What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
supreme law
State sovereignty
Power to interfere

laws of the Union
amended and modified
Quote
"I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the
power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman
maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this
government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by
the people; those whoa administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended
and modified, just as the people may choose it should be."

Their position on nullification.
Webster is against nullification because he believes that the state of south carolina has no right to go against the consitutionn, he specifically says in the last paragraph that no state law should go against the constitution. 
Thoughts on the national government? 
Webster is most certainly a nationalist due to his high belief in a common america and one strong power in congress. 
Summary.
Webster talks about how south carolina reacted in a unconstituitonal manor to the the tariff. He also states his belief that no state law should undermine that of the congress. 
Questions? 
What state was Webster from?
What was his line of work?
How was he relevant?

the author of the source is Daniel Webster

?Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union?

I believe that they are against the nullification as they are arguing that the state has no right to go against the laws of the government which the people elected into power.

The author thinks that the states have no right to be able to state their position on the matter and take all of the laws placed on them since it was their vote that erected them to power. He also states that it is the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. 

The author states his position clearly by saying that the states have no right to interfere with the union and that it is a violation of the nations foundations. This shows that the author does not like the nullification act and believes that it’s an insane idea that the states are even allowed to nullify the laws that are placed on the country.

who is the author, what is his background? is he from the north or the south?

2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
Advantages, union, treason, citizens, consequences

3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?
“If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences?”

4. What is their position on nullification?
He believes that nullification is harmful to the union and states should not be allowed to reject laws

What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
He believes the national government has the most power in the United States, especially in regards to laws. For that reason, he believes it is unrealistic to go against what they say. “If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world.”

Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
Andrew Jackson is saying that nullification is harmful to the union because individual states are choosing to go against the government and causing divide. He believes the states should be grateful that they are part of a union and therefore, should not try to challenge it by going against the laws.

What questions do you have about this reading?
I wonder if Andrew Jackson was able to convince people to not support nullification with this proclamation?

The author is Daniel Webster.

“Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary.” Webster believes that the state government is more restricted than the national government, and therefore does not have the right to declare a national law null and void.

I think that Webster’s position on nullification is that he is against it, because he seems to talk a lot about the rights of the states compared to the national government. He says, “whence is this supposed right of the states derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union?”. He says in this excerpt that the states do not have the right to interfere with or stop any laws made by the government. This includes declaring laws null and void, which is what South Carolina did and what Webster seems to disagree with.
What does this person think about the power of the national government?

He thinks it is the “supreme law”, as he states in the first paragraph. He mentions multiple times that the powers of national and state government are two separate beings and that state government is “definite and restricted”. Webster seems to think that the national government has much more power than state governments do, and that it can overrule the state government, as he mentions that “the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared”.
Briefly summarize the reading in two sentences.

Daniel Webster discusses the rights of state governments versus national government, emphasizing that both of these powers stem from the people. Though both are equally important, he shares his perspective on state government being more restricted while national government is more general and holds more power.
What questions do you have about this reading?

I wonder what Daniel Webster’s position was in the U.S. and whether he was from the North or the South, as that could have influenced his opinion on the matter.

The reading is an excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s nullification proclamation in 1832

2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)

“Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON” (Jackson

4. What is their position on nullification?

Jackson is for it and he calls any state or person who doesn’t follow the law a traitor

5. What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

He thinks that everyone must follow the government's laws and regulations to keep the union intact. Detail: “The laws of the United States must be executed”

6. Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences. 

Jackson talks about how people and states must follow the federal government’s laws to maintain the union and to safeguard the ideals that it was based upon. As well anyone who takes up arms against the government and against its laws are traitors

7. What questions do you have about this reading?

Really only one and that is how did people react to the speech or transcript in both the north and south?

The author of this excerpt is Andrew Jackson. 

Treason, Advantages, law, duty, union

“Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON”
What is their position on nullification?  

I believe that Webster’s position on the nullification is that he is completely against it and believes that it would be considered treason  
What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

Webster believes that the national government is very powerful and should stay powerful. He also believes that the United States government should have a lot of control over the laws and rules of the country.
Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences. 

Webster mentions that citizens and states should follow the federal law and government rules for the balance and safety of the country. He also states that anyone who thinks otherwise or go against these rules are considered traitors and should be convicted for treason  
What questions do you have about this reading? 

How did people react to this speech?

I wonder if he was able to persuade people with his ideas and thoughts on the topic?