Not Paying Protective Tariffs in the South

One of the occurrences that led to the United States Civil War, April 12, 1861 to April 9, 1865, between Northern states (The Union) and Southern states (The Confederacy), were none other than federal tariffs.  The North was mainly industrial and the South agricultural.  Before the Civil War, the United States Congress placed tariffs on manufactured products, primarily to protect and encourage the growth of domestic industries. These tariffs, often referred to as protective tariffs, were designed to make imported goods more expensive, thereby encouraging consumers to purchase locally made products.

Southern states often opposed protective tariffs, arguing that they hurt their agricultural economy by raising the cost of manufactured goods. The Nullification Crisis, sparked by South Carolina’s opposition to the Tariff of 1828 and 1832, highlighted the tensions surrounding tariffs and states’ rights.  The crisis was led by Senator and then Vice President John C. Calhoun.  He said the tariffs were null and void within the South Carolina border, arguing that states had the right to nullify federal laws deemed unconstitutional. This contradicted President Andrew Jackson, who opposed nullification and would threaten the use of force to enforce the tariffs.

Many Southerners feared the federal government might use the tariff as a stepping stone to attack the institution of slavery. They saw the tariff as a demonstration of federal power that could eventually be used to abolish slavery, which they saw as a state right.  The United States Constitution did not disallow slavery.

States and Immigration Law

The United States Constitution does address immigration.  It grants Congress the power to regulate immigration, particularly through the Naturalization Clause and the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.  The Naturalization Clause, found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, grants Congress the power to establish a uniform rule for naturalization throughout the United States. Naturalization is the legal process by which a person born in a foreign country can become a citizen of the United States.

The Commerce Clause, which is Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, grants Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. The Supreme Court has also interpreted this to include the power to regulate the admission and exclusion of aliens.  Individuals who enter the U.S. without going through designated ports of entry or without proper inspection are considered unauthorized immigrants.

In U.S. law, an “illegal immigrant” is a foreign national who enters or remains in the United States without legal authorization. This can occur through various means, such as entering without proper inspection, overstaying a visa, or entering under false pretenses. While the term “illegal immigrant” is commonly used, this is not a legally recognized term in U.S. law. The legal terminology is “undocumented immigrant” or “unauthorized immigrant.”

States are not required by the United States Constitution to enforce immigration laws.  This is where the sanctuary city comes.  However, states cannot impede, stop, or obstruct the federal government from the enforcement of federal laws.  Obstructing federal law enforcement officials from enforcing federal immigration laws is obstruction of justice.  Federal law includes provisions that criminalize interfering with the enforcement of immigration laws.

Nullification

A state obstructing the enforcement of federal laws is a form of nullification. Nullification, in this context, refers to a state’s attempt to declare a federal law void within its borders.  A state could do this by obstructing federal officials from enforcing federal immigration laws because it considers those laws unconstitutional.  The federal government does not have the right to violate the United States Constitution, but a state could challenge an action it sees as unconstitutional either in federal court or by initiating an attempt to change the law.

The Southern states were not always enforcing federal tariffs before the Civil War.  They were not producing many manufactured goods compared to the North and they didn’t want to pay reciprocal tariffs charged on their agricultural goods, such as cotton.  The federal government’s authority over states was not firmly established until after the Civil War.

The Supreme Court rejected the theory of nullification, specifically in the 1859 case of Ableman v. Booth and the 1958 case of Cooper v. Aaron.  In Ableman v. Booth, the Court rejected Wisconsin’s attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. In Cooper v. Aaron, the Court held that states could not nullify federal law, specifically in the context of school desegregation following the Brown v. Board of Education decision. The Supreme Court’s decisions have consistently affirmed the principle of federal supremacy and the federal judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution.

California Like the South Before the Civil War

California in the present operates in accordance with the South before the Civil War, when it would not pay the federal tariffs on manufactured goods.  In recent days, the Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, said that President Trump wanted “Civil War on the streets” of Los Angeles.  The state of California under Newsom failed to protect federal law enforcement, so President Trump called the California National Guard to protect them.  California and Newsom are nullifying federal laws.