ipl-logo

Virginia Resolution Dbq

1026 Words5 Pages

In 1798 the “Alien and Sedations Act” would give the president the power to prevent potential threats from immigrating as well as allow detainment of populations. This was seen as a potential abuse of power and circumvention of the checks and balance systems by two states and particular: Kentucky and Virginia. While the Kentucky Resolution seems inconsistent with the framers intent, the Virginia Resolution raises seriously concerns which are consistent with my reading of the “Federalist Papers.” The Kentucky Resolution is an ambitious response, at best, to the “Alien and Sedation Acts.” It holds that “the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself.” (Frohnen …show more content…

Consequently, “it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties.” (399) This view appears to be consistent with Publius account even viewing the goal of the union as the happiness of the public. The Virginia Resolution further agrees with Publius that the federal government is dependent on the states. This seems logical as the federal government is a collection of states and without the parts, the whole cannot exist. However, the Virginia Resolution differs in that it does seem to see the state governments as dependent on the federal government in the same way Publius does. It appears that the resolution only defends the federal government as long as it remains beneficial to the states. Despite this the Virginia Resolution still declares its loyalty to the Constitution first, showing that even if the theoretical account may differ from Publius the end is the same. From here the resolution sets out to determine its rights and duties in defending the …show more content…

The resolution holds that states “have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil.” (399) First is seems consistent with Publius that states should stop the progression of evil as the aim of government is the happiness of the public. It also seems consistent with the theory of checks and balances that states would want to protect their powers in the same way any branch would. As such it is clear that states have the right to intervene, or at the least raise questions about potential abuses of power. Despite this it does not appear to be a duty of the state to do such but instead it appears to be in the states own interest to intervene and prevent potential abuses. From here the resolution points to the “Alien and Sedations Act” as one such example of this abuse of

Open Document