The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-10-14

same view has continued To prevail, and
that il does so at this time, Notwithstanding
the eminent exceptions to it.
But il is perfectly consistent with the
concession Of this power to the Supreme
Court, in cases falling within the course Of
its functions, to maintain that the power has
not always been rightly exercised. To
say nothing Of the period, happily short
one, when Judges in their seats did not
abstain from Incorporate and party ha-
rangues, equally at variance with their du-
ty and their dignity, there have been occa-
sional decisions from the bench, which
have incurred serious and extensive disap-
probation. Still il would seem, that, with
but few exceptions, the course OF the Ju-
dietary has been hitherto sustained by tho
predominant sense OF the nation.
Those who have denied or doubted tho si.
promacy OF the judicial power Of the United
States, and denounce at the same time null
lifying power in State, seem not TO have
sufficiently adverted To the utter inefiic iency
Of a supremacy in n law Of the land, without
supremacy in the exposition and execution
of the law nor to tho destruction Of all oqui-
pose between the Federal Government and
the State Governments, if, whilst the funo.
tionarics Of tho Federal Govornment are di.
roc,ly or indirectly elected by and responsible
to the States, and the functonaries OF tho
States are in their appointment and responsl.
bllity wholly Independent Of the u. States, no
constitutional control of any sort belonged to-
tho United States over the States Under
such an organization, it is evident tbnt it
would be in the power Of the States individu-
ally, 10 pass unauthorized laws, and to carry
| them into complete effect, any thing in tho
constitution and the laws Of tho U. States to-
the contrary notwithstan nding. This would bo
a nullfying power in its plenary character /;
and whether Il had its final effect, through tho
Legislative, Executive, or Judiciary organ Of
tho State, would be equally fatal to tho con-
stituted relation between tho two Govern
monts.
Should the provisions Of tho constitution
as here reviewed, be found not to secure tho
Government and rights Of tho 81 atos, against
usurpations and abuses on tho part Of tho u
nited States tho final resort within tho pur-
view Of tho Constitution, lies in an amend
ment Of the Constitution, according to pro-
cess applicable by tho States
And in tho event Of failure Of every
constitutional resort. and an accumulation
Of usurpations and abuses, rendering pas.
sive obedience a. non resistance n greater
evil, than resistance and revolution, there
can remain but one resort, the last Of all;
an appeal from tho cancelled obligations Of
tho constitutional compact, TO original
rights and the law Of self preservation.
This is the ultima ratio under oil Govern
mcnts, whether consolidated, confoderated,
or a compound Of both; and it cannot be
doubted, that asingle member Of the Union,
in the extremity supposed, but in that only,
would have right, as an extra and ultra
constitutional right, to make tho appeal
This brings us to the expedicnt lately adj.
vanced, which claims for a single State q
| rIfxht ~ mat o.xF.
er by the Government Of the United States
decided by the State to be unconstitutional
10 the parties to the constitutional compact;
the decision Of the State to have the effect
ofnuvifying the act Of the Government Of
the United STATES, unless the decision Of tho
State be reversed by three fourths Of ths
parties.
The distinguished names and high au-
, thorities which appear to have asserted and
given practical scope to this doctrine, en-
I title it to respect which il might 5e diff
cult otherwise TO feel for il.
'Ifthc doctrine were to bo understood az
J requiring the three fourths of the State to
sustain, instead ofthat proportion to reverse
the decision TO the appealing State, the de-
cision to be without effect during the ap-
peal, it would be sufficient to remark, that
this extra constitutional course might well
give way to that marked out by the Consti-
I, tuition, which authorizes two thirds Of the
States to institute and three four,hs to Of
fec,un,c an amendment oftho Constitution.
D establishing apermnnent rule Of tho highest
authority, in place Of an irregular prece-
: dent Of construction only.
But it ~ understood that tho nulifying
doctrine imports that the decision Of the
7 State is to be presumed valid, and that it
. overrules the law Of tho United States, un
less overruled by three fourths Of the
$ Stctes.
i Can moro be necessary to demonstrate
. the inadmissbility Of such doctrine, than
O that il puts IL in the power Of the smallest
I fraction over one fourth Of the United
q States, that Is, OF seven States out Of twen-
y ty four, TO give the law and even the con-
a s,itulion 10 seventeen States, each Of tho
Q seventeen having ss parties TO the consti-
8 tuition, an equal right with each Of the sew
g en-. to expound il, and TO insist on the ex-
position? That the seven might, in par
o ticulsr instances be right, and the seven
! teen wrong, is moro than possible. But TO
" establish a positive and permanent rule
Q giving such n power, to such minority,
o over such q majority would overturn tho
FIRST principle Of free government, and in
g practice necessarily over,uru the Govern
ment itself
II 10 To be recollected tbui'the oonstitu-
. tion was proposed to the people Of the
: States 40 ,choie, and unanimously adopt.
. ed by the States as n schoie, IL being part
. Of tho constitution that not less than three
q fourths OF tho States should be competent
: 10 make any alteration in what had been
$ unanimously agreed to. So great 10 the
7 caution on this point, that in two cases
. whore peculiar interests were at stake, .
! proportion oven Of three fourths is distrust-