Constitutional Arbiter

In this thought provoking article, Steve Palmer addresses the question of who has the authority to declare an act unconstitutional. Contrary to most views, he argues against the Supreme Court being the final arbiter for constitutional interpretation. The 10th amendment is often ignored but it nonetheless gives states more authority, and as Palmer argues, the ability to declare a law unconstitutional or at least have a say in the matter.

Many of the anti-federalists, fearful of states losing their sovereignty, eventually supported the Constitution because of the ratification of the Bill of Rights and specifically because of the 9th and 10th amendments. It’s hard to say how far one can go along with the doctrine of nullification (states being able to rule laws as unconstitutional) without resurrecting the same problems that lead to the Civil War. But Palmer does have a point that states should have more say and control. At least the anti-federalists thought so.

If you would like to help return the nation back to a truly constitutional understanding of the 10th amendment, please support leaders who will follow the Constitution.

Comments

  1. Mitchell says:

    The government today wants to take away states’ rights and consolidate power into the federal government, we can’t let them do that!

  2. Laura says:

    While I don’t think nullification to the extent of where it was pre-Civil War is correct, I do believe it to be important that the states have their sovereignty. But many liberals just hate that their national democrats don’t have complete control over many more conservative states. They just want complete power.

  3. Very good sharing this.

Speak Your Mind