These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
[14] James Madison said: "A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void.
It has been argued that certain statements in the Virginia ratifying convention, although not asserting a right of nullification, articulated a basis for the compact theory.
Edmund Randolph and George Nicholas stated that Virginia's ratification of the Constitution would constitute its agreement to a contract, and that if Virginia were to state its understanding at the time of ratification that the federal government could exercise only its delegated powers, this understanding would become part of the contract and would be binding on the federal government.
[19] These statements implied a belief that Virginia, as a party to the contract, would have a right to judge the constitutional limits of federal power.
[21] For example, Luther Martin's letter to the Maryland ratifying convention asserted that the power to declare laws unconstitutional could be exercised solely by the federal courts, and that the states would be bound by federal court decisions: "Whether, therefore, any laws or regulations of the Congress, any acts of its President or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by, the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determinations every state must be bound.
It is true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide, is to be established under the general [i.e. federal] government.
The earliest assertion of the theories of nullification and interposition is found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which were a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Rather, these resolutions declared that Kentucky "will bow to the laws of the Union" but would continue "to oppose in a constitutional manner" the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The Virginia Resolutions asserted that when the federal government engages in "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise" of powers not granted by the Constitution, "the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them".
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions did not attempt to prohibit enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts within the borders of those states.
It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union.
The Report of 1800 also said that a declaration of unconstitutionality by the states would be only an expression of opinion designed to spur debate, rather than having the authoritative effect of a federal court decision.
The Massachusetts resolution did not purport to nullify the Embargo Act, but instead stated that "the judicial courts are competent to decide this question, and to them every citizen, when aggrieved, ought to apply for redress".
[50] Congress repealed the Embargo Act in 1809 because it had been ineffective in achieving its goal of bringing economic pressure on England and France.
At the Hartford Convention of 1814, delegates from several New England states met to discuss their disagreements with the federal government's policies.
The Virginia legislature passed resolutions declaring that the Supreme Court had no authority over it due to principles of state sovereignty.
Ohio passed resolutions declaring that it did not accept the result of the McCulloch case and denying that the Supreme Court had the final authority to interpret the Constitution.
The Court held that "according to the settled principles of our Constitution", authority over Indian affairs is "committed exclusively to the government of the Union".
[56] The Supreme Court thus asserted final authority to interpret the Constitution and federal treaties, rejecting Georgia's nullification attempt.
Before the Supreme Court could hear a request for an order enforcing its judgment, the Nullification Crisis arose in South Carolina.
[58] In the Webster–Hayne debate in the Senate in 1830, Daniel Webster responded to this nullification theory by arguing that the Constitution itself provides for the resolution of disputes between the federal government and the states regarding allocation of powers.
In his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson said: "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.
While the nullification crisis arose over a tariff law, it was recognized that the issues at stake had application to the slavery question as well.
[62] Northern states in the mid-19th century attempted to block enforcement of the pro-slavery federal Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850.
The Court found that Pennsylvania's personal liberty law was unconstitutional because it conflicted with the Constitution's fugitive slave clause.
[64][65] The Supreme Court again dealt with a northern challenge to the federal fugitive slave statutes in the case of Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859).
At least ten southern states passed nullification or interposition measures attempting to preserve segregated schools and refusing to follow the Brown decision.
Interposition is considered to be less extreme than nullification because it does not involve a state's unilateral decision to prevent enforcement of federal law.
"[75] During the fight over integration of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states passed so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually would have had the effect of nullification.