In the United States, the balance of power between the federal government and the states is governed by the principles of federalism and state sovereignty. Federalism is the system in which power is divided between a central government and individual states, while state sovereignty refers to the idea that states have independent authority and control over their own affairs. A key aspect of this relationship is the authority of the states to resist or refuse to enforce federal laws that they believe overstep constitutional boundaries.

Upon forming the Union, states made a strong commitment to uphold and protect both the U.S. Constitution and the various state constitutions against any threats, whether foreign or domestic. This means that while the states support the federal government, they do so only when the government’s actions are in line with the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any actions taken by the federal government must adhere to it.

The states believed they had a duty to watch for and resist any violations of the principles that are foundational to the Union. This duty is essential for ensuring the survival of the Union and the well-being of its people. The many state assemblies clearly stated that the federal government’s powers came from an agreement made between the states when they ratified the Constitution. These powers are limited to what is explicitly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government cannot extend its authority beyond these limits.

If the federal government deliberately oversteps its authority in a way that is obvious and dangerous, the states have both the right and the responsibility to step in and stop the misuse of power. This concept is known as nullification, where a state can declare a federal action null and void within its borders if that action is deemed unconstitutional. This principle protects the states’ authority, rights, and freedoms.

One historical example of this principle in action is Virginia’s response to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. Virginia believed these laws were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Despite pressure from other states, Virginia’s representatives felt it was their duty to speak out against these laws rather than silently accept them. They argued that staying silent on such a significant matter would be irresponsible and harmful to citizens’ rights.

State assemblies strongly affirmed their attachment to the Union and the Constitution as originally intended. They warned, however, if the federal government is allowed to overstep its limits, it could lead to the destruction of state governments and the creation of a centralized government, which would ultimately result in tyranny. This situation occurs when the federal government alone decides the extent of its powers, acting based on its discretion rather than the Constitution.

To prevent any misunderstanding, states made it clear that they will never stop opposing attempts to violate the Constitution. The assemblies’ formal protests against the Alien and Sedition Acts were a declaration of their commitment to constitutional principles and the rights of the states. This protest ensures that these laws will not be used as precedents for future violations of the Constitution.

This lesson highlights the important role states play in safeguarding liberty and maintaining the balance of power within the federal system. The principles of state sovereignty and federalism allow states to act as a check on federal authority, ensuring that the federal government remains within its constitutional limits. By understanding these principles, we can better appreciate the unique structure of American government and the protections it provides for individual rights and freedoms.

In the early years of the United States, the balance of power between the states and the federal government was a major issue. This balance is at the heart of the concepts of state sovereignty, federalism, and states’ rights. These ideas are rooted in the belief that the states, which originally agreed to form the Union, have a crucial role in ensuring that the federal government does not overstep its bounds.

The states are not just regions within a country; they are independent entities that voluntarily agreed to join together to form the United States. This agreement, or compact, created the federal government and gave it certain powers, but only those powers that were clearly stated in the Constitution. This means that the federal government’s authority is limited and must operate within the boundaries set by the Constitution.

One of the key responsibilities of the states is to protect both the U.S. Constitution and their own state constitutions. This includes defending against any threats, whether from outside the country or from within. For example, when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, Virginia and other states believed these laws were unconstitutional because they overstepped the powers granted to the federal government. Virginia argued that it was their duty not to accept such laws silently, but to stand up and declare them invalid.

The states value the Union and are committed to maintaining it. However, the states insist that the Union must be preserved according to the principles set out in the Constitution. If the federal government begins to ignore these principles and takes on powers not granted to it, this could lead to a centralized government that destroys the independence of the states. Such a situation, according to the system established by our Founding Fathers, would lead to tyranny—where the government has unchecked power.

The idea that the federal government alone can decide the extent of its own powers is dangerous because it would mean that those in power could make decisions based on their own interests, rather than following the Constitution. Virginia argues that the states have the right, and even the duty, to step in and stop the federal government from abusing its power. This is what is meant by states’ rights: the ability of each state to protect its own authority, rights, and freedoms within its borders.

In summary, the principles of state sovereignty, federalism, and states’ rights are all about ensuring that the federal government stays within the limits set by the Constitution. The states, which created the federal government, have a crucial role in holding it accountable. By doing so, they protect the liberty and happiness of the people, ensuring that the Union remains strong, and that tyranny is avoided.

This lesson highlights the importance of vigilance in maintaining the balance of power between the states and the federal government, a concept that remains relevant in American government today.

When the American colonies declared independence from Great Britain in 1776, they asserted that each of the 13 colonies was not just breaking away from British rule, but each was becoming a free, sovereign, and independent state. This idea of state sovereignty means that each state has full control over its own government, free from external control. The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, which officially ended the Revolutionary War, provides clear evidence that the Founders understood and affirmed this concept of state sovereignty.

The Treaty of Paris begins by listing each of the 13 states — New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia — as “free, sovereign, and independent states.” This specific wording is crucial because it shows that King George III of Great Britain was not acknowledging a single, united nation but recognizing 13 separate states, each with its own sovereignty.

Later in the treaty, George III not only acknowledges their sovereignty but commits to treating them as such from that day forward. This means that in the eyes of the British Crown, each state was its own independent entity, capable of making its own decisions and governing itself without interference.

The treaty also highlights the relationship between the newly formed Congress and the state governments. In one clause, it is stated that “Congress shall earnestly recommend” to the state legislatures that they restore property taken from British subjects during the war. Notice that Congress is not given the power to order the states to return the property; it can only recommend this course of action. This detail reveals that the Founders saw the states as having more authority over their own affairs than Congress. If Congress had been superior, it would have issued commands rather than recommendations.

Another part of the treaty explicitly declares peace between “his Britannic Majesty and the said states.” This language confirms that each state, not Congress or a unified national government, was recognized as having its own standing in international relations. When the British army agreed to return confiscated documents and properties, these were to be restored directly to the states or the individuals they belonged to, not to Congress or a federal entity.

The treaty also distinguishes between “subjects” of Great Britain and “citizens” of the American states. This distinction is significant because it underscores the change in status for the people of the American states. Historian David Ramsay explained that subjects look up to a ruler, while citizens are equal and possess sovereignty themselves. This change from subject to citizen was a fundamental shift in how people in the American states viewed themselves and their rights. As citizens of sovereign states, they had a say in their own governance, free from the dictates of a monarch.

The Treaty of Paris echoes the language of the Declaration of Independence, which declared that the “United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.” The Declaration goes on to state that these states have the power to make war, establish peace, form alliances, and conduct trade—essentially, to do anything that any independent state has the right to do. This language, later reflected in the Treaty of Paris, reinforces the idea that the states were seen as fully functioning, sovereign entities.

Understanding the Treaty of Paris and its recognition of state sovereignty is crucial because it reflects the Founders’ vision for the United States. They saw the states as independent republics, each with its own government, rights, and responsibilities. This vision is the foundation of American federalism, where the states and the federal government share power, but the states retain a significant degree of autonomy.

Over time, the balance between state and federal power has shifted, and today, many people are less familiar with the concept of state sovereignty. However, learning about the Treaty of Paris and the Founders’ intent helps us understand the original structure of the United States and the importance of preserving the rights and powers of the states within the Union.

The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, are key documents for understanding the principles of state sovereignty and federalism. The principles set forth in these documents are as relevant today as they were over two centuries ago. By understanding them, citizens and state legislators can better appreciate the constitutional wisdom of nullification as a tool to resist federal overreach.

The principles set forth in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 are as relevant today as they were over two centuries ago. By understanding that the states created the federal government and retain sovereignty, citizens and state legislators can better appreciate the constitutional propriety and potency of nullification as a tool to resist federal overreach. This historical understanding is vital to preserving the balance of power envisioned by the Founders and ensuring that the federal government remains a servant, not a master, of the states and the people.

Understanding that the Constitution is a compact between sovereign states is essential for grasping the nature of American federalism and the limits of federal power. This principle underscores the authority of states to resist and nullify unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

The “Constitution between the states,” as it is called in Article VII, is a compact among sovereign states. This is a foundational concept in American federalism. It explains why states have the authority to nullify unconstitutional federal actions and why the federal government cannot override the sovereignty of the states. By understanding and teaching this principle, we can better defend the liberties and rights that the Constitution was designed to protect.

To fully grasp the compact theory of the Constitution, it’s helpful to compare it to concepts in contract law. This analogy can make the principles more accessible and understandable, particularly for those who may not be familiar with the historical and legal nuances of early American governance.

The compact theory, supported by principles of contract and agency law, provides a strong legal foundation for state sovereignty. The states created the federal government and retain the right to nullify unconstitutional federal actions or even secede from the union if necessary. Understanding this relationship empowers states to assert their rights and protect their sovereignty against federal overreach. The Constitution is, after all, a contract — one that the states are fully within their rights to enforce.

Nullification is a practical and constitutional method by which states can push back against federal overreach without dissolving the Union. It allows states to refuse to enforce or recognize federal laws or actions that exceed the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Nullification is not an act of rebellion or secession; it is a constitutional tool that states can use to protect their sovereignty and the liberties of their citizens. By routinely nullifying unconstitutional federal actions, states can preserve the union while ensuring that the federal government remains within the boundaries set by the Constitution. States must remember that sovereignty is not secession, rejection is not revolution, and nullification is not a negation of the Union, but a defense of it.

Nullification, the power of a state to invalidate unconstitutional federal actions, can be exercised by a single state independently or by multiple states in concert. This lesson explores the often-overlooked aspect of unilateral nullification and its implications for state sovereignty and the preservation of liberty.

Nullification, whether practiced by one state or many, is a powerful expression of state sovereignty and a vital check on federal power. It does not require the cooperation of other states to be effective and can serve as a catalyst for a broader movement to restore constitutional governance. State legislators must realize the potential impact of their actions and the benefits of asserting their sovereignty through nullification, potentially leading the way for others to follow. One courageous state can light the path to liberty for the entire nation.

“Potomac Fever” refers to the obsession with federal power and the belief that all political solutions must come from Washington, D.C. This lesson explores the dangers of this mindset and emphasizes the importance of state sovereignty and the role of the states in preserving the Constitution and protecting individual liberties.

Overcoming “Potomac Fever” requires a shift in focus from Washington, D.C., back to the states, where the true power of the people resides. State governments must reclaim their constitutional authority and actively resist federal encroachments to protect the liberties of their citizens. By doing so, they can restore the balance of power and reestablish the Republic on the firm foundation of the Constitution.

The Founders designed the Senate to preserve the sovereignty of the states and to keep the federal government in check. However, the ratification of the 17th Amendment, driven by the rise of party politics, severed the direct connection between state legislatures and their representatives in Congress. This lesson explores the dangers of placing party loyalty above constitutional principles and the impact it has had on state sovereignty and the functioning of the Republic.

The rise of party politics has shifted the focus of Senators and lawmakers away from their duty to represent their states and uphold the Constitution. The ratification of the 17th Amendment and the influence of PACs and special interests have further eroded state sovereignty. To restore the Republic, citizens must elect principled leaders who prioritize the Constitution over party and use the power of nullification to resist federal overreach. Only by returning to these foundational principles can we preserve the sovereignty of the states and protect the liberties of the people.