13,094
edits
Changes
mLine 3:
Line 3: − + Line 10:
Line 10: − + − + − + − +
Text replacement - "http://" to "https://"
==Origin==
==Origin==
from French ''interposer'', from [[Latin]] ''interponere'' ‘put in’ (from inter- ‘between’ + ''ponere'' ‘put’), but [[influenced]] by ''interpositus'' ‘inserted’ and Old French ''poser'' ‘to place.’
from French ''interposer'', from [[Latin]] ''interponere'' ‘put in’ (from inter- ‘between’ + ''ponere'' ‘put’), but [[influenced]] by ''interpositus'' ‘inserted’ and Old French ''poser'' ‘to place.’
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1582]
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_century 1582]
==Definitions==
==Definitions==
*1: place or insert between one [[thing]] and another: he ''interposed'' himself between her and the top of the stairs.
*1: place or insert between one [[thing]] and another: he ''interposed'' himself between her and the top of the stairs.
::c. [[exercise]] or advance (a [[veto]] or objection) so as to [[interfere]]: the memo ''interposes'' no objection to issuing a discharge.
::c. [[exercise]] or advance (a [[veto]] or objection) so as to [[interfere]]: the memo ''interposes'' no objection to issuing a discharge.
==Description==
==Description==
'''Interposition''' is an asserted [[right]] of a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state U.S. state] to oppose [[actions]] of the federal government that the state deems unconstitutional. Under the theory of interposition, a state may "interpose" itself between the federal government and the people of the state by taking action to prevent the federal government from enforcing [[laws]] that the state considers unconstitutional. ''Interposition'' has not been upheld by the [[courts]]. Rather, the courts have held that the [[power]] to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal [[judiciary]], not with the states. The courts have held that ''interposition'' is not a valid constitutional [[doctrine]] when invoked to block enforcement of federal law.
'''Interposition''' is an asserted [[right]] of a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state U.S. state] to oppose [[actions]] of the federal government that the state deems unconstitutional. Under the theory of interposition, a state may "interpose" itself between the federal government and the people of the state by taking action to prevent the federal government from enforcing [[laws]] that the state considers unconstitutional. ''Interposition'' has not been upheld by the [[courts]]. Rather, the courts have held that the [[power]] to declare federal laws unconstitutional lies with the federal [[judiciary]], not with the states. The courts have held that ''interposition'' is not a valid constitutional [[doctrine]] when invoked to block enforcement of federal law.
''Interposition'' is closely related to the [[theory]] of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) nullification], which holds that the [[states]] have the right to nullify federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional and to prevent enforcement of such laws within their [[borders]].
''Interposition'' is closely related to the [[theory]] of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) nullification], which holds that the [[states]] have the right to nullify federal laws that are deemed unconstitutional and to prevent enforcement of such laws within their [[borders]].
Though [[interposition]] and nullification are similar, there are some [[differences]]. Nullification is an act of an [[individual]] state, while ''interposition'' was conceived as an action that would be undertaken by states acting jointly. Nullification is a [[declaration]] by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional accompanied by a declaration that the law is void and may not be enforced in the state. ''Interposition'' also involves a declaration by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional, but interposition as originally [[conceived]] does not result in a declaration by the state that the federal law may not be enforced in the state. Rather, the law would still be enforced. Thus, interposition may be seen as more [[moderate]] than nullification.
Though [[interposition]] and nullification are similar, there are some [[differences]]. Nullification is an act of an [[individual]] state, while ''interposition'' was conceived as an action that would be undertaken by states acting jointly. Nullification is a [[declaration]] by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional accompanied by a declaration that the law is void and may not be enforced in the state. ''Interposition'' also involves a declaration by a state that a federal law is unconstitutional, but interposition as originally [[conceived]] does not result in a declaration by the state that the federal law may not be enforced in the state. Rather, the law would still be enforced. Thus, interposition may be seen as more [[moderate]] than nullification.
There are various [[actions]] that a state might take to "interpose" itself once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. These actions include [[communicating]] with other states about the unconstitutional law, attempting to enlist the [[support]] of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention constitutional convention].
There are various [[actions]] that a state might take to "interpose" itself once it has determined that a federal law is unconstitutional. These actions include [[communicating]] with other states about the unconstitutional law, attempting to enlist the [[support]] of other states, petitioning Congress to repeal the law, introducing Constitutional amendments in Congress, or calling a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention constitutional convention].
''Interposition'' and nullification often are [[discussed]] [[together]], and many of the same [[principles]] apply to both theories. In [[practice]], the terms nullification and interposition often have been used indistinguishably. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun John C. Calhoun] indicated that these terms were interchangeable, stating: "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system." During the fight over desegregation of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states tried to preserve their segregated schools by passing so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually would have had the effect of nullification, if they had been valid.[6] These acts were stricken down by the [[courts]], whether labelled acts of interposition or nullification.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition]
''Interposition'' and nullification often are [[discussed]] [[together]], and many of the same [[principles]] apply to both theories. In [[practice]], the terms nullification and interposition often have been used indistinguishably. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Calhoun John C. Calhoun] indicated that these terms were interchangeable, stating: "This right of interposition, thus solemnly asserted by the State of Virginia, be it called what it may — State-right, veto, nullification, or by any other name — I conceive to be the fundamental principle of our system." During the fight over desegregation of the schools in the south in the 1950s, a number of southern states tried to preserve their segregated schools by passing so-called "Acts of Interposition" that actually would have had the effect of nullification, if they had been valid.[6] These acts were stricken down by the [[courts]], whether labelled acts of interposition or nullification.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition]
[[Category: Law]]
[[Category: Law]]