| 
|
|
Senate Debate on Nullification
|
Senate, April 2, 1830.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The right of a state to annul a law of Congress
must depend on their showing that this is a mere confederation
of states; which has not been done, and cannot be said to be true,
although it should not appear to be absolutely a government of
the people. It is by no in cans necessary to push the argument,
as to the character of the government, to its utmost limit; the
ground has been taken, and maintained with great force of reasoning,
that this government is the agent of the supreme power, the people.
It is sufficient for the argument, that this is not a compact
of states. It may be assumed that it is neither strictly a confederation
nor a national government: it is compounded of both; it is an
anomaly in the political world; an experiment growing out of our
peculiar circumstances; a compromise of principles and opinions:
it is partly federal, partly national.
"The proposed Constitution is, in strictness,
neither national nor federal; it is a composition of both; in
its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from
which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is
partly federal, partly national; in the operation of these powers,
it is national, not federal; in the mode for amendment, it is
neither wholly federal nor wholly national." —Federalist.
The following list will exhibit the nature and
number of the causes decided, [in the Supreme Court.] The same
case is sometimes counted under different heads:
1. Declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional,…2
2. Constitutional,
3. Declaring state laws constitutional,…9
4. Declaring state laws unconstitutional,…26
5. Affirming judgments of state courts,…14
6. Annulling judgments of state courts…14
7. Assenting to appeal jurisdiction,…7
8. Acquiescing in appeal jurisdiction,…21
9. States parties, really and nominally…6
10. States parties, incidentally,…4
11. Opinions against the President,…2
12. Opinions in favor of the President,…2
13. Opinions against the Secretary of State,…2
They have decided twenty-six state laws robe
unconstitutional; that is, interfering with the rights of the
general government; which, considering these as twenty-four states,
are not equal to the number of decisions against the acts of Congress.
The [Supreme] Court has annulled the judgments
of state courts in fourteen cases, which drew in question the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; but has
affirmed as many; which shows they have no bearing against the
rights of states, and which if it has had no other effect, has
preserved the uniformity so essential to the administration of
justice under them.
The Debates in the Several State Conventions
on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Elliot's Debates),
from the American
Memory Collection, Library of Congress. |
|
|
