Discussion Group Report

The doctrine of states' rights has been the cause of bitter controversy at several periods in U.S. history. How it has been so is the subject of an article, "States' Rights," by Microsoft Corporation, 1993-2003. States' rights are defined as, in U.S. history, the political doctrine advocating the strict limitation of the prerogatives of the federal government to those powers explicitly assigned to it in the U.S. Constitution and reserving to the several states all other powers not explicitly forbidden them.

Before the Civil War (1861-1865) supporters of the doctrine generally held that the federal government was only a voluntary compact of the states, and that the latter could legally refuse to carry out federal enactments that they regarded as unconstitutional encroachments on their sovereignty. Since 1865 states rights advocates have generally limited themselves to an insistence on a "strict construction" of the terms of the Constitution, whereby the federal government would be kept from such encroachment. Opponents of states' rights have supported a liberal interpretation of the constitution, asserting that the federal government may legally exercise "implied" powers that, while not explicitly stated, are in accord with the general powers enunciated in the Constitution.

The doctrine of states' rights was advanced by Thomas Jefferson, later the third president of the United States, against the Alien and Sedition Acts by the federal government. He held these enactments to be unconstitutional infringements of the rights of free speech and the press, and he drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and secured their passage by the Kentucky legislature. These advanced the thesis that the states had the power to determine the constitutionality of a federal law and to declare null and void a law they regarded as unconstitutional. Several actions carried out by Jefferson and his successor, James Madison--the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the Embargo Act (1807) and the 1812 War--aroused the hostility of the New England states; and these in the abortive Hartford Convention (1814) drew a series of resolutions embodying states' rights doctrines.

One of numerous controversies around the states' rights issue was caused by the enactment of the federal tariff laws (1828, 1832). Several Southern states, led by John Calhoun, regarded these acts as inimical to their interests, and South Carolina passed an ordinance nullifying the tariff acts. This threat to national unity was allayed when Congress enacted a compromise tariff law and the South Carolina ordinance was repealed. During the next two decades, states' rights became a paramount issue, inextricably interwoven with the conflict over the issue of slavery. The election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency (1860), an avowed opponent of the extension of slavery, was viewed by the southern slaveholders as a direct threat to their constitutional rights, and they carried the states' rights doctrine to the extreme of secession. The defeat of the confederacy in the Civil War marked the final collapse of attempts to arrogate to the states the power of the veto or otherwise contravene enactments and policies of the federal government.

The latter part of the 19th century and the early decades of the 20th were marked by an almost continues struggle between the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republicans were in power most of this period and therefore favored a strong central government, while the Democrats supported states' rights to curb the power of the Republicans and to safeguard the traditional Democratic control over the southern states. This situation was reversed, however, after the election to the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, in 1932. In attempting to deal with the prevailing economic depression, he extended federal powers far beyond those explicitly granted the federal government by the Constitution. Many of the policies of the federal government under his sponsorship were denounced by conservative opponents of social legislation, including Republicans and Southern Democrats, as abridgements of states' rights.

Following World War II, President Harry S. Truman continued expanding the prerogatives of the central government. In the 1948 Democratic convention the Northern majority got an extensive program of civil rights incorporated into the election platform. Southern opponents of these measures declared the program an outright abrogation of states' rights and withdrew from the party to form a new party, the "States Rights Democrats" or the "Dixiecrats."

The southern states' rights movement gained momentum in 1954 after the Supreme Court ordered the state to end racial segregation in public schools. In the election of 1964 most states' rights leaders stayed in the Democratic party, but some joined the Republican party. Some gave their support to the conservative Republican candidate, Senator Barry M. Goldwater, who expressed strong support for a strict interpretation of states' rights. In 1968 many states' rights advocates supported former Alabama governor, George Wallace. The successful Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon, employed a "southern strategy," pledging support for an increased role for state governments and the appointment of conservative judges. In the late 1970's, the states' rights issue shifted to the West, where a "sagebrush rebellion" against federal and resource policies by development-minded business executives and politicians paved the way for the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

In the 1990's the Supreme Court, with a slim conservative majority, issued a series of rulings that significantly expanded states' rights. These included the disposal of radioactive waste within a state; ruling unconstitutional a federal law compelling local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks of handgun purchasers; strengthening the principle of sovereign immunity; the idea that states are sovereign governments with immunity from lawsuits brought under federal law; and that states cannot be sued for violations of federal labor, patent and false advertising laws. The Court ruled that state employees cannot sue states for age discrimination under federal law or for money damages for employment discrimination violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

But the Court surprised some observers with decisions that sided with federal authority, that states have no authority to impose term limits on one's service in Congress and that Congress has the power to prohibit states from selling personal information on state drivers' licenses and motor-vehicle registration records.

The study group also discussed Andrew Jackson's Second Inaugural Address (1833), which dealt with states' rights. He said, "…the destruction of our State governments or the annihilation of the local concerns of the people would lead directly to revolution and anarchy, and finally to despotism and military domination. In proportion, therefore, as the general government encroaches on the rights of the States…does it impair its own power and detract from its ability to fulfill the purposes of its creation…But of equal and, indeed, of incalculable importance is the union of these States, and the sacred duty of all to contribute to its preservation by a liberal support of the General Government in the exercise of its just powers. You have been wisely admonished to 'accustom yourselves to think of the Union as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with Jealous anxiety, discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of any attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.' Without union our independence and liberty would never have been achieved; without union they can never be maintained."