The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-03-25


il 6rst mentioned, and no, tho laws of tbs United
States generally, but those only which al u be made
. m pur,uanee OF the Constitution have that RANK
Thus tho particular phraseoiogy Of Tue Con'usouo"
OF the United States confirms aud strengthens tls
principle supposed 10 be essential 10 all wntieh con
situations. that a law repugnan TO the Constitution
is void and that courts as well 40 Jothei]sA u'
parlme nis, are bound by that instrument
After these extracts il will be totally unne-
cessary TO enter into any elaborate argument 70
prove that the Executive, as well as The courts
and the Congress is bound by the Constitution
All dispas sionate minds will at once acknowl-
edge that the analogy Of reasoning with regard
to the Legislature and the Judiciary, apply with
equal force 10 the Executive.
No form Of oath for The Legislature or for Inc
Judiciary is set down in the Constitution, but
such is the extreme anxiety OF that instrument
for the Executive obedience 10 lis provisions
that an especial and precise form Of the oath TO
be taken by the President is SET out in the nstru-
ment itself, in the following words:
al do solemnly swear Cor affirm that will faith.
fully execute the office Of President OF the United
States and WILL to the best Of my ability, preserve,
protect and defend, the Constitution of the United
States"
If this oath forms no rule for The government
of the Executive, at is nought bW solemn
mockery TO take it," "to prescribe il, or 10
take ii is equally a crime"
The very great and vital importance of the
question whether an act repugnant 10 the
Constitution can become the law of the land,
will be ample apology for further examination
of the principles which the Supreme Court has
prescribed for its government, in cases arising
under the Constitution.
Speaking of the power OF Congress to grant
charters Of incorporation, in the case OF McCul-
loch VS.. the State of Maryland, Nv Wheaton
400. 7 March. 1919, that court says =
"The principle now contested was introduced al
very early period of our history, has been recog-
nised by many successive legislatures, and has been
acted upon by the Judicial department, in cases OF
peculiar delicacy, as law Of undoubted authority "
1t will not be denied" continues the c. J. Mar
shall, that bold and daring usurpation might be
resisted after an acquiescence still longer and more
complete than this"
Here is an express declaration that such case
after duration of acquiesence still longer and
more complete might be resisted that is from
1871 to 1916: term of twenty-five years
NuIlum tempus occurrt regi. And we have
the further assurance of that tribunal by its acts,
that doubtful question, which ought to receive
a considerable impression from the practice OF
the Government, founded upon an exposition OF
the Constitution deliberately established by le-
gislative acts on the faith Of which an immense
4 A 4 4 H.. u,
be disregarded;" but yet, that the Supreme
Court will proceed 10 examine and consider,
whether such act be repugnant 10 The Con-
stiution, or not?'
Upon the examination OF the case Of McCul-
loch VS.. the State of Maryland, it is plain that
had the Supreme Court found this law and the
practices under it in their opinion repugnant TO
the Constitution of the United States, that their
decision would have been in favor of the Con-
sitution which they had sworn to support and
not in favor of the precedents, and practices,
which they had not sworn TO support. They
would, it is true, Gas they have told us) not
lightly disregard this legislative act with its pre-
cedents and practices, but il is no less true, that
they would have dsregarded il, had 1t been
found on their earnest and accurate examination
repugnant TO the Constitution Of the U. S. The
decision in this case is in strict harmony with
that of Marbury rs Madison, where the Legis-
lative, Executive, and Judicial expositons,
with regular, uniform, universal, and undispu-
ted practice under it, did not permit the court TO
shut their eyes TO the Constitution, and see only
the law, prccedents, and practices. Why else
did the court enter upon the examination Of The
consttutionality Of the act of Congress incorpo-
rating the Bank Of the United States, in the
case OF Mccullough rs. the State Of MARY land7
If the court did not mean TO support the Consti
tuition, in the event the investigation should
prove adverse TO the precedents and practices,
their examination Of this case, must be deem
ed worse than farce. And again "this ques
ton did not steal on an unsuspecting Legisia-
tare, and pass unobserred, but was completely
understood and opposed with equal zeal and
ability, and, after being resisted first IN the
fair and open field Of debate, aud afterwards
IN the Executive Cabinet, with as much perse-
yering talent as any measure has ever expert
enced, and being supported by arguments which
convinced minds as pure and as intelligent as
this country can boast Of, it became law and,
after having been acted upon by the Judicial
department, 10 cases Of peculiar dellcacy, as a
law of undoubfed obligation - Yet, notu it'll
standing all these piecedents, practices, and
acquiescences, the Supreme Court, in 1919,
found itself m duty bound, and did enter upon
most elaborate and critical investigation Of
the Constitution, and law, and practices. 10
this ca-e the law, and presidents, aud practices,
tuition itself, according to the opinion of thai
tribunal, aud consequently they decided that