IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v43y2013i2p205-226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nullification and the Political, Legal, and Quasi-Legal Constitutions

Author

Listed:
  • Bradley D. Hays

Abstract

In the midst of the nullification crisis, southern states sympathetic to South Carolina's position on the tariff rejected the doctrine of nullification. They did so because nullification rejected interpretive pluralism and discursive practices associated with political constitutionalism. Rather, Calhounian nullification and state interpretive supremacy reflected elements of legal constitutionalism but refashioned into a quasi-legal constitutionalism, which served state supremacy and minoritarianism. Scrutinizing nullification's rejection provides insight into the role of federalism in constitutional politics, including contemporary state expressions of constitutional dissent. State officials who suggest constitutional infidelity to advance policy concerns mistake an inclusive dialogic tradition with a rejected authority to dictate constitutional policy to the nation. Copyright 2013, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Bradley D. Hays, 2013. "Nullification and the Political, Legal, and Quasi-Legal Constitutions," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 43(2), pages 205-226, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:43:y:2013:i:2:p:205-226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjs013
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:43:y:2013:i:2:p:205-226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.