Southern planter., 1832-11-17


"lllslandng ihe imprcenablc strength of the proof
70 The contrary, have boldly claimed on eonsiruc
,"p power ihegranf of which was SO persevef
'ney sought, aud 50 s;euly resisted by tho Con.
tenhon' They rest the claim ON the provisions,
nlhe CONSTITUTIONS, which declare sthnt this Con
Hn'n',on aud The laws made in pursuance thereof
sp'n oe The supreme law Of The land,n and, ethai
ue judicial power shall extend 10 an cases. IN law
snu 'qu'ly' nnslng under the Constitution, the
l'ws o' 'hr - States, aud treaties nude or which
shall be made Under their authority
\ do not propose 10 90 into ii minute cNsmina.
u"noi these provisions They have been so ife.
qNen'iy and 70 ably investigated, and il has been
T"'lea'ly shown That ihey do not warranil the ns.
sump'ioh oilhe power claimed for the Government.
'"'' 90 NOT deem u necessary shall, therefore
conine myself to a few detached remarks.
nave already stated, that distinct proposition
was made TO confer The very power in controversy
oh NE Supreme Court, which failed; which. Of
s'h ought TO override the assumption Of the
power oy construction, unless sustained by the
u'"s' conclusive arguments; but, when Il is added,
us uh's proposition was moved (2Olh Augusi)
subsequent 20 ne period Of adopting the proys.
'onH above cited, yesing The Courwiih is present
powers ieth July,) and thai an effort was made.
~ 'euh later period, (23d Augusl.) 80 invcst
Nung css wnh negative on al Slate Laws which
~ IT, opnlon' might interfere with the general in.
'crcsl and harmony Of the Union, tho argument
would seem too conclusive against the powcrs of
Tie Court TO be oycrmlcd by construction, however
strong
Passing by, however, this, and also the ohloc.
"". ul', ine terms cases ~ law and equiiy' arc
.'ohh'eal, embracing only questions between par.
ties, Hmonablc 10 the process Of the Court and of
coursc, excluding questions between the states
ana The Gonerh Goyornment--an argument which
has never been answercd-thero remains another
obectonpc perfectly conclusive
ihe construction which would confer on The
supreme Couri The power Ia question, rests on tho
ground That the Constitution has conferred nn that
unuhal The high and important night of deciding
on the eonsiliutonaluy ul laws That il possess
/ cs hs power, | do not deny; but lido. utterly.
/ lha' u ls coneried by The Constitution, either by
'he provisions nboYe cited, OF any other. II is a
power, derived, not from the Constitution, but from
me necessity ct The casc and, so far lfom being
possessed hy the Supreme Couri, exclusively. or
peculiarly, It not only belongs 10 every cour, Of the
4 en1i.''s' high of low civil or cnminai bni to M
ltoitign courts before whchn case may be brought
involving the construction Of law which NAV
conflict with the provisions Of The Constitution.
The rcason Is PLAIN Wbcro there are two sets of
rules prescribed ia rCioionoc Ia The same subject
one 10y higher, and the other by an inferior an.
thoniy, the judicial tribunal called la 10 decied on
~.
conillci, which 10 the law; aud that necessarily
compels It TO decide that the rule prescribed by
the Inferior power, Il, IN MS opuon, Inconsistent
WIN that Of The higher, Is void Be The conflict
between iie Constitution and Law, ar hciwoen
the Charter and the Bylaws of a Corporation, the
principle and source of authority are tie same IN
both cases. Beng derived from necessity, ID Is
resirlcled within us limits, and cannot pass an inch
beyond lls nauuw confines Of deciding in case
bei're The court (md, OF course, between parties
amenable To ITS process, excluding, thereby, pulu
cal qucslious,) which of the Two is IN reality the
law, the Acl Of Congrtss of the Constitution
when, on hoir face, they are Inconsistent. aud vet
iom this resulllng hmiltsl power, derived from ne
cossiy, and held IN common with every court in
The world, which, by possibility, may take coani
zlnco ot case involving The nterpro alton Of our
Constitution and Laws, ~ is attempted to confer
ON The Supreme CouT power which would work
thorough and radical change IN our system, and
which power was positive, refused by the Conyen
ton
The opinion that the General Government hai
the nght 10 enlOrce its construction of It's powers
against State, m any mode whatever, is in truth
founded on fundamental misconceplion of ou
system. AT the bottom of this, and in fact al
most every other msconception, as 10 the relation
between the States and the General Government
Turks the radical error that the latter is National
I and moi as IN reality it IL, Conledeaied Govern
meni, aud that Il derives ils powers from highc
source than the States. There are thousands in
tiucnctd by these impressions, without being con
{ scious Of H. and who, while they believe them
selves 10 be opposed 20 consolidation, have infuse,
$ into Their conception of our Constitution almos
r all the ingredients which enter into that form O
G government. The striking difference between ih
I, present Government and that under The old Con
] federation, Il speak Of Governments as dlslinc
i from ConslItuons,) has mainly contributed to ihi
i dangerous impression. BGi, however dissimla
i their Governments, the present Constitution is a
far removed from consolidation, and IS as strict
q and as purely Confederation as the one which
T. superseded.
d Like the old Confederation, il was formed am
. ratified by state authority The only difference, Il
Ibis particular, vs. that one was ratified by the peo
pie OF the States, the other by the State Govern
D, nenls-one forming, more strictly, an Union Of th
: Stale Governments, the other Of the States them
p, selves-oue, Of The agents exercising the power
d Of sovereignty, and the other of the sovereign
Al themselves; but both were unions of political bo
&, dies, as distinct from union Of the People ind
.. ,idually They uie, indeed, both Considerations
but the present IN a higher and pnrer seuse iha
D That which il succeeded just as the act Of so'
1t efriuu is liuher and morn upfp.t than tlat Of n