Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-03-29

al are unconstitutional. In the judgment of other States,
they are not so. IL is nothing 10 them that she offers some
reason or some apology for her conduct, il it be one which
they do not admit. 1t is not TO be expected that any
State will violate her duty without some plausible pre-
text. That would be too rash a defiance Of the opinion of
mankind. But, if il be a pretext which lies in her own
breast-ilit be 10 more than an opinion which She saws
she has formed, how can other States be satisfied with
This! How can they allow her 10 be the Judge other own
obligations! Or, ii she may judge OF her obligations,
may they not Judge of their rights also? May not the
twenty three entertain an opinion as well as the twenty
iourth' And. il ii be their right, in their own opinion. as
expressed in the common council, 10 enforce the law
against her, how is she TO say ,bat her right and her OPT
Mon are to he every thing, and their right and their OPT
Mon nothingl
MIR. President, il we are to receive the constitution as
the text, and then 10 lay down, in It's margin, the contra
dictory commentaries which have been, and which may
be made by different States, the whole page would be II
polygot indeed. IL would speak with as many tongues as
the builders OF Babel, and in dialects as much confused,
and mutually MS unintelligible. The very instance now
before Us presents a practical illu ,tration. The law of the
last session is declared unconstitutional in South Carolina,
anu obedience to it is refused. In other States il is adj
mlltcd to bc strictly constitutional. You walk over the
limits OF its authority, therefore, when you pass the State
line. On one side IT is law; on the other side, a pullity:
and yet IT is passed by a common Government, having
HE same authority in all the States.
Such are the inevitable results of this doctrine. Begin
nlng with The original error, that the Constitution of the
United States is nothing but a compact between sovereign
States; asserting, in the next step, that each State has a
right 10 be lis own sole judge of the extent OF IFS own OBJ
legations, and consequently of the consiiiutionality of laws
OF Congress; and, in the next, that it may oppose whatever
II sees ut TO declare unconstitutional, aud that il decides
Tor itseli on the mode and measure of redress, the argu-
Inent arrives at once at the conclusion that what n State
uissenls from, II may nulhiy; W hat II opposes, IL NAV oDDose
ny Iorce; what 1t decides Tor Itself, it may execute by its
own power; and that, in short, il il, itself, supretne oyey
NE legislation OF Congress, and supreme over the decisions
ot INC hauoh"' Judicature; supreme over the constitution
OF the country, supreme over the supreme law of the land.
However it seeks TO protect itself against these plain in
ierences, by saying that an unconstitutional law is no law.
and that it only opposes such laws as are unconstitutional,
yet this does not, in the slightest degree, vary the result;
since 1t insists on deciding this question for itself; and. in
opposition TO reason and argument, i'm opposition TO practice
ana experience, in opposition TO the Judgment of others,
having an equal right to Judge, il says, oniy, "Such is INV
opinion, aud my opinion shall be nv law. and I will SIM.
port 1t by my own strong hand. l dcnsunce the laws;
declare i, Unconstitutional; that is enough; il shall no, he
executed. hien in arms are ready to resist its execution.
an attempt. to s9i or sa it shall co SSye n.f the land with blOed.
der foot" VOC I'D an
This, sir, is practical qualification. -
~ anu now SIR against all these theories and opinions. I
l That the constitution of the United States il ",
league, coniederacy, or compact. betw een Ibe neonio
the several States in their sovereign capacities: but n C..
yernnrnt proper, founded on The adoption OF the people.
ana creating direct relations between itself and individu-
2 That no State authority has power TO dissolve these
relations; That nothing can dissolve them but re voIuuon;
and that, coFseq uentIy, there can be no such thiug - se
cession without revolution.
3. hat there is c supreme law, consisting of the Con-
sttuilon oil the United States, acts OF Congress passed in
pursuance oil IL, and treaties, and that, i'm cases no, cana
bic oil assuming the character of a suit in law or eouiv.
Congress must Judge of, and finally ia,erpret, This supreme
id"' so often IS ii has occasion TO pass acts OF Legislation;
ahd' IN cases capable OF assuming, and actually assuming,
~ character OF a su'i' The Suprt me Count OF The United
oVate Is Uhe hnal interpreter.
4. That an auemPiby a Sta'e TO abrogate, annuI, or null
MY an act OF Congress, or to arrest its operation within
her hInltS' on the ground that, in her OPP mon, such law is
unconsltu ioual, is a direct usurpaton ON the lust movers
OF the General Government. and on the equal rights of
other States, a plain violation of the constitution and a
proceeding esseni.liy revolutionary in its ci aracter and
tendency.
Whether the constitution be a compact between s,,,os
IN their sovereign capacities, is a question which must
be mainly argued iron what is contained in the insiru.
nent itself. We all agree that it is an instrument which
has been, in some way, clothed with power. We all nd
nit that it speaks with authority. Tie first question then
IS, what doesit say of itself? What does it purport to be?
Does 1t style iiseli a league, coulcderacy, or compact be-
tween sovereign States' 1t is TO be remembered, sir, that
me constitution began 10 speak ouly after its adoption.
Gnhl 1t was ratified by nine States, it was but a proposal,
the mere draught Of AN Instrument. Ii was like /, decd
drawn but not executed. The convention had framed it,
scntp 10 Congress then sitting under the Confederation,
Congress had transmitted it 10 the State Legislatures, and
by these last il was laid before conventions of the peoule
in the several States. All this while il was iuoperatiyo
paper. Ii had received no stamp of authority. no sane
ton; it spoke no language. But when ratified by the
people IN their respective conventions, then il lad A
voice, and spoke ALPHABETICALLY. Every word in i, Id
then received the sanction O" tue popular will, aud was TO
be received as the expression of that will. What the con.
shIutIon says Of iIself, therefore, is as conclusive rs what
u says on any other point. Does il call itself a coinpact1
Certainly not. 1t uses the word compact but once, and
that is when it declares tina. the States shall enter into no
compact Does 1t call itself a league, a eonlederacy,a
smOslstng treaty between tue Siaies' Certainly not.
! there is not a particle Of such language in all its pages.
but II declares itself a CONSTITUTIONS. What is a con-
S'i'"I0"| certainly not - league, compact or confede-
racy, but q fundamental lac. That fundamental Teeu-
iahon which determines the manner in which the pub
nc authority isto he executed, is what forms the cOnsfifu-
h0l Of a State. Those primary rules which concern the
body Itself, aud the very being Of the political society, the
lOim oil government, 0nl The manner ~ which power Is TO
be cxerciscd-all, in a word, W hich form together the
constitution ~ n State, these are the fundamental laws.
This, sir, is the language Of the public writer's. But do
we need 10 be informed in this country, what a c~onsffftt-
ton - lst not an idea perfectly familiar, definite and
well settled! We are al no loss to understand what is
meant by the constitution OF one Of tie States; and the
constitution OF the United States speaks Of itself as being
an instrument OF the same nature. 1t says, This e~Onsfffu-
hon shall be the law OF the land, any thing in any State
constitution TO the contrary notwi outstanding. And il
speaksot itself, too, in plain contrddistinction from a con-
federation; for II says that al debts contracted, aud al en-
gagementS entered INTO by the United States, shall be as
valid under this constitution, as under The confederation.
II does not say, as valid under This conpGcf, or this
league, or this confederation, as under the former confe-
Iteration, but as valid under this constitution.
This, then, sir, Is declared 10 be q cOuSf ifu9iOD. A rom.
sUiuton IS the fundamental law Of The State and ibis IL
expressly declared TO be the supreme law. Ii is as il The
people bad said, " we prescribe this fundamental Law. or
3" this supreme law" Tor they DO say tat they establish
this constitution, aud that it shall be the supreme law
They say that they ordaiH and establish H. Now, sir.
WHIST u The common application OF these words We do
not speak OF Orddintng leagues and compacts. nc this was
intended TO be a compact or league, and the States 10 be
parties TO ", why was II not so said? why is there found
no one expression in the whole instrument indicating
such intent? The oil confederation was expressly CALI
ed a hague aud into Ibis league il was declared that
the States, as States, scvcrally entered. WHY was not
similar language used in ihe Constitution, II a similar Ia
teudon had existed Why was ~ not said. "Jts States
enter into this new league" "thc States form dis new
confederation" or 'the States agree 10 This new COM
pact3' Or, why was Il not said in the language Of the