The aim of the article is to present the evolution of federal government powers towards the establishment of federal hegemony system in which the predominance of the powers of Washington within the formula of cooperative federalism – or dual federalism – is not questioned any more. Due to the key role of the Supreme Court on the individual stages of the federal governance consolidation, the most important political events will be illustrated by court decisions which show that with the use of the right to supervise the constitutionality of law (judicial review), the Court decided on the course of changes in the state. The activeness of the judges of the Supreme Court in the field of interpretation of central government’s role in the United States can be divided into two periods. In the first one, i.e. the 19th century, the judges extended the influence of the federal government so to speak when protecting the economic philosophy of laissez-faire and the oligarchic interests of big business circles (substantive due process). In the second period, starting in the 1930s, the Supreme Court, under the pressure of public opinion and social and economic changes, decided to protect a new interpretation of citizens’ rights and freedoms (procedural due process of law). Reflection on the transformations of the American political system and the evolution of complex relations between Washington and individual states towards bigger centralization in the context of the European Union institutional transformations after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force inspires to assess the possibility of comparing the American model of federalism and experience with the European routes to integration. Could American experience in state creation be useful in the process of creating effectively functioning Europe?
Autor przedstawia główne argumenty konstytucyjne na rzecz uprawnień stanowych formułowane przez Johna Caldwella Calhouna – amerykańskiego polityka i teoretyka polityki – podczas kryzysu nullifikacyjnego, który wzmógł antagonizmy pomiędzy Karoliną Południową i rządem federalnym. Kryzys miał miejsce po tym, jak Karolina Południowa zadeklarowała, że taryfy celne z lat 1828 i 1832 (tzw. taryfa odrazy) były niekonstytucyjne i dlatego zostały unieważnione przez suwerenny stan. Według autora J.C. Calhoun, odrzucający filozofię centralizacji prezentowaną przez Sąd Najwyższy i administrację prezydencką, zaproponował teorię nullifikacji, która opierała się na argumentach Thomasa Jeffersona i Jamesa Madisona, zawartych w Rezolucjach Kentucky i Wirginii z 1798 roku. Autor dowodzi, że filozofia prawa i polityki J.C. Calhouna zalicza się do tradycji południowoatlantyckiego agrarnego republikanizmu, opartego na zdecentralizowanym porządku moralnym i religijnym wywodzonym z idei subsydiarności i Stanów Zjednoczonych jako unii suwerennych stanów.
EN
TThe Author presents main constitutional arguments for states’ rights formulated by John Caldwell Calhoun – American politician and political theorist – during the Nullification Crisis, which involved a confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government. The crisis ensued after South Carolina declared that the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 (Tariff of Abominations) were unconstitutional and therefore null and void within the sovereign boundaries of the state. For the Author J.C. Calhoun rejecting the centralization philosophy of Supreme Court and presidential administration proposed the theory of nullification based on Jefferson’s and Madison’s arguments included in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. The Author argues, that J.C. Calhoun’s political and law philosophy represents of the South Atlantic tradition of agrarian republicanism relied on a decentralized moral and religious order based on the idea of subsidiarity and Unites States as the Union of sovereign and free states.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.