P.S.  And even more to the point.  The following article in comparative law was published in 1990, 2-1/5 decades ago, well before today's "nullification" and "state sovereignty" push was underway. The author therefore had no ax to grind regarding today's issues.

Title:  THE LOCUS OF SOVEREIGNTY: JUDICIAL REVIEW, LEGISLATIVE SUPREMACY, AND FEDERALISM IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL TRADITIONS OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES by Calvin R. Massey**• Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings. B.A., 1969, Whitman Col­lege; M.B.A., 1971, Harvard University; J.D., 1974, Columbia University. I am grateftil to the Roger J. Traynor Fund for a research grant which aided this study, to Professors Tom Barnes, Victor Jones, and the Canadian Studies group at the University of California, Berkeley, upon whom I inflicted an earlier version of this paper, to my colleagues Scott Sundby and Bill Wang, who sharp­ened some of my thinking, to Professors Alan Cairns and Ronald Watts, who reviewed and com­mented upon earlier drafts, and to the residents of Hornby Island, British Columbia, from whom I have gained invaluable insight into the Canadian national character. An earlier version was presented to the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States at its 1989 biennial meeting under the title "Meech Lake and Calhoun's 'Concurrent Majority.'" The errors and omissions are, of course, mine alone.

Source:  1230 DUKE LAW JOURNAL Vol. 1990:1228 et seq.

EXTRACTS:

/ 1242

...

I. Calhoun's Concurrent Majority and the Expediency of Sovereignty Doctrine in Antebellum America

The political theory of John C. Calhoun represents the fullest ex­pression of the decentralized, state-focused view of the American federal union. Although this attitude often is associated with antebellum South­ern agrarians,55 it was by no means unique to the South. It is an estab­lished American political pastime to manipulate state sovereignty principles in order to achieve immediate political objectives. What makes Calhoun remarkable is that his theory was perhaps the best rea­soned and most thoughtful of the genre, albeit no less instrumental. A brief look at the development of American state sovereignty principles provides contextual understanding of Calhoun's political philosophy and a basis for comparison with the development of Canadian principles of provincial autonomy.

.... .... ....

The Alien and Sedition Acts were a Federalist attempt "to discredit the Republicans and to reduce them to political impotence by associating them with foreign influence and by attacking their loyalty, ideology, and morality.. .. The XYZ affair was not so much the cause, as the occa­sion, for striking at political opposition."67 It was, in short, an opportu­nity for Federalists "to equate opposition to the government's policy with sedition and near treason."68 Although Adams may have thought that the Acts were a sufficient sop to outraged Federalists, Republicans such as Madison and Jefferson proclaimed them unconstitutional because they went beyond the proper sphere of congressional power, impaired free speech and the right to trial by jury, and contravened the constitutional principle of separation of powers.69

..... .....

/// XTH AMENDMENT MOVEMENT AND NULLIFICATION IS "POSTURING"
AND KEEPING THE PEOPLE "BUSY" - DISTRACT THEM FROM WHAT
IS IMPORTANT -- AND THEN LEAD THEM OVER THE BRINK ON A TROLLEY OF "POLITICAL" POSTURING AS "PRECEDENTS" TO VOTE TO DESTROY AMERICA -- ////
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jefferson's rhetorical denunciation of the Acts was a deft political statement. He composed the 1798 Kentucky Resolutions, which de­clared that the federal union, as a compact among the states, enabled each state to decide for itself when and whether the national government had exceeded its constitutional authority. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolu­tions even suggested that a state might declare null and void a federal law that it believed to infringe upon its state sovereignty.70 But this was not a statement of grand principle; it was a calculated bit of political posturing. In a letter to James Madison, Jefferson admitted that:

[W]e should distinctly affirm all the important principles... [the Reso­lutions] contain, so as to hold that ground in the future, and leave the matter in such a train as that we may not be committed absolutely to push the matter to extremities, and yet may be free to push as far as events may render prudent.71 '

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

More circumspect, Madison's Virginia Resolutions reaffirmed the compact theory of union and declared that the constituent states "have the right and are in duty bound to interpose, for the arresting the pro­gress of evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the au­thorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."72  Madison did not go so far as to suggest that a state possessed the unilateral power of nulli­fication of federal law.

/

But Madison did deliver an implied endorsement of this corollary to the compact theory of federal union in his collateral Virginia Report adopted by the Virginia Legislature; "[T]here can be no tribunal above their [the states'] authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated . .. .**73 It was not im­mediately evident whether this meant that the states possessed the unilat­eral right to nullify federal law they deemed unconstitutional, or only that, in the years prior to Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,14 Madison thought the United States Supreme Court lacked the constitutional authority to review the actions of the states.73

/

Even though Madison's position, more fully stated in the Virginia Report, suggested that the Virginia Resolutions might have arisen from bedrock principles of constitutional union, the Report contained other evidence that belied the suggestion. Madison admitted to the Virginia House of Delegates that the Resolutions "were designed merely to be an expression of opinion, 'unaccompanied by any other effect than what they may produce on opinion by exciting reflection.' "76 This frank ad­mission, coupled with Jefferson's equally candid letter to Madison,77 in­dicate that these early statements of state sovereignty within the federal system of the United States primarily may have been propaganda designed to foster Republican victory in 1800. Rather than thoughtful statements of the political theory of federalism, these statements were campaign position papers.78 Whatever their origin, they left a lasting imprint on later debate concerning the nature of federal union.

GET THE ARTICLE ITSELF RIGHT HERE:

http://www38.zippyshare.com/v/10419783/file.html

It contains the file:  The Locus of Sovereignty_ Judicial Review Legislative Supremacy.pdf

Kind regards from Canada.

Kathleen Moore

HABEAS CORPUS CANADA

The Official Legal Challenge

To North American Union

Blog: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com

WordPress:  www.NoSnowinMoscow.com - CANADA: How The Communists Took Control.

- 30 -

READ THIS ON NULLIFICATION, and WAKE UP.

http://www71.zippyshare.com/v/6295498/file.html