, 1841-10-02
From the United STATES.
VETO POWER.

now 10 right TO reject a bill to establish
n~atioha! Bank; and they found this curiou
position upon the action of Congress, the de
cisions OF the Supreme Court, and the &C
qulescence OF the people in that action ant
those decisions. Partisans never assumed
position less tenable, or endeavored to SUD
port one by arguments more fallacious. i
their doctrine be sound, the federal govern
ment is not the creature of the States, def
ned by the federal constitution, but the crea
ture of its orn creation, defined by its own
legislative and judicial acts; nota government
made by the people, but one made by their
legislative representatives; not a constitu.
tlonal government, of which a branch is a
legislature subordinate to the people, but q
government created and modified by an ON
nipotent legislature and judiciary; not a con.
federacv Of representative democracies, but
any thing which an omnipotent legislature
may choose to create. What admirable ex-
Founders of constitutional law are these
partisan editors and letter writers. We
cannot say in the words of Festus to the
apostle, that much learning hath made them
mad, though We NAV say that they are mad
enough for want of learning. In their ie.
norance only do such crude conceptions orr
ginate.
To "deine their POSITION" We say it is that
as the people have acquiesced in two nation
al banks, all constitutional objections are re.
moved; and that as the Supreme Court, which
IS the constitutional interpreter Of the con.
stitution, has decided in favor of their consti-
nationality, neither the executive nor legis-
lature can urge any constitutional objection!
And so a government of limited and defined
powers may be modified by other powers
than those which made it, and the silence Of
its makers upon any encroachments by their
servants, renders those encroachments q
part Of it! Admirable logic! The federal
government was made by the States. 1t is
a government Of limited powers, very accu-
rately defined; and in the very instrument
which defines them, the States have declared
that all powers not expressly delegated to
1t, or not necessary to carry into effect thoss
expressly delegated, are reserved to the peo-
pie, or the States respectively. This Ian.
guage is clear enough, and proclaims that
the federal government possesses no powers
excepting those derived from express grant
or necessary implication. VIII then can al.
ter or modify this government! The States
alone. And do they lose this power by o.
uniting to protest against notifications by
their servants! Do they surrender an inner.
ent power by temporary acquiescene in its
vi1lationi If they afterwards protest against
the violation, and attempt to resume their in
vaded power, shall they be told that their
complaint is too late, and that they have lost
their right by silence? We did not know
that any people, any nation, was bound by
a statute oil limitations in the important bust.
ness Of making their government. Let
us suppose a case. The constitution says
that Congress shall grant no title Of nobility;
and yet a Congress is weak or mad enough
to grant such title as the reward of some
great public service, and some Of the partisan
papers approve, and some condemn it. The
next Congress passes 4 bill to grant another
title. and the President rejects the bill. Shall
the President be told that he acts unlawful
by this rejection, and that the acquiescence
Of the people in one title, has made any IT,
ties constitutional? What if the people did
acquiesce by silence? Is this silence an
amendment OF the constitution, authorizing
Congress to grant titles Of nobility? The
rights Of the people are held by a very pre-
'carious tenure. if their silence upon any en-.
.croachment, which silence may be merely a
temporary expediency, is to divest them of
such rights. As we'll might we say that be-
cause a man forbears to complain Of being
knocked down, he forfeiis his right to per-
sonal security.
But if this act Of Congress becomes con.
stitutional by such acquiescene, it is equiva-
lent to an amendment of the constitutions.
Now as that instrument prescribes the modes
Of amendment, and as a simple act Of Con-
gress is not one Of them, the conclusion of
these logicians, cannot be correct. If it be,
the constitution may be amended by the ST.
Ience Of the people upon any encroachment
by Congress, and this gives Congress entire
over the constitution, and thus sub
the British system for our own, an
legislature for 4 written consti-
tuition. But how is the acquiescene Of the
to be ascertained! By their votes in
the ordinary elections! Then such elections
can alter the constitution, though the instru-
ment expressly declars that it can be altered
only by conventions Of the people in the
States, or by an act of Congress expressly
confirmed BY the States. If history proves
any thing upon the point acquiescence in a