The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 were Democratic-Republican responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts passed earlier that same year by a Federalist-dominated Congress. Drafted in secret by future Presidents Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the resolutions condemned the Conflicting and Sedition Acts as unconstitutional and claimed that considering these acts overstepped federal authority under the Constitution, they were null and void.

The resolutions defended civil liberties and states' rights

The resolutions accept a complicated history and legacy. They were an early defense force of the Constitution's protection of civil liberties, specially freedom of speech and of the printing; however, considering they argued that the acts illegally usurped powers reserved for us, they besides became the founding documents in us' rights movement and were cited past antebellum supporters of country nullification and secession in the mid-nineteenth century and past advocates of resistance to federal schoolhouse desegregation orders in the mid-twentieth century.

Resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition Acts

As noted, the resolutions were written in response to Alien and Sedition Acts, which were four separate laws passed in the midst of an undeclared war at bounding main with revolutionary France. Among other things, the Alien Acts granted the president the power to seize, detain, and ultimately deport any noncitizen he accounted dangerous to the The states, regardless of whether the nation was at war. Accused aliens were given no right to a judicial hearing or to hear the specific charges against them. The Sedition Deed made it a crime to write, print, publish, or utter anything false, scandalous, or malicious confronting the U.S. authorities, Congress, or the President.

The Democratic-Republicans, political opponents of the Federalists, felt threatened by these laws. In fact, Jefferson and Madison kept their authorship of the resolutions hugger-mugger because they feared arrest for sedition. When the Federalists gained control of all three branches of the federal government in 1798, Jefferson struck on the idea of getting sympathetic land legislatures to laissez passer resolutions as a way to reply to the acts. He hoped that more states would respond in like-minded ways and that this would lead to more than balloter victories over the Federalists. After, Kentucky'southward legislature passed the resolution that Jefferson had penned with footling debate or revision on Nov 11, 1798, and the Virginia legislature passed its more than temperate resolution on Christmas Eve of the aforementioned yr.

360px-02_Thomas_Jefferson_3x4.jpg
Thomas Jefferson'due south more strident Kentucky Resolution took Madison's theory of interposition a step further and concluded that because the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, they were null and void. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, painted by Rembrandt Peale, public domain)

Resolutions asserted the separation of powers

The resolutions assert 2 key propositions. Commencement, the Marriage is a compact among individual states that delegates specific powers to the federal government and reserves the rest for the states to exercise themselves. Second, it is both a correct and a duty of individual states to interpose themselves between their citizens and the federal regime. On these bases, Virginia'due south resolution, penned by Madison, alleged that the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional and that measures should be taken by all states to retain their reserved powers. Jefferson'due south more strident Kentucky Resolution took Madison's theory of interposition a step further and concluded that because the Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional, they were nix and void.

Resolutions failed to influence other states to pass like resolutions

The intent of the resolutions was to induce other state legislatures to pick up the critique and pass similar resolutions, thus acting as decentralized opposition to the Federalists. Judged past this standard, they were a failure. No land responded with similar official denunciations, and the legislatures of 10 states went as far as to officially repudiate the resolutions, most arguing that the federal courts, non state legislatures, were the legitimate interpreters of the federal Constitution. Nevertheless, the resolutions did assistance the Democratic-Republicans develop equally an organized oppositional party, and 2 years later Jefferson would eke out a victory in the 1800 presidential elections. Madison's Study of 1800, defending the resolutions is, moreover, an of import milestone in defense of Commencement Amendment freedoms of speech communication and press.

The complex legacy of the resolutions stems from lingering questions as to whether they are best understood as a defence of ceremonious liberties or of states' rights. Rather than asserting the principles of gratis speech and civil protections for aliens not charged with crimes, Jefferson and Madison argued that the power to pass such acts was not properly delegated to the national regime by united states. The tone and language of the resolutions are non that of a paper editorial meant to shape public opinion, merely rather are constitutional treatises designed to elaborate on essential structures of government. From the context of the late 1790s, they are best understood as an early episode of political party politics in the Us and an attempt to gain balloter advantage. However, their dominant legacy is equally an exemplification of the ramble doctrine of nullification.

406px-JamesMadison.jpg
James Madison fought back against the appropriation of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions to the cause of nullification in the 1830s. He argued that context was all-important and that the dangers of the Alien and Sedition Acts should not be compared to the inconveniences of a tariff. (Paradigm via Wikimedia Commons, circa 1821, painted past Gilbert Stuart, public domain)

Resolutions seen as examples of the doctrine of nullification

During the nullification crisis of the early on 1830s over the federal tariff, states' rights figures such equally John Calhoun and Robert Hayne explicitly cited the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions as early on exemplifications of their theory that a land legislature could declare federal laws zilch and void within its own borders. Calhoun argued in much the same manner as found in the resolutions that us formed a meaty with each other, delegating specific powers to the federal government and that, therefore, united states of america ultimately were the judges of the Constitution.

A senior statesman at the fourth dimension, Madison fought back against the appropriation of the resolutions to the crusade of nullification. He argued that context was all-important and that the dangers of the Alien and Sedition Acts should not be compared to the inconveniences of a tariff. Madison besides stressed the difference between a state legislature voicing an stance and its making a self-executing conclusion. The resolutions were not designed to disrupt the execution of federal law in the state but rather to declare the official stance of the land and hopefully rally back up of other states. While the states collectively might repulse the federal government, Madison did non believe that a unmarried country had the authorization to nullify federal police within its own borders. Backing away from the doctrinal diction of the resolutions, Madison argued that they were designed just to ferment popular opinion confronting the laws and lead to an electoral victory confronting the Federalists. Both of these acts are cognizable within the Constitution and practise not suggest an extraconstitutional right of a single state confronting the federal government.

This article was originally published in 2009. Douglas C. Dow, Ph.D., is a professor at the University of Texas at Dallas specializing in political theory, public law, legal theory and history, and American politics.

Send Feedback on this article