2010 | Issue 5 Article 7 11-1-2010 Can States "Just Say No" to Federal Health Care Reform? The onsC titutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law Ryan Card Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview Part of the Health Law and Policy Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Ryan Card, Can States "Just Say No" to Federal Health Care Reform? The Constitutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law, 2010 BYU L. Rev. 1795 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol2010/iss5/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Brigham Young University Law Review at BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Law Review by an authorized editor of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DO NOT DELETE 2/1/2011 7:16 PM Can States “Just Say No” to Federal Health Care Reform? The Constitutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law I. INTRODUCTION In response to the federal government’s strong push toward national health care reform,1 as many as thirty-six state legislatures have taken steps to “Just Say No” to the federal health care overhaul package.2 For example, the Utah State Legislature passed a bill that prohibits Utah state agencies from “implement[ing] any part of federal health care reform” unless “the Legislature . pass[es] legislation specifically authorizing .
    [Show full text]