Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1830-10-29

States could cxpunye parts OF ii particularly
valued by large majority, con have but ono
answer.
' The difficulty is not removed BY limiting
the doctrine To cases OF construction. How
many cases OF that sort, involving cardinal
provisions OF the Constitution, have occur
? red How many now exist How many
may hereafter spring up? How many might
De ingeniously created, if entitled to the pri
vllege ct decision in the mode proposed {.
| lis II certain that the principle of that mode
would not reach further than is contemplat-
| ed' liza single State can of right require
l three fotrths of its co-States TO overruie it's
exposition of the Constitution, because that
proportion is authorized TO amend it, would
the plea be less plausible that, us the Cons.i-
tuition was unanimously established, it ought
to he unanimously expounded
ibe reply to all such suggestions seems 10
be unavoidable and irresistible; that the Con.
s'itution Is compact, TINT its text IL TO DO
exPounded according to the provisions for ex-
p"unding 1t, making part of the compact ,
ana mat none ofthe parties can rightfully re-
nounce the expounding provision moro than
any other part. When such right accrues
as may accrue, it must grow out of abuses Of
The compact releasing the sufferers from their
fealty to it.
In favor of the multiplying claim for tho
states, individually, IT appears. as you OBJ.
serve, that tho proceedings of the Legislature
CT virginia in 9S and SO, against the Alien
and Sediion Acts, are much dwelt upon.
1t may often happen, as experience proves
that the erroneous constructions not antici-
pated may not be sufficiently guarded against
IN the language used and it is duo to the
distinguished individuals who have miscon-
ceived the intention of those proceedings, 10
suppose that the meaning of the Legislature,
though we'll comprehended at the time, may
not now BIO obvious. to those unacquainted
with the contemporary indications and i'm.
pressions
But it is believed that, by keeping in view
inc distinction between the Governments Of
the States, and the States in the sense in
which they were parties to the Constitution;
between the rights of the parties, in their
| concurrent and In their individual capacities;
! between the several modes and objects Of in
| terpositlon against the abuse Of power, and
] especially between interpretations within the
purvIew of the Constitution, and interposi-
| tons appealing from the Constitution to tho
rights OF nature, paramount to all Constitu-
lions with an attention, always, of eXplaH-
atory use, to the views and arguments which
| were combatted, the Resolutions Of Virgins
as vlndicated in the report on them, will be
| found entitled to an exposition, showing
| consistency in their parts, and an inconsis.
;ency Of the whole with the doctrine under
| consideration
That the Legislature could not have in
| tended to sanction such doctrine is to be
inferred from the debates in the House ofDe.
legates, and from the address of the Houses
To their constituents on the subject Of the
| resolutions. The tenor Of tho debates which
NV SsSf Sas s5s SsssssiSe1 NOT
all of the speakers, discloses no reference
! whatever u n constitutional right in an in.
Il - g a.
| OF LAYS of the u. States. Concert among
the States for redress against the Alien and
Sedition Laws, as acts ofusurped power, was
| leading sentiment; and the attainment. of a
| concert tho immediate object Of the course
| adopted by the Legislature, which was that
| OF inviting the other States to concur in
declaring the acts to be unconsiitutional,a and
to cooperate in the necessary and proper
| measures in maintaining unimpared the au
t9orities, rights and liberties reserved to the
States respectively, and to the people. Us
That, by the necessary and proper measures
TO be concurrentiy and co-operatipeiy taken,
we've meant measures known to the Consti-
tuition, particularly the ordinary control Of
the people and Legislatures of the States over
the Government ofthe U. States, cannot be-
doubted; and the interpositon of this control
as the event showed, was equal to the occa-
sion.
of the intentions of the Legislature, that the
words, "not law, but utterly null, void, and
OF no force or effect, which had followed in
one of the resolutions, the word 'nnconstitu.
honai," was struck out by common consent.
Though the words were, in fact, synonymous
with unconstitutional" yet, to guard against
a misunderstanding of this phrase as moro
than declaratory of the opinion, the word
unconstitutional" alone was retained, as not
liable to that danger.
The published Address of the Legislature
TO the people, their constituents, affords aHoth.
er conclusive evidence Gifts views. The
Address warns them against the encroach-
ing spirit of the General Government,
argues the unconsitutionality OF the Alien
and Sedition Acts, points to other instances
in which the constitutional limits had been
overleaped; dwells upon the dangerous mode
of deriving power by implicatio and in
general presses the necessity ofwatching over
| demonstrating tendency of the Federal
policy. But nothing is said that can be un-
derstood TO look TO means in maintaining
the rights of the States, beyond the regular
ones, within the forms of tho Consttr-
| ton.
Ifany further lights on the subjec, could
| be needed, very strong one is reflected III
| the answers to the Resolutions, by the States
which protested against them. The main
objection of these, beyond few general
complaints of the inhamatory tendency of tho
Resolutions was directed against the assumed
authority Of State Legislature to declare
| a law of the United States unconstitutional,
which they pronounced an unwarantable in
reference with the exclusive jurisdiction Of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Had the, resolutions been regarded as avow-
ing and maintaining right, in an individual
State, to arrest, by force, the execution Of a
law of the United States, it must be presume
ed that il would have been conspicuous OBJ
| ject ofther remuneration.
| With cordial SITUATIONS
| JAMES MADISON.
| mo 80. II is true, that in controversies reIatjpr
the boundary between the two Jurisdictions the r-
bnnal which Is ultimately TO decide, Is 10 DO establish
| ed under the General Government But this dos no,
change the principle Of the case. The decision is "a
be imaray made, according to the rules of the Con.