Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  nullification
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Debata Webster–Hayne. Początek sporu Północ–Południe o interpretację Konstytucji Stanów Zjednoczonych w epoce antebellum

100%
Tulejski T.
Studia Politologiczne
|
2018
|
vol. 49
216-239
EN
The Author analyses a famous debate in the United States between Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Senator Robert Y. Hayne of South Carolina that took place on January 19–27, 1830 on the topic of protectionist tariffs. These constitutional debate gave fateful utterance to the differing understandings of the nature of the American Union that had come to predominate in the North and the South. To Webster the Union was the indivisible expression of one nation of people, but to Hayne was the voluntary compact among sovereign states. The Author presents Hayne’s argument for states’ right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional, and Webster response for Supreme Court jurisdiction. Their classic expositions of their respective views framed the political conflicts that culminated at last in the secession of the Southern states and war between advocates of Union and champions of Confederacy.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Original Intent and Popular Government: A Madisonian Perspective

75%
Hanson R. L.
Teoria Polityki
|
2020
|
vol. 4
217-240
EN
In 1791 two former political allies reached opposite conclusions on the constitutionality of chartering a national bank to serve the Federal government of the United States. Alexander Hamilton, who was then Secretary of the Treasury, argued that the U.S. Constitution conferred limited, but essentially bottomless, powers to Congress in pursuit of the public good. James Madison, at that time an elected member of the U.S. House of Representatives, argued that powers conferred on Congress were limited in number, and reach, by conventions that ratified the Constitution in 1787–1788. Hamilton won the battle on the bank, but lost the war, as Madison’s strict construction of the Constitution in terms of the understanding of those who ratify, and amend, it prevailed in the long run. The broad construction favored by Hamilton has rarely carried the day in American jurisprudence.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Prawo do secesji. Argument konstytucyjny i metaprawny Starego Południa Stanów Zjednoczonych

63%
Tulejski T.
Przegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego
|
2023
|
issue 2(72)
245-256
PL
W okresie poprzedzającym wybuch wojny secesyjnej teoretycy i politycy Starego Południa Stanów Zjednoczonych (Calhoun, Hayne, Tucker, Taylor of Caroline) wypracowali teoretyczne instrumenty oporu wobec ich zdaniem tyrańskim praktykom rządu federalnego. Obok interpozycji i nullifikacji najbardziej radykalnym środkiem było prawo do secesji. Autor w artykule dokonuje rozróżnienia argumentacji na argumentację konstytucyjną i metaprawną. Pierwsza odwołuje się do myśli Founding Fathers, ducha roku ’98 i koncepcji praw stanowych. Głównymi jej elementami są: kontraktowy charakter Unii, pierwotna suwerenność stanów oraz interpretacja użytego w konstytucji zwrotu „My, Naród”. Uzasadnienie filozoficzne odwołuje się natomiast do prawa oporu wobec tyrańskiego rządu zawarte w Deklaracji Niepodległości. Oba te uzasadnienia występowały wspólnie i autor poszukuje ich w aktach secesji Karoliny Południowej i Konstytucji Skonfederowanych Stanów.
EN
Before the outbreak of the Civil War, the theorists and politicians of the South of the US developed the theoretical instruments of resistance to what they considered tyrannical practices of the federal government. Just next to interposition and nullification, the most radical measure was the right of secession. In the article, the author distinguishes between constitutional and meta-legal arguments. The first ones refer to the thought of the Founding Fathers, the spirit of ‘98 and the concept of states’ rights. Its main elements are: the contractual nature of the Union, the original sovereignty of the states and the interpretation of the phrase: “We the People” used in the Constitution. In turn the philosophical justification refers to the right of resistance to tyrannical government contained in the Declaration of Independence. The two group of justifications appeared together, and the author searches for them in the acts of secession of South Carolina and the CS Constitution
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.