Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1808-03-04

WE Recommend r. tine p1rt,c ular a,:en-
ton OF our readers the debate IN the S.p
ate of the UnitcA States on Mr.. GUESS
Bill for the punishment oftreasan and other
off,nces.
The subject IL extremely interesting, es-
pecialiy a. it involves the discussion OF "A
grand con titu:ional question whether cor
gress has right in any respect TO declare
whtt shall constitute treason against the
Unised Suites.
As ,h,s question is truiy nomeptous, as it
regards both the safety of tue union and The
rights at the people, it deserves the most
serious and judicious consideration and e.
very suggestion which may possibly cast
light upon 1t ought to be presented 20 the
pablo mind. We shall therefore take the
iiOerty of making few observations on the
suiiiect.
lhc constitution has declared that s.trea-
"aoA shall consis, only in lcyyinc war O.
'saiust the United States, or in atikerine
"eo tnetr enemies, giving them aid and COM
fcte." This, IL is said, is a sufficient def
hiton, and has so limited and restricted
the naiare or that offence, that congress has
TO ri%hr TO dchne it otherwise, or even TO
give AM explanation of It's definition. The
FIRST OF tnase positions we conceive 10 be
uadeniabiy correct; that congress is not
authorised to maize any thing treason which
II not so by the constitutions But, we an
pcehcnd, itdnes not fellow that congress
cannot explain the definition OF the crime
~ expressed IN the instrument itself.
II Is coa'cnded that the power of c1,,tIqin-
ny the constitution belongs 20 the j4d;c;ory
ahne. We grant cha. the Judges only have
Tie right OF expound;ng it So as TO applv il
60 cases Which haVe occurred !; but 1t is not
equally cigar that the expusitions pronoun-
Ced by them, however erroneous, are to he
exclusively and forever binding, so rs 10
ts'vern all cases which may hereafter oc
Cur.
i,may be said that if they put erroneous
aTI peraicioas constructions on the consij
tus.0n, tie only remedy is BY obtaining a
rnsndmeGts But it surely never could have
been itie intention of the trainers of that
instrument 70 give to the Judges Of the re-
dsral Courts the sapie and even greater
powers s'ia1 those which the contention
originally possessed The convention IL
cell had not the unlimited power of cstab.
hohing TIC fHn,l;:meht;,i isws OF the nation
tcT tEc 'ya.cm proposed ty it had no et-
fccr Unta Approved By o;her conventions
tiectet! ~ the pecpie. Par superior 10 this
w0u!f! De me power Of Tie i,;agcs, accord
ing to ti.; dectriie co";cuaod for; since
ths'r arbitrary .IGt world immediately at.
t2ch to the >nStisu.ion whatever they
chose, waich nothing cnuld separate from
II, or a5sii"ii, out amendments requiring
the c0nSn:GeEce 81 TWO thirds OF coneress.
and ut three i,urths of The legislatures of
ths diheren. states. Such en- extraordjna-
~ lnNcr orSht not to be regarded as hes
to~ed BY mere Implication on any branch
CT the g"Vrrnnieat; more especially on one
l1iepaH't1rt .! the i-eoP.c, and not remova-
Sje ire!n Office except ty impeachment
We conceive IL more rospnai 60 suppose
that &c executive and isgisativs depart
met;ts have the rghs. as We!! as the iud;
ciary, ~ e2ipounhiug The Constitution with
IL the spheres of their respective duties
and that, wGerc any che ofthe three makes
Il wrong exposition, tho o:her two are in
tencc1 to operate as cbecj,s upon il, and
the state governments and pccp!e rs checks
upon th@m ali. thus, Ger example, when
congress passes en- uncuns;iutianal law,
the iahgcs are not bulnid 70 oJsy 1t: but
If the iay;cr sHouId rciuae 20 comfy with
q law enacted III con!oyEi;y with the con-
.sttu,i"n, the public olinion must ultimate
iy prcrasl, or the refractory Judge be re-
moved from Office.
we grant That the ulode Of removal by
jmpeachmcnt is, in rraiity, nearly nugato-
ry: but, nc withstandiug he great defects
80 this part OF inc syste.n, we THINK il clear
that the trial OF an Inp"a chment vas IN
tended N be adequate 20 the purpose Of
rem9yi"S any JUICE wl!O should corruptly
or uiistuateiy refuse 20 oScy the laws If
his country, under the .fligc pre;cnce OF
their bcing unconstitutional. The whole
question ~ such cases is whether tho act
OF congress is really Constitutional or not.
lf Il be unconstitutional, the jud yes have "A
r;ghl to- reiase 10 enforce it If coasifuli-
anal, thcy ought 90 obey it; and, in every
inst2n:e, tde will of the people iaicly ex-
pressed Liust decide between the contend
ihg departments.
Inc argument that the great body Of the
nation is unable 60 form correct opinions on
the meaning 90 their Constitution, and that
either their REPRESENTATIVES in Congress,
or Judges, not Immediately responsible 60
them, are better qualified to decide such
questions for them, is not admissible ~
thIs free republican country. Tue pure and
ven established doctrine, hers, Is that the.
people collectively have intelligence enough
90 Understand their rights aud FRAMES
enough 20 MAINTAIN them.
Bnt il may be asked, slallthe people
collectively revise the decisions ef the iudS-
e., o. every question which comes before
tneni, md thus act as a court Cf appeals
We 30 nat raCan to contpnd foe such AN aj-
surdity brit tn insist that, where the con-
gross and the judges differ in their inter-
probation of the constitution, the people
Only car settle the dispute; which, IN this