Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1830-10-18

doubted that u single member OF tue Union, in
the extremity supposed, but IN that only, would
have 'igbi. as an extra aud nltfs-consl tuition
al ieht, to make the appeal
This brings US 10 the expe5ient iately adj
yanced. which claims for single State a right
TO appeal against an esercse OF power by tho
Government of The United States decided Big
the state to be unconstitutional, 10 the parties
10 the constitutional compact the decision Of
the state 10 have the eject Of nulifyipg the
net Of the Government oil the United States
unless the decision OF the State be reversed by
thcre iourbs OF the parties.
The distinguished names and high auihori.
ties which appear 10 have asserted s0d given a
practical scope TO 10 this doctrine, eniiile il 10
arespycl which II might Pe difficult otherwise
TO feel for IL.
II tho doctrine were 10 be unJerstood as re-.
qniring the three loarlhs Of the States TO sus-
iain, tnsieaj of thai proportion TO reverse tho
decision OF the appealing state, the decision
To be without elect during the appeal, II would
he sufficient To iemark, that this exira-eonstiti-
iionh course might well give way 90 thai marks
eli out by the constitution, which authorizes
two thirds OF ,be States To destitute and three
iourths 10 eilectuate an amendment OF the Cons
stilution, establishing permanent rule Of the
highest authority, IN place Of AN ir,cgular
precedent Of construction oDly,
trne imports that lhe decision oil the state ia
10 be presumed valid. aud that ii oyerrales tho
law oi the Unlied States, unless oyerfuIed By
thiue fourtbs of the states.
Can more be necessary TO demonstrate the
inadmissibity oil sucba doctrine, than that il
puts II IN the power OF tho smallest fraction,
over ono fourth OF the United States, that is.
Of seven Siaics out of iweniy-lour. 10 give tho
law and even the constitution 10 seventeen
States, each OF thu seventeenth hayiag, us partier
10 the Constitution. an equal right with each ot
the seven, 10 eHpound II, mud ~ insist on the
exposition That the seven might, in parfieu.
la, instances. be rig ia, and The seventeen wrong,
10 mme than possible. But 10 establish posi-.
tive and permanent rule gIviDg such power,
10 such u minority, over such u majority would
overt Urn the fist principle of lIes government.
and IA practice necessarily oseiturn tho Goy-
ernment nstll.
!, Is TO bs recoecled that tho constitutiop
was proposed 10 tho people Of the States a.n
| ph0te, aud unanimously adopted by the States
ms a WhOie, II being pnrt oi the constitution
| thai not less than three l0urths oil tue States
SHOULD be competent to make any alteration in
| What had been unanimously agreed TO- So
! great Is the caution on tins point, that in two
cases here peculiar interests were at sake. n
proportion eyen OF thfee iouths ~ dislru.ied.
and immunity required 10 make an alteration.
When The CONSTITUTION was adopted as a.
whole, II "a eertain that there were many parts.
which, II separately proposed. would have been
promptly rejected. II Is lar from impossible,
That every part Ola constitution might be reisc-
ted Ivy majority. aud YET, tikon together AS a
whole be unanimously accepted. Free consli.
iuions viii rarely II ever be formed. wuhoui re-
cipIOcal concessions without articles cond,-
toned on and balancing each other. Is there a
| Tpu ST nf #
iour that would bear the experiment of having
its component par,s submitted TO tue people
aud separately decided on
What the fate oi the constitution Of tho Uni
ted States woad be II IA small proportion Of tho
oihtc' could eApunge paris oil It particularly
valued by large majority, can have but ono
answer.
The difficulty IS not removed by limiting tho
doctrine 70 cases oil construction. How many
cases oi that sort, involving cardinal proyl-
sions OF tho constitution have occurred How
many now ehSt' how many may hereafter
spring up ! How many might he ENORMOUSLY
created, II entitled To tn privilege ola decsioa
10 The moGe proposed
Is II certain that thq principle of that NODE
would not reach further than "a contemplated
u u single State eau OF right require thfes
ioarths oi us co-oiaies to oyarrule ITS exposi-
ton OF The Constitution, because that propo tiol
is authorized TO amend IL, would tho plea be
less plausible that AS the const,tln on was uoan.
'mously established, IL Dug nj 10 be unanimously
expounded
The reply 10 all such suggestions seems TO be
unavoidable aud irresistible that the constitl-
honi "A compact mai lis text IS TO be eIpouu-
ded according u the provisions for expoundne
i-'nakibB part OF the compact aud that
none Of HE parties can rghtiully renounce The
expoundins provision more than any othsr
part. When sucn right accrnes. as mag nc
crIe, II musi grow Jul OF abuses OF tue com
pact, releasing the sufferers irom their fealty
10 II.
In favor Of The multiplying claim for the States,
individually, ~ appears. AS you observe, that
tue proceeding oil the Legislature Of Virginia,
~ %. aud IA 30. against the Alien and oed,-
ton Acts, are much dselt upon.
II may often happen. as experience proves,
that ERRONEOUS Constructions not anticipated
may not be suili cisntiy guarded against IN the
language used aud II is due 10 the distinguish
ei individuals. who have misconcei,ed the in
tenilon of those proceedings. to suppose that
the meaning Of the Legislature, though we'll
comprehended at the time, may MOI now be ob,
Hions 10 those unacquainted WITH the contempt.
rHry indications aud imp esslons.
But u Is believed that by keeping in view the
dntInclion bcts cen tho Governments OF the
states, aud the States IN the sense in which
they were parties 10 the constitution between
the rights Of The parties, Ia their concurrent
and IN their individual capacities between tue
several modes and objects OF inlerposition a.
gainst the ABUSES of power, and especially be-
tween interpretations wifniB the purview of tho
con,itutioa, and inierposiions appealing from
the constitution to the rigbts of nature psrs-
mooni To oil constitutions; with an attention.
always Of explanatory use, 10 the views and
winch were conbaited, the Resoln-
tons OF Virginia, as vndicaled IN the Report
on them, WILDE found entitled to an eIposi.
ton, showing consistency in their parts. and
an inconsistency OF tue @buie with the doctrine
IN ier consideration,
That the Legislature could not have intended