Talk:Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

message: The way I read the resolutions, the compact is between the States. The General Government was created by the compact. 
A few quotes from the Kentucky Resolution of 1798:
:"they [the States] constituted a general government for special purposes"
:"that the government created by this compact..."
:"each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."
:"Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact"
From the Kentucky Resolution of 1799:
:"That the several states who formed that instrument..."
From the Virginia Resolution of 1798:
:"the states who are parties thereto..."
Benn Newman 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Government a member of the compact? 

message: Is this article in the correct format because its kind of hard to follow? 70.157.53.223 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added sections and moved paragraphs around to fit the sections.  I think it still reads the same, but will happily defer to anyone more knowledgeable. Robomanx (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article format

message: I don't have a problem with adding a section that deals with secession if it is linked well and historically, i.e., why does the right to secession exist because of nullification qua nullification, and how did the 1798 resolutions play a part in that discussion leading up to the 1860  war?  In fact, such a discussion might be good, if it's not dealt with sufficiently in a War Between the States article.  That said, I don't think that mentioning Abraham Lincoln is enough to link them.  One could even argue that Jefferson himself stopped short of linking nullification and secession by dropping the threat to secede from the Union.  What do you all think?
--Dr. Elwin Ransom 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secession? 

message: Someone please split this article up.  I would, but I'm working on a project right now and I don't know how to.
ZestyMcHaggis 07:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: This page should redirect from Kentucky & Virginia Resolves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.141.158 (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection 

message: Not being an expert on this topic, I am reluctant to edit it, but it sorely needs editing.  Several topics are mashed together in single paragraphs, threads of discussion wander about, sentences begin by implying one direction and end in another, ...  
Also, I'm a bit concerned with the number of references to Kevin Gutzman works.  He's not the most mainstream of authors. Robomanx (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: Sfieldman (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Virginia Resolution did NOT argue for nullification

message: :"Years later, the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 led anti-slavery activists to quote the Resolutions to support their calls on Northern states to nullify what they considered unconstitutional enforcement of the law.See Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act, by Byron Paine (1854)."
I changed this to:
:Years later, the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 led anti-slavery activists to quote the Resolutions to support their calls on Northern states to nullify what they considered enforcement of unconstitutional laws.See Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act, by Byron Paine (1854).
 changed it back, saying "The change significantly alters the meaning of the sentence", which is what I was trying to do. It isn't "unconstitutional enforcement", whatever that is, it's that the law is unconstitutional so it shouldn't be enforced in any way.
Looking at it now, it might more clearly and concisely say "calls on Northern states to stop enforcing a law they considered unconstitutional".
Anyone agree with me?  deisenbe (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unconstitutional law or unconstitutional enforcement of a constitutional law?