Talk:Interposition

166.135.184.74 (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(As sort'of a note to myself) Using the sovereignty clause to refute the theory of interposition is a straw man argument. The Constiution for the United States does not give the General Government the right to interpret its powers. Benn Newman 00:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

The Constitution does not give state legislatures the power to determine constitutionality. That's what we have courts for. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Benn. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the federal government itself. I'm writing a paper entitled States' Rights and the Principles of 1798 and I find this position absurd. You cannot just load your inferences into the supremacy clause divorced of any connection to original intent. Dual federalism and a co-ordinate operation of the gov't was anticipated by the framers. The states would check the federal gov't in essence.

This page should be about interposition, not nullification

A suggestion about the opening statement of this page. Interposition is a theory in which the states can stand between a rogue federal government and the citizens of that state. Although it is closely related to nullification, it is not nullification. Interposition is not "an asserted right of U.S. states to declare federal actions unconstitutional." It is the state's authority to stand between the people of a state and a federal government encroaching on the Constitution.

Interposition is what occurs after a U.S. State decides a Federal action is unConstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.100.254.73 (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interposition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070827012059/http://www.floridamemory.com/FloridaHighlights/collins/ to http://www.floridamemory.com/FloridaHighlights/collins/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Distinguishing from things like state legalization of federally banned drugs, etc.

This article could probably use an explanation of how this old legal theory/approach differs from the modern one of states choosing to legalize various drugs that are still federally illegal and refuse to enforce the federal laws against them. Probably some other similar examples (and one imagine that abortion is likely to become one of them if Trump has his way next election).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)