Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1851-05-16

acknowledge your courtesy in publishing
my last letter, and as You have commented up
Oh it with considerable freedom, desire to no.
tee your remarks, if for no other purpose, to
set forth more clearly ray views upon the very
important subject which deservedly receives
so much discussion at the present time. If the
views which | entertain were those of one indi-
vidual, it wo'ild be Il matter of small impor-
lance; but | am persuaded that am very far
from being aiosnc amy opinions that in fact Il
great portion Of the people of the North bold
substantially the same
Yon understand me correctly, if YOU mean
by "nullify" hsobey I do hold that when
Congress passes law which, in my judy
ment is unconstitutional, | have d perfect
right to diSoJey it. If have taken an
oath to support the Constitution, and claws
made IN Pursuance thereof" they must be L" in
pursuance thereof" or they are not binding
This is not to profess "iniulliblitv." do not,
by any means, profess to be igfAiiJle. may
err, but am bound to follow my honest coA-
victions. Eou say: "Suppo'c that the Burglar
or Robhcr slould choose to hold the laws of
property unconstitutional, would his opinion be
any defence for him, before God or MN -
Certainly not. No lrS,m's opinions avail him
any thing unless those opinions are correct. |
his opinions are false then he mast suffer the
ry" there wossld be no possibility of testing
the Consstn ionhlity ola Law. You say: "Tho
| true theory is: = if Congress should pass an un
constitutional Law, THAT it is to be respected as
Law, aud obeycd as such, until the Judicial
powers sets it aside" But if every body res
| poets and obeys law, how is the Judicial pow.
err to set it aside: Since you suppose a case
| let me do the same; suppose Congress shoulC
pass Il law, requiring every debtor to be sold in
to Slavery for life, or law abolishng the rich
of prop" rty; should such laws be respected an.
obcycd by the whole Nation until tho Judicial
powers should set them aside think the tru
theory is IF Congress passes law which il
my opinion Is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and more thai
! that, violates the Constitution OF the Universe
Gods great Constitution, am in duty boun
to disobey it. Circumstances might dcternin
whether it should be resisted by violence. \
all events, | am not to obey it. | repeat wha
| said in my former communications "you car
not deny the right OF every citizen to disregar
I an unconstitutional law" am confident thp
no ,urist would deny this proposition No eli
izen is bound to obey an unconstitutional lar
Take the law in question: under its opcratio
| am required TODD something which refuse t
: do. | amnrcstcd. My defence is, that til
! law is unconstitutional, The court sustuins m
: dcfence,-will they say; "Truc, the law is III
: CONSTITUTIONAL but it was your duty to obey
e and you must suffer the penalty of disobcd
y ence;" No, the court will say the law
= unconstitutional; yon was under no obigatio,
: to obey it; you are therefore clear of the pei
n atty" If could sustain myself in my defenc
e should be certainly eXculpated FROM all blan
: by the court. THUS is invariably the result
7 all cases of disobedience OF unconsttution
D. laws. | repeat, then, the only question in poi
?, isis the Law unconstitutional | ha,
h sworn to Support the Constitution, and Il
IS laws made in pursuance therooF:' bat ha
II nercr sworn to support laws not 1nado in pr
J. suance thereof" If every body obeys and re
'e poets law, the judicial power will never hO
l. occasion to set it aside whether Constitutional
y not, If there IS mo difficulty in making en-
to lost the conshtutlonaltX Of this law, Vs.