Nullification (U.S. Constitution) in the context of "States' rights"

In law, standing or locus standi is a condition that a party seeking a legal remedy must show they have, by demonstrating to the court, sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. A party has standing in the following situations:

• The party is directly subject to an adverse effect by the statute or action in question, and the harm suffered will continue unless the court grants relief in the form of damages or a finding that the law either does not apply to the party or that the law is void or can be nullified. In informal terms, a party must have something to lose. The party has standing because they will be directly harmed by the conditions for which they are asking the court for relief.
• The party is not directly harmed by the conditions for which they are petitioning the court for relief but asks for it because the harm involved has some reasonable relation to their situation, and the continued existence of the harm may affect others who might not be able to ask a court for relief. In the United States, this is grounds for asking for a law to be struck down for violating the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, because, even though the plaintiff might not be directly affected, the law might adversely affect others, because they might not know when they were violating it. This is known as the "chilling effects" doctrine.
• The party is granted automatic standing by act of law. For example, under some environmental laws in the United States, a party may sue someone causing pollution to certain waterways without a federal permit, even if the party suing is not harmed by the pollution being generated. The law allows the plaintiff to receive attorney's fees from the defendant if they substantially prevail in the action. In some U.S. states, a person who believes a book, film, or other work of art is obscene may sue in their own name to have the work banned directly without having to ask a district attorney to do so.

In the United States, a person may not bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless they can demonstrate that they are or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff lacks standing to bring the suit and will dismiss it without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799 in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional those acts of Congress that the Constitution did not authorize. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict construction of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

The principles stated in the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98". Adherents argued that the states could judge the constitutionality of federal government laws and decrees. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 argued that each individual state has the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and void. The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 added that when the states determine that a law is unconstitutional, nullification by the states is the proper remedy. The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea that the states have a right to "interpose" to prevent harm caused by unconstitutional laws. The Virginia Resolutions contemplated joint action by the states.

The Principles of '98 refer to the American political position after 1798 that individual states could both judge the constitutionality of federal laws and decrees and refuse to enforce those that were deemed unconstitutional. That refusal is generally referred to as "nullification" but has also been expressed as "interposition:" the states' right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state.

The Principles of '98 were widely promoted in Jeffersonian democracy, especially by the Quids, such as John Randolph of Roanoke, but never became law.

John Caldwell Calhoun (/kælˈhuːn/; March 18, 1782 – March 31, 1850) was an American statesman and political theorist who served as the seventh vice president of the United States from 1825 to 1832. Calhoun began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer and proponent of a strong federal government and protective tariffs. In the late 1820s, his views shifted, and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs, and distinguished himself as an outspoken defender of American slavery. Calhoun saw Northern acceptance of those policies as a condition of the South remaining in the Union. His beliefs heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860 and 1861. Calhoun was the first of two vice presidents to resign from the position, the second being Spiro Agnew, who resigned in 1973.

Born in South Carolina, Calhoun began his political career with election to the House of Representatives in 1810. As a prominent leader of the war hawk faction, he strongly supported the War of 1812. Calhoun served as Secretary of War under President James Monroe and, in that position, reorganized and modernized the War Department. He was a candidate for the presidency in the 1824 election. After failing to gain support, Calhoun agreed to be a candidate for vice president. The Electoral College elected him vice president by an overwhelming majority. He served under John Quincy Adams and continued under Andrew Jackson, who defeated Adams in the election of 1828, making Calhoun the most recent U.S. vice president to serve under two different presidents.

The origins of the American Civil War were rooted in the desire of the Southern states to preserve and expand the institution of slavery. Historians in the 21st century overwhelmingly agree on the centrality of slavery in the conflict, but they disagree on the North's reasons for refusing to allow the Southern states to secede. The negationist Lost Cause ideology denies that slavery was the principal cause of the secession, a view disproven by historical evidence, notably some of the seceding states' own secession documents. After leaving the Union, Mississippi issued a declaration stating, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world."

Background factors in the run up to the Civil War were partisan politics, abolitionism, nullification versus secession, Southern and Northern nationalism, expansionism, economics, and modernization in the antebellum period. As a panel of historians emphasized in 2011, "while slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war."