why would Nullification would have had the effect of returning the nation to the Articles of Confederation
I'm not sure which Nullification you are speaking about, but in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-1799 Thomas Jefferson and James Madison argued a state had the right to nullify a federal law. The Articles of Confederation, by creating a weak central government, had a focus on states rights rather than federal. The Constitution changed that in 1789 by creating a stronger federal government. If a state nullified a federal law it would bring states rights back to the forefront, therefore returning the nation to the principles of the Articles of Confederation.
10. During a hearing, executive branch officials are asked to (Points : 1)
Power in congress resides in
Nullification refers to the theory that a state has the right to invalidate or nullify any federal law or action that it deems unconstitutional. Advocates of nullification argue that it allows states to protect their sovereignty and prevent the federal government from exceeding its powers. The concept of nullification gained prominence during the early 19th century when issues of states' rights and federal power were fiercely debated.
To understand why some believed that nullification would have returned the nation to the Articles of Confederation, we need to examine the differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation, in effect from 1781 to 1789, established a weak central government that largely relied on the individual states for authority and sovereignty. The federal government had limited powers and could not enforce its laws directly on individuals. It lacked a strong executive branch, had no power to levy taxes, and required unanimous consent from the states to amend the Articles. This resulted in a lack of centralized authority and made it challenging for the government to address interstate issues effectively.
In contrast, the Constitution, ratified in 1788, created a more powerful federal government with separate branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) and a system of checks and balances. The Constitution granted the federal government expanded powers, including the ability to levy taxes, regulate commerce between states, and establish a strong military. It also outlined the supremacy of federal law over state law.
With this context, proponents of nullification believed that invoking the principle of nullification would undermine the federal government's authority and reinstate the rights and powers of the individual states. They argued that by nullifying federal laws they perceived as unconstitutional, states would regain the level of authority they had under the Articles of Confederation. In essence, they saw nullification as a means to limit federal power and return to a more decentralized system where the states had more autonomy in shaping their own policies.
However, it is important to note that nullification was a highly contentious issue and there was no consensus on its interpretation or validity. The debate over nullification eventually culminated in the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 when South Carolina attempted to nullify federal tariffs, leading to a showdown between the state and the federal government. Ultimately, nullification as a means to return to the Articles of Confederation proved unsuccessful, as the federal government asserted its supremacy and consolidated its power through subsequent court decisions and political developments.
In conclusion, proponents of nullification believed that it would have returned the nation to the decentralized system of the Articles of Confederation by limiting federal power and restoring greater authority to the states. However, the nullification theory proved to be highly controversial, and its practical implementation did not succeed in reversing the course of federalism established by the Constitution.