Jenks's Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland [Me.]) 1799-1802, 1802-04-05

thole courts, being bound by the laws
OF the fate, if fate declared an act
of Congrefs unconfitutional, the law
Of the Gate would oblige ITS courts TO
determine the law invalid.-ThiS prin-
ciple would alto defroy the uniformity
of obligation upon all the lates, which
fhould attend every law of this govern
ment. If a law were declared void in
one fate, ii would exempt~the, citizens
of that fate from its operation, Whit
obedience was yielded TO it in the other
fates. | go farther and fay, if the
Rates or fate courts had a final power
of annulling the acts of this govern
ment, its miferable and precarious ex-
ifence would not be worth the trouble
of a moment to preferve.
1t would endure but ihort time, as
fubjed of deriiion, and waiting into
an empty ihadow would quickly vanilh
from our fight. Let me now ak if the
power to decide upon the validity of
our laws reGdes with the people. Cen
tlemen cannot deny this right to the
ioyereign people. | admit they pohefs
it. But if at the fame time it does not
belong to the courts of the United
States, where does it lead the people !?
1t leads them to the gailows. Let US
fuppofe that Congrefs, forgetful of the
limits of their authority, pats an uncon-
ffitutional law.AThey lay direct tax
upon one fate and impoGe none upon
the others. The people of the fate
taxed, CONTEXT the validity Of the law.
They forcibly reGlt its execution. They
are brought by the executive authority
before the courts upon charges Of trea-
fon. The law is unconstitutional, the
people have done right, but the courts
are bound by the law and obliged to
pronounce upon them the fent:nce
which it inhicts. Deny to the courts
of the u. States, the power of Judging
upon the conltitutionality of our laws,
and it is in vain to talk of its exiting
ellewhere. The infraaors Of the laws
are brought before theie courts, and if
the courts are implicitly bound, the
invalidity Of the laws can be do defence.
There is, however, Mr.. Chairman,
fill fronger groundof argument upon
thiSfubjea. | lhall feled one ortwo cafes
to illultrate il. Congrels are prohibited
from paling bill of attainder; it is
alto declared in the contribution that
&C no attainder of treaion 1hall work
corruption of blood or forfeiture, ex-
cePt during the life of the party attaint-
| ed" Let us fupPofe that CongrelS
pats bill of attainder, or they enact
that any one attainted Of treaGon lhall
forfeit TO the ufe of the United States
all the efate witch he held in any lands
or tenements.
The artyattainted is feized and bro't
before federal court, and an award of
execution paf1ed againlt him. He opens
the contribution and points to this line
!" no bill of attainder or ex pof fa6to
law ihall be paGed." The attorney for
the U. S. reads the bill of attainder.
The court are bound to decide, but
they have only the alternative of pro-
nouncrlg the law or the contribution
invalid. 1t is left to them only to fay
that the law yacateS the contribution,
or the contribution avoids the law. SO
in the other cafe itated, the heir after
the death of his ancefor, brings his
ele6tment in one ofthe courts of the u.
States TO recover his inheritance. The
law by which it is cenflcated is fhewn.
The contribution gave no power to pats
fuch a law. On the contrary it expressly
denied it to the government. The title
OF the heir is relted on the contribution,
the title of the government on the law.
The effect of the one deftroys the effect
ofthe other the court mutt determine
which is efedual.