Question

Were the Alien and Sedition Acts constitutional or unconstitutional? Did they follow the meaning of the Constitution or did they violate it in some way? Be prepared to cite the Constitution in your response.

Second, what would happen if the individual states chose to nullify these acts or any others? What would it mean for the country?

Answer 1

I always did like Early American History...

Okay, so first things first. Are you still there?

Answer 2

Well, okay then. Bye...

Answer 3

Im still here sorry, I'm just studying

Answer 4

Back in 1798, the Acts never really went through judicial review by the supreme court. Although, judicial review wasn't truly established until the early 1800s. So, yes, many people consider the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional today.

Answer 5

Thank you for help that actually made sense to me along with the extra reading I did

Answer 6

No problem

Answer 7

Well, if you got your answer, that's good. But, if I can add a bit more to dmnd's response..

The Alien, and especially the Sedition acts were extremely unconstitutional. The thing is, the first Amendment protects the freedom of the speech and the press. The sedition act defies that because it censored any bit of criticism against the government.

That in itself defies Amendment one in so many ways, as well as the constitutional ideals. The founding fathers were afraid of tyranny, which the Alien and Sedition acts seemed to support. They wanted citizens to be able to change their government if things went south, and therefore it was impervious that the citizens, especially the press, held power as "watchdogs" of the government.
Because they weren't allowed to criticize the government, they couldn't do that.

So, in your response, you might want to quote the First Amendment. Maybe look at a few other elements that restricted the national government too.

Anyways, if states chose to nullify those acts, they would be announcing power over the federal government. It would mean that the government has to be more careful, seeing as those states held power and authority, and could hold sessions to deem acts unconstitutional and refuse to uphold them.
Although, this power sort of died (I think) with the Civil War, but that's a whole other topic.

So, I really don't see how this deals with Judaical Review. I could be wrong about that bit, though.