Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-09-18
For the Standard
HINTS FOR THE PEOPLE.
DEMOCRATIC WING.
No. 3.


sdvs he supported the administrations OF Jefferson
Madison, and Monroe Secondly, that the wing
and Democratic parties one. And IN the same
MASSAGE he insinuates another thing which he can
not oneplv assert, because he knows 1t IS not so'
and that is that the wing party OF the present cay
and the whig party Of 1776 have some cGnneAloa i
with each other and are the same in prnciPle-reau
his letter of October 25. 194l.
JUDICIARY.
Ono of the rankest of the Federal errors, ana
which. in the same letter, General Scott adoPts' Is
the rioht of the Supreme Court OF the Omted olGes
tn fix the meaning of the Constitution SO 1S " oe
POLITICALLY binding on all the branches OF the gov
eminent. - Ill h
+h;nk With him. this opinion has grown out OF a
total instrumentation of the object for when the
Snnreme Court was constituted. 1t was not at all
for the purpose of settling political controversies
but as an arb!ter between persons ana corporations
who became involved in disputes about their rlghtS
under the constitution or laws OF Congress IL was
to do what some tribunal must do under all sys-
TENS of government, in each particular dispute 10
decide between the parties with power as between
those narticuar parties to enforce its decision 1t
does not follow because Court decides case that
the decision is right, but it must be taken TO be
right in that particular case, and acted upon ac-
cordingly, otherwise the controversy could never
be brought to a close. But the decision IN that
case is not necessarily binding in any other case.
The same or any other Court may respect that de-
csion and treat it as a precedent if they choose
But there is nothing to compel them to do so.
Certainly there is no provision in the Constitution
of the United States to that effect. And why
should decision made by Court which Is not
necessarily binding upon that Court ITSELF be bind
ing upon all the rest of the world? 10 hold 1t so
would confer upon that Cont the power OF making
the Constitution and not merely of eXpounding 1T;
the decisions of the Supreme Court, could know
what the Constitution was. The Constitution was
intended to be plain declaration of rights which
all could understand. By this operation 1t would
become sealed book to the great mass OF the
American people. Besides, when man swears to
support the Constitution before he could do so
conscientously he must study the decisions OF the
Supreme Court upon it, and in fact swear to sup
port those decisions as forming part OF It, The
Constitution would thus, in place of being COM
pendious standard of right, to which the planest
citizen could at apply to ascertain his rights
and duties the same through all time, would be an
abstruse mystery speaking different language at
different times according to the construction OF the
Supreme Court.
The EXECUTIVE VETO.
In the same letter General Scott expresses his
views upon this subject, and they partake OF all
the wildness of those of the wing leaders when
ergy of General Jackson by which he overthrow at
once their deeply concerted schemes to hold the
liberties of the American people under their control
Like them he was friend to that great and good
man. He must be truly short sighted politician,
who doe snot see in this veto power the best secu-
ry that minorites have against the various oppres
sions of majorites. The veto power does not enable
the President to do any thing but merely to prevent
others from doing mischief The representatives
of each section of country, whether in the Senate
or House, too apt to lose sight of constitutional
securities provided for other sections of the Union
and when majority of these representatives shall
be united by common interest, supposed or
real, how apt would they be to adopt legislation
unjust and oppressive to others But the Presi-
dent, representing no particular section, but being
the common representative of the whole American
people, with paterna care would interpose the veto
power against any such action and protect his
weaker children against the oppression of the strong
er. For this purpose mainly is this power given, to
prevent unjust and unconstitutional legislation and
the President must necessarily in the use of it
exercise his Judgment as to what is or is not con-
stitutiona and not leave it entirely to the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court The truth is, there
is beautiful system OF security under our Con-
stitution not only against its INVASION but against
the exercise of doubtful powers claimed under it.
Maorities of both branches of the Legislature must
under their official oath, admit the measure to be
constitutional and pass 1t, and still it cannot become
law unless the President shall also so decide, or
UNLESS upon his dissent, two-thrds of both bran
ches shall, upon reconsideration of the subject,
hold it to be constitutional After all that there
is still a veto power lodged with the Supreme
Court, not to make law or add new features to
the Constitution, but, upon being properly applied
to, to decide the act inconsistent with pre-ex-
isting provisions of the Constitution and therefore
unfit to be executed With this fine tissue of Sc
cunties Gen. Scott desires to interfere by limiting
the veto Of the President and giving all power to
the Supreme Court, that standing favorite of fed
eralism, and thereby leave those whose constitu,
tonal rights threatened more exposed to the
invader 1t may not be amiss to mention here more
fully what has been already intimated, that Gen
SCOTS change of political opinions is more the re
suit OF his hostility to Gen. Jackson than of con
viction. 1t is quite clear from the correspondence
between him and General Jackson, that whether
justly or not, Gen. Jackson believed Scott Jealous
OF his military reputation, and guilty of traducing
IL, and Tor that reason placed him in no enviable
position for high-spirited and brave man, as we
donot question Gen. Scott to be. Gen. Scott de
clined what he admitted was challenge from
Gen. Jackson. Why? He said himself he de
chned it on principle, and if the matter had restec
here 1t would have all been we'll enough and nc
further explanation could have been required Blu
IN few months on account of the verv same con
troVersy, he challenges Dewitt Clinton, then Gov
ernor OF New York, to mortal combat What wa
the moral difference in fighting Gen. jackson ant
Dewitt Clinton? If there is none then we rnus
seek tor some other reason for the different cours