The issue of Nullification that arose in the early 19th century created many parties to view the aspects of Nullification with great diversity in their political theories. Each party questioning and expressing their views, on whether or not Nullification is constitutional or unconstitutional, when is Nullification practical; when is it not. Who determines that it is just, who has the final say and what effects does Nullification have on the Union and a single state. These questions and views and others like them were expressed from two different view points in Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster's 1833 speech "The Constitution Not a Compact Between Sovereign States" and Abel Upshur's 1833 pamphlet An Exposition of the Virginia Resolutions of 1978. Webster viewed Nullification almost as an act of treason and greatly objected it. Upshur believed that Nullification was an, individual states right and supported it deeply.
Webster's views and theories oppose the beliefs of that South Carolina's believe that they posses the right to nullify a law that she believes is unconstitutional. He expresses throughout his speech that the Constitution is not a compact between sovereign states, but a government founded by the people of these states for the people, that works together with state authorities in the best interests of all the people in the Union as a whole. With such a case he also believes that the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution and laws passed by Congress. Webster states that no state authority can dissolve the relationships subsisting between the Government of the United States and individuals; that nothing can dissolve these relations but revolution. In which means.
no state can disregard the relationship between the Federal Government and the individuals and that the only way out would be a revolution. Webster believes that South Carolina is acting unjustly in it actions of Nullification, of a law that Congress in its just powers has a right to pass.