Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1830-10-20


single member of the Union, in the cx-
tremlty supposed, but in that only, would
have II right, as an extra and ultra-cOn-
stltutional right, to make the appeal.
This brings US 10 the expedient lately
advanced, which claims for single State
"A ligh, to appeal against an exercise of
power by the Government of the United
States decided by the State to be uncon-
sttullonal, to the parties To- the constitu-
tlonal compact; the decision of the State
to have the effect Of nulilying the act Of
the Government ofthc United States, un-
less the decision Of the State be rcvcrs-
ed by three iourhs Of the parties.
The distinguished names and high au-
thortics which appear to have asserted
and given "A practical scope to this doc
trlnc, cnttlc il to respect which it might
be difficult otherwise to feel for it.
'lithc doctrine were to be understood
as requiring the three fouIths of the
State 10 sustain, instead Of that propo r
ton to reverse the decision 10 the appeal
/ ing State, the decision to be without cl-
feet during the appeal, it would be sui-
, licicnt 10 remark, that this extra constiiu-
tional course might well give way to that
marked out by the Constitution, which
authorizes two thirds of the States to in
stitutc and three fourths to cflcctuatc i'm
amendment olthc Constitution, establish
ing Il permanent rule of the highest au-
lhority, in place ofan irregular precedent
of constructions only.
But it is understood that the nulily-
ing doctrine imports that the decision of
the State is to be presumed valid, and that
IT ovcrrulcs the law oithe Unitcd States,
unless ovcrruled by three foulths Of the
! States. Can more be necessary to de-
monstratc the inadmissibility of such a
doctrine, than IT puts IT III the power o!thc
smallest fraction over one fourth of the
! United States, that is, of seven States out
F, Oi twenty four, 10 give the law and even
NE ".uslltuti n, 10 seventeen States,
each of the seventeen having as partIt to
the constitution, an equal right with each
\ OF the seven, to cNrou"d It, and to insist
on the exposition: That the seven might
IN particular instances be right, and the
seventeen wrongs, is more than possible.
I3u, to establish positive and pcrna-
ncnt rule giving such power, to such a
minority, over such n majority, would
o,crtrfrn the first prime pie of free gov
crnmcni, and in practice cccssarily over
turn the Government itself
'lt is to be rccolcctcd that the consti-
tuition was proposed to the people of the
States as Whoie, and unanimously adopt
ed by the States as q mhOle, il being n
part of the constitution that not less than
three iouiths of the States should be com
Iprtcnt TO make any alteration in what
! had been unanimously agreed to. So
great is the caution on this point, that in
two cases were peculiar interests were at
Stakc,a proportion even of three iouIths is
disirustcd, and unanimity required to
make an alteration.
When the constitution was adopted rs
IA whole, IT is certain that there were many
parts, which, if separately proposed,
would have been promptly rejected. 1t
is far from impossible, that every part of
"A constitution might be rejected by
majority, and yet taken together rs a
whole be unanimously accepted. Free
constitutions will rarely fever be formed,
without reel procal concessions; without
articles conditioned on and balancing
each other. Is there a constitution of n
single State out of the twenty four that
would bear the experiment of having lis
component pa Is submitted to the people
and separately decided on?
'What the fate ofthc constitution ofthe
! United States would be if small part of
the States could cypungc parts of it par
ticularly valued by a large majority, can
have but one answer.
'Thc difficulty is not removed by limit
! ing the doctrine to cases of construction.
How many cases of that sort, involving
cardinal provisions of the constitution,
have occurrcd' How many now exist
/ How many may hereafter spring up;
How many might be ingcniously created,
I if entitled To the privilege of a decision
in the mode proposed?
is it certain that the principle of that
mode would not reach further than is
contemplated II single State can of
right require three lounhs oiits coStatcsto
oyerrulc lis exposition oithc Constitution,
because that proportion is authorized to
amend it, would the plea be less pausi-
bic that, ns the constitution was unanl-
mously established, it ought to be unani-
mously cxpoundcd5
'Thc reply TO all such suggestions
seems 10 be unavoidable and irresistible
that the constitution iS n compact, that
its text is to be cxpoundcd according to
the provisions for expounding it-mak-
ing n part of the compact, and that none