Principles of '98  The Principles of '98 refer to the American political position after 1798 that individual states could judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees, and could refuse to enforce laws deemed unconstitutional. This refusal to enforce unconstitutional laws is generally referred to as "nullification," but has also been expressed as "interposition," i.e. the states' right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state. The principles were widely promoted in Jeffersonian Democracy, especially by the Quids, such as John Randolph of Roanoke. They never became law. The term derives from the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions written in 1798 by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively. This vocal segment of the "Founding Fathers" believed that if the central government was the exclusive judge of its limitations under the U.S. Constitution, then it would eventually overcome those limits and become more and more powerful and authoritarian. They argued that formal limiting devices such as elections and separation of power would not suffice if the government could judge its own case regarding constitutionality. As Jefferson wrote, ""When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."" In contrast to this position, other founding fathers believed it is the responsibility of the federal judiciary, not the states, to determine whether Congress has acted consistently with the Constitution. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton stated that the federal courts are the natural and proper forum for determining such legal issues: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents." In Federalist No. 80, Hamilton rejected the idea that each state may apply its own interpretation of the Constitution: "The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed."