廢止論

廢止論（英語：Nullification）在美國憲政歷史中，是一種州有權廢止與聯邦憲法（也與州憲法）相牴觸的法律。廢止論之理論從未被聯邦法院支持^[1]。

廢止論的理論基礎在於一種觀點，即各州基於互相之間的協議（或「契約」）而成為聯邦，並且各州作為聯邦政府的創建者，各州有權決定聯邦政府的權力範圍。按這樣的契約論，各州而非聯邦最高法院擁有關於聯邦政府權力範圍的最終解釋權。按這種理論，各州於是可以廢止那些各州認為超越憲法授權的聯邦法律。干涉論相關的觀點在於，當州認為聯邦政府之立法違憲時，州有權利且有義務干涉並介入。托馬斯·傑斐遜和詹姆斯·麥迪遜通過1789年的《肯塔基和維吉尼亞決議》創製了廢止論和干涉論。

包括聯邦最高法院在內的州法院和聯邦法院，不斷否決廢止論^[2]。法院以《憲法》的「最高條款」判定，聯邦法律高於州法律，並且根據《憲法》第三條，聯邦法院擁有對《憲法》的最終解釋權。因此，最終有權決定聯邦法律的合憲性在於聯邦法院，而非各州，各州並未擁有廢止聯邦法律的權力。

在1798年到1861年美國南北戰爭戰前，一些州以此威脅或試圖廢止某些聯邦法律。所有這些努力都不合法。《肯塔基和維吉尼亞決議》被其他各州所拒斥。美國最高法院在19世紀的一系列判例中拒絕廢止論，包括 Ableman v.Booth 案中拒絕了Wisconsin嘗試廢止《逃奴法》的聲張。南北戰爭終結了大部分廢止論的企圖。

在1950年代，南方各州曾嘗試使用廢止論和干涉論來阻止其學校進行（種族）整合。最高法院在 Cooper v. Aaron案中明示，各州無權廢止聯邦法律，因而南方各州遭遇失敗。

參考文獻

^ Card, Ryan. "Can States 'Just Say No' to Federal Health Care Reform? The Constitutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law". B.Y.U. Law Review. 2010, 2010 (5): 1795, 1808 [2019-05-04]. （原始內容存檔於2015-01-18）（英語）. [S]tates throughout U.S. history have attempted to use variations of the nullification doctrine to invalidate national law. However, every attempt by states to nullify federal law was clearly rejected by not only the federal government, but also by other states.
^ See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809), all of which are discussed below.

延伸閱讀

Ableman v. Booth （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
Anderson, Frank Maloy. Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. American Historical Review. 1899: 45–63, 225–244. 缺少或|title=為空 (幫助)
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960)
Cooper v. Aaron （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
Elliot, Jonathan. Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 4 expanded 2nd. Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1907: 532–539 [1836].
Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
Kentucky Resolutions of 1799
Madison, James "Notes, On Nullification" （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, Library of Congress, December, 1834
Virginia Report of 1800 （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）
Virginia Resolutions of 1798
Wood, Walter. Nullification: A Constitutional History, 1776-1833. Washington, DC: University Press of America. 2008. ISBN 978-0-7618-4011-4.
Woods, Thomas E. Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Regnery. 2010. ISBN 1-59698-149-0.

外部連結

2010 State-by-State Nullification Efforts （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）
South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, November 24, 1832
Nullification Revisited （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, An article examining the constitutionality of nullification (from a favorable aspect, and with regard to both recent and historical events)
Nullification Overview （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, A research paper examining nullification bluntly (from a student perspective, and keeping other events in mind.)
Know Your States' Rights, Review of historian Thomas Woods' book on the subject in the American Conservative

[1] Card, Ryan. "Can States 'Just Say No' to Federal Health Care Reform? The Constitutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law". B.Y.U. Law Review. 2010, 2010 (5): 1795, 1808 [2019-05-04]. （原始內容存檔於2015-01-18）（英語）. [S]tates throughout U.S. history have attempted to use variations of the nullification doctrine to invalidate national law. However, every attempt by states to nullify federal law was clearly rejected by not only the federal government, but also by other states.

[2] See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館）, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809), all of which are discussed below.

[1]

[2]