Today state and federal governments continue to square off on jurisdictional

Today state and federal governments continue to

This preview shows page 22 - 24 out of 35 pages.

Today, state and federal governments continue to square off on jurisdictional issues. • In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that congressional districts in Texas and North Carolina that had been redrawn to increase minority representation were unconstitutional. • In 2000, the Supreme Court agreed to hear another case in the ongoing—since 1979—dispute between the federal government and the state of Alaska over who has authority to lease offshore land for oil and gas drilling. Constitutional conflicts between states’ rights and federal jurisdiction are pic- tured here. As you read, see how each issue was resolved. NULLIFICATION ISSUE: The state of South Carolina moved to nullify, or declare void, a tariff set by Congress. In t he car t oon above, Presiden t Andrew Jackson, ri g h t , is playin g a g a m e called bra gg . One of his opponen t s, Vice-Presiden t John C. Calhoun, is hidin g t wo cards, “Nullifica t ion” and “An t i-Tariff,” behind hi m . Jackson is doin g poorly in t his g a m e, bu t he even t ually won t he real nullifica t ion dispu t e. When Con g ress passed hi g h t ariffs on i m por t s in 1832, poli t icians fro m Sou t h Carolina, led by Calhoun, t ried t o nullify t he t ariff law, or declare i t void. Jackson t hrea t ened t o enforce t he law wi t h federal t roops. Con g ress reduced t he t ariff t o avoid a confron t a t ion, and Calhoun resi g ned t he vice-presidency. 1787 1832 322 C HAPTER 10 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ISSUE: The Constitution tried to resolve the original debate over states’ rights versus federal authority. A t t he Cons t i t u t ional Conven t ion in Philadelphia, del- e g a t es wan t ed t o crea t e a federal g overn m en t t ha t was s t ron g er t han t he one crea t ed by t he Ar t icles of Confedera t ion. Bu t dele g a t es disa g reed abou t whe t her t he federal g overn m en t should have m ore power t han t he s t a t es. They also disa g reed abou t whe t her lar g e s t a t es should have m ore power t han s m all s t a t es in t he na t ional le g isla t ure. The conven- t ion co m pro m ised— t he Cons t i t u t ion reserves cer t ain powers for t he s t a t es, dele g a t es o t her powers t o t he federal g overn m en t , divides so m e powers be t ween s t a t e and federal g overn m en t s, and t ries t o balance t he differin g needs of t he s t a t es t hrou g h t wo houses of Con g ress.
Image of page 22
1860 SOUTH CAROLINA’S SECESSION ISSUE: The conflict over a state’s right to secede, or withdraw, from the Union led to the Civil War. In December 1860, Southern secessionists cheered “secession” enthusiastically in front of the Mills House (left), a hotel in Charleston, South Carolina. South Carolina seceded after the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom the South per- ceived as anti-states’ rights and antislavery.
Image of page 23
Image of page 24

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 35 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes