Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-09-02

Congress passed to enforce this amend
ment which is inconsistent with the par
doning power and the legal effect of par
dons already granted, would be unconsti-
tutionsl and void, because such a con-
struction produces a conflict between two
OF mora clauses of the constitution, when
no such conflict was intended by its adop-
ton. Surely an individual who had been
once acquitted or discharged from the
consequences d of his crime, should
not be tried second time under
this act of Congress and convicted Can it
be seriously insisted upon for a moment,
that such is the true construction of the
power vested in Congress by this Four
tenth amendment We think not. If
this cannot be legally and constitutionally
done by law Of Congress, neither can
an individual who has been fully pardoned
be put again in jeopardy for an offence
from which he has been discharged, be
cause it would produce the SAME conflict
between different clauses, and would there
fore be null and void. So, if Congress
should enact that all suits at common
law, over twenty dollars, brought by or
against the parties alluded to in sail
amendment, should not be tried by Jury,
but by the court it would be repugnant to
that clause of the Constitution which de-
clares that all suits, at common law, over
twenty dollars, shall be tried by jury
So if Congress should pass law, for the
purpose of enforcing this amendment,
which declared that the States may pass
laws impalring the contracts entered into
by these parties, it would be unconstitu-
tional and void. moi.
OnemOre illustration upon this propo ST.
ton. Can Congress, in providing by
appropriate legislation for the enforce
ment of the Fourteenth amendment,
order the different Marshals of the
United States, to seize the real and per
sonal estate of theparties indicated in said
amendment, TO be appropriated to the use
of the United States, without compensa-
ton, when the Constitution expressly
provides that it shall not be taken without
just compensation? Surely such con-
strcution would be in direct conflict with
that instrument, and invalid. 1t may be
commended, that these Illustrations are not
analogous to the case in hand, as they do
not impose disqualifications to hold offices
upon the parties to be affected by such
legislation. This is not true, as to several
of the supposed cases, but, suppose they
do not in part illustrate the power of
Congress to impose disqualification to
hold Office, yet they fully show, that any
construction of said amendment which
produces such conflicts between the diff
ferent clauses of the Constitution, is null
and void, and should be disregarded by
the cOuIts-
This was all that was intended by their
use, still the principle enforced by them
equally applies to the question under con-
sideration, as we will now proceed to
show. r.-.a..
2. The Constitution of the United
States provides that, "No man shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property, ex-
cept by due process of law" Now,
could Congress by virtue of the power
vested in it, by the Fourteenth Amend
ment, order the officers of the general
government to arrest and put to death all
that class of persons supposed TO be OBJ
noxious to the said amendment, or to
seize and imprison their persons for life,
or Danish them for life beyond the limits
of the United States, or confiscate their
estates to the use of the United States, or
for the benefit of others9 No lawyer of
any legal reputation would doubt for
moment that such punishment would ope-
rate as an effectusl mode of enforcing the
disqualifications imposed by said amend
ment; yet, at the same time, would be re-
pugnant to the above recited clause of the
Constitution, and therefore erroneous,
and should be so held by the courts.
1t was decided in the case of Staten VS.
State that a right to vote, having once
vested, is as much protected by the Con-
stitution, as the right to life, liberty, or
property. In the case of Cummins VS.
Missouri, and in Garland erparte, the
Supreme Court of the United States
held that the right to hold Office,
being once vested, party could
not be deprived of it, except by due pro-
cess of law. Therefore, any law of Con-
gress enforcing said amendment, which
impairs these vested rights, otherwise
than by due process of law, would not
only be in violation of the above pro-
vision of the Constitution, but would be
violation of that clause of the Constitu-
ton, which prohibits Congress from pass
ing bills of attainder, or bills imposing
pains and penalties. Therefore, the con-
struction contended for being in direct
violation of this cardinal rule of construc-
ton of the Constitution, is erroneous, and
any act of Congress passed for the en-
fOrcement of the Fourteenth Amend
ment, that produces such conflicts be-
tween different clauses of that instrument,
is unconstitutional and void.
3. Again, this act of Congress attempts
to impose new and additional pains and
| penalties upon crimes or supposed crimes
of persons, which had been committed be-
fore the adoption of the l4th Amendment,
many of whom had been pardoned by the
President of the United States, before its
| ratification, and relieved from all the
pains and punishments imposed upon such
| crimes, and the amendment Obliterated
from the statute book all laws Furnishing
those who had not been previously par
| doned. Therefore, this act of Congress
inflicting punishment upon these prior
crimes, is in positive violation of that
clause of the Constitution that prohibits
NOHgISSS HUN passing any cA pOSt ldClO
law Now, if every word and clause of
the Constitution must be construed so as
| to give effect to each word and clause,
and each article and clause made to har-
monte with each other, if possible-then,
as this bill is directly in violation of this
construction, and produces direct con-
flict with other clauses of the same in
strument, it is null and void
But it may be said, if our construction
| of the Fourteenth Amendment is the
legal one, then it is dead letter, as it can
not be enforced by Congress; consequent
ly our construction of it would be in
violation of our own rule requiring effect
to be given to every word and clause of
the Constitution. This would be true if
the construction we contend for would
render the Fourteenth Amendment nuga-
tory and void; but such is not true. Said
construction only prevents Congress from
passing laws enforcing said amendment,
which war upon other provisions of con-
stitution, or impair vested rights, or bills
of attainder, or ex post factO laws. 1t
does not impair the power it vests in Con-
gress to pass laws enforcing said amend