The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1829-01-19
JUDICIAL.
OFFICIAL. PAPER.

| ira copies we're o. dri ed 20 be pfiniehi
| The Committee an the Judiciary 10 whom was
referred The resolution of the House, insiruc-
ting thcm 10 inquire into The expediency Of
providing. bg he. that create, unmbe, than
majority OF ihe Supreme Court should ~nu-
GU IA prnnonneine any pau DIN State Con.
aitntion, az aei ofa State Leg slninfe 10 be-
invalid, mud that, wiihoui such roncurroute
no part Ola Constitution ofa State or ne,
Of u State Legislature, shall be holden
invalid beg .eaye IN submit the follow ing
REPORT
The committee considering the suject matter
nj the resolution To he one Of great Importance,
hive beiowed ppon II that grave consideration
which II emnhbfically deserved Al an early
period Of our Judicial history. the principle
was decided u, The Supreme Federal Court
TINT II was within their competency TO decide
any Law TO be void which was IN contraVsntion
THE constitution. This decision was placed
by them upon the ground that the constitution
and laws Of the Unned States, made in p,'rsu-
ance thereof, and neaies made under the autho-
riiy OF The United States wesa declared 20 he
the supreme law of the land they Therefore
held that. when any state constitution or law
came, IN Their opinion, into conflict with what
whs declared 10 be- he supreme law. thai which
WIS moi supreme musi yield 10 TINT which mns
"'' wa" my l'HF' Nhl HulipN or
Jaw, thus coming into conflict, must h. held
null aud void II will be seen thu, thi.
rs principle derived by our iud ca
~ from The nature of our written cousti-
tuition imposing many limitations aud tcstlc-
iions, as well upon hr Federal as State CIV.
ernnenls, aud M ihe snme time up ~ It's ncu
declaring us own supremacy The committee
do not propose nj all to dcplo,e the io1nda
ton Of this great Principe but, taking il a.
Que which has long bncn decided, aud acted
upon they cannot ibe1r 20 remark, that the
power winch " implies is one Of grent mnRni.
tnde and most extensive operation embracing
within It's comprehenslv" gasp III" authority a.
nnllity the legislative acts of the Union, and oi
the States, individual y, aud even the most sol
emn OF all acts the expression of the will of the
sovereign People of the States, IN the form oi
their written constitutions. Thata power ~
tremendous should be fenced around with pro-
per guards is a proposition which the Com n
lee snpposI scarcely reqn res the AID OF argu-
meni TO challenge the assent Of all They are
aware that 1t is question about which there ~
much more difference of opinion TO what rx-
tent this caution shall he carried As the ST..
prem Court of the u. s, is AT present otgou's.
ed II consists of seven members, of whom fur
constitutes quorum. and three being u MA
joriiy of that quorum, ~ results, thai the CON
ihiIfntf on lnTFf VI inf Ju Rth - ibihptlfi ~
the notification ola State law or even Com
slitulon II may then happen IN the actual
posture of our Judiciary, thai minority oi the
Court might nuify the mos solemn acis oI the
States, whilst the majority OF the Court mig h,
possibly entertain different opinion
The committee presume thai there are but
few who would not nj once acqulesce the
just ce and proprleiy OF the proposition, thai IA
making So solemn aud important der.lon
there should he concurrence eta lrast n ma
torifV of he whole Court. They however
think that il would be advisable 20 require the
concurrence oltiee membcls ot The Court
This Is, indeed. II question Il more of less, and
upon which u is admitted that IL cannot he PIE
diehed with ahosolntc certainty, that any par-
lenIar namber IS the proper ON hut they viii
offer Ia tho House nome oi the prominent con-
,ideralions which have induced them 10 dccldr
in favor of the number FIVE
II will be reeo leoind, that in controversies,
originating IN ihe 81 IT, Courts question Cou
corning the validity ofh State law, ~ Constitu.
tlon. cannot be brought before the 5hpfrl9c
Court the United States until II shati 1tHve
been adjudicatrd by the highest Siatc ,is,lnh
nor unless tire decision Of that tribunal shall
have been IN lavof OF It's validity Before, then.
the Supreme court can pass upon such a qurs-
ton, ia any cav the validity fihe law, or
Constitution, ~ the case may be, mui have re-
cciyrd the most authoritative stamp of appioba-
ton in The State which arose Iii Icmle.
10 the yalri oil u law it must hive been ap-
proved of by both the bran hes of the legsia-
turo II il relate 10 lhai ola Constitution il must
have been approves fly the people of the
Slate IN the exercise oil their soverei n power
III ihriT primary assembly as tonv MI ~
and II must, IN controversies, originating ~
state Courts, ALEC have been decidsd ~ iavoi of
bv the Court Of denei resort IA the State Ia
this posture OF the subject ia bar m1jpity Of
the lpreme Count of thi United States should
jeciee against The validity he Stair, whose
Constitution, u law, WAS thus nnllihrd, can
scarcely aCqur CO with az a murm'ni especial
ly when u va considered, that b sidrs III" con
curing appreciation Of It's Convention Or Irg-
stature, aud it, judiciary. II might he sustained
by thai also Of the farae femaulag lneinbHrs al
the Court aud when II is remembered too tha'
The question must always be, Nhethe. me State
has o, has not. transcribed b. units Of rs re-
served rights, q owing out Of 10 compact "hh
another PARTY 10 wit the Federal Govern
ment aud that the supreme Co1u al II" Uni
It'd State are the tibInal of lat other phtiy'
The concurrence. then Of n greater nnnfbet
Than bare maoriiy Of that tribunal, viii tend
tn produce II greater spirit OF acgolescenre, TO
qnie hcart-burnings and thus add strong CO.
nirnt 10 thai Union winch We all desire 10 he IN
dlssoluhle aud perpetual.
Nor IS the selection ofihe number five ~ all
an arbitrary one ~ mlGht possibly At ne hls'
view br supposed. Inc Constitution 81 The u
niird States, in several instances, where the
subject is important, requires the co tenrrence
of two thirds Of the body called aPoh 10 ac' ~
relation 10 il. Thus. a. amrndnrf + 10 h>rI
canno, even be originated without the concur
rent votes Of two thirds Of b"ih ilanses ni Tn
grrss or the application. of two 'hfds o' I1"
several States hus, TOO, teaiF cannot %"
| ratified without the concpIrng vote Oh '""-
! thirds Of the Senators pIrscui. But mere II
aao,hcr provision OF mat Instrument "hich
bears much closer analogy 10 the presedi
question, because u has rrirrepc. 10 judicial
tribunal IL Is thai winch declares, thar ~ case
| Of Impeachment no person shall be convicted
| without the concurrence Of 'w"-ihnds OF tho