Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-06-11
TUESDAY .. JUNE IL, 1895
s,nte and Federal Sovereignty.

In the following communication Mr.. Por
ter. of Portsmouth, discusses a question
which can hardly be considered a prac'
teal one. We suppose that. If Federal
constitutional convention were held, and
a new Constitution framed for the United
States. the courts would acknowledge II
as the Constitution of the country. Ger
tainly If State constitutional convention
were assembled in Virginia it would d.
come the sovereign State legislative power
as soon as 1t was organized. We mirnt
almost add that nothing but the Constitu
ton and laws of the United States woull
be superior in authority to the enact
ments or ordinances of that State cons;'-
iutjonal convention. But would nation
al constitutional convention, If one were
held, be clothed with full power TO legis-
laie for the whole United States2
Nobody can answer such questions as
these until they arise. Nobody can Sd?
more than that It would hardly comport
with the old-fashioned notions Of States
rights for the authority of the Federal
Government to become supreme in the
manner suggested. We see every DAY
Federal courts assuming powers when
the fathers Of the republic never so much
as dreamed they had entrusted to the
Federal Government.
Look AT the 18th, 14ih, and 18th articles
Of amendment to the Federal Consti;u-
ton. They have never been ratified in
the manner provided in the Federal Con-
stitution. but were ratified under compul-
sion. The people of several Southern
States were allowed to be represented
in Congress on condition that these
amendments should be ratified. The let
ter Of the Federal Constitution, and It's
whole spirit, were violated when the four
teenth amendment was added to the Fed
eral Constitution. Yet the validity of
that amendment is treated as a settled
fact by Judge Hughes. Judge Simonton
and even by the Chief Justice OF the
United States. What are written consu-
tutlons worth? Nothing" was George
Fitzhueh's answer.
Reasoning from analogy, we soon reach
the conclusion that our friend Porter's
interrogations carry implied answers in
them. The reader may judge for himself:
and this Is all that Mr.. Porter desires
his readers to do.
PORTSMOUTH, VA, June 4, 1885.
To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
Your article in tc-days paper on the
subject of the clause in Article V. Of the
Constitution OF the United States, which
says, mo State, without It's consent. shall
be deprived Of equal suffrage in the Sem
ate" suggests the following questions;
/. Is not that clause operative only as
a part OF the Constitution
.. IL Article V. were amended, and
that clause left out, would 1t still be In
operation?
3. If the States OF California, Alabama,
Georgia. illinois, Indiana. Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Massachusetts,, Michigan, Min
nesota, Missouri, Mississippi New York,
New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio. Penn
sylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, having
a two-thirds vote In the House OF Repre-
sentatives, or majority In the Senate.
were to pass a law excluding the other
States from representation in Congress,
and in the absence OF their representa-
lives pass the amendment referred TO-,
and require these States TO ratify 1t as
a condition precedent to the readmisslon
Of their representatives In Congress, what
would be the effect OF the proceedings?
This identical plan has been carried
INTO operation once, and its results have
been recognized by the courts as bind
ing. Why not second time?
Very respectfully,
JOHN w. PORTER