IntheinterpretationoftheConstitution,theauthorfoundshimself,wheneverhecan,upontheauthorityoftheSupremeCourt.Thiswastobeexpected;for,insodoing,hehas,inmostcases,onlyreiteratedhisownjudicialdecisions.Wecouldnotsupposethatone,whoseopinionsarenotlightlyadopted,wouldadvance,asacommentator,aprinciplewhichherejectedasajudge.Inmostcases,too,nohigherauthorityintheinterpretationoftheConstitutionisknowninoursystems,andnonebettercouldbedesired.Itisonlyinquestionsofpoliticalpower,involvingtherightsoftheStatesinreferencetotheFederalGovernment;thatanyclassofpoliticiansaredisposedtodenytheauthorityofthejudgmentsoftheSupremeCourt.15Weshallhaveoccasiontoexaminethissubjectmoreatlarge,inasubsequentpartofthisreview.
IndiscussingthevariousclausesoftheConstitution,JudgeStorydisplaysgreatresearch,andathoroughacquaintancewiththehistoryofthatinstrument.
Itisnotperceived,however,thathehaspresentedanynewviewsofit,orofferedanynewargumentsinsupportoftheconstructionswhichithasheretoforereceived.Asacompendiumofwhatothershavesaidanddoneuponthesubject,hisworkisveryvaluable.Itfacilitatesinvestigation,whilst,atthesametime,itissofullofmatter,astorenderlittlefartherinvestigationnecessary.Eveninthisviewofthesubject,however,itwouldhavebeenmuchmorevaluableifithadcontainedreferencestotheauthoritiesonwhichitsvariouspositionsarefounded,insteadofmerelyextractingtheirsubstance.Thereaderwho,withhisbookashisguide,undertakestoacquainthimselfwiththeConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,musttaketheauthorityoftheauthorasconclusive,inmostcases;
orelsehewilloftenfindhimselfperplexedtodiscoverthesourcesfromwhichhederiveshisinformation.Thisisagreatdefectinaworkofthissort,andisthelessexcusable,becauseitmighthavebeeneasilyavoided.
Awriterwhoundertakestofurnishatreatiseuponaframeofgovernment,inrelationtowhichgreatandcontestedpoliticalquestionshavearisen,owesitaliketohisreaderandtohimself,tonamethesourceswhencehedrawswhateverinformationheventurestoimpart,andtheauthoritiesuponwhichhefoundswhateveropinionsheventurestoinculcate.Thereaderrequiresthisforthesatisfactionofhisownjudgement;andthewriteroughttodesireitasaffordingthebestevidenceofhisowntruthandcandor.
Inthisdivisionofthework,theauthorpursuestheideacautiouslyhintedinthefirstdivision,andmoreplainlyannouncedinthesecond;
andhenowcarriesitoutboldlyinitsresults.Havinginformedusthat,ascolonies,wewere\"formanypurposesonepeople,\"andthattheDeclarationofIndependencemadeus\"anationdefacto,\"henowassumesthebroadgroundthatthis\"onepeople,\"ornationdefacto,formedtheConstitutionunderwhichwelive.Theconsequencesofthispositionareveryapparentthroughouttheremainderofthework.TheinferencesfairlydeducedfromitimparttotheConstitutionitsdistinctivecharacter,astheauthorunderstandsit;and,ofcourse,ifthisfundamentalpositionbewrong,thatinstrumentisnotinmanyofitsprovisions,whatherepresentsittobe.Thereader,therefore,shouldsettlethisquestionforhimselfintheoutset;because,ifhedifferfromtheauthoruponthispoint,hewillbecompelledtorejectbyfarthemostimportantpartofthethirdandprincipaldivisionofthesecommentaries.
Theopinion,thattheConstitutionwasformedby\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"ascontradistinguishedfromthepeopleoftheseveralStates,thatis,ascontradistinguishedfromtheStatesassuch,isfoundedexclusivelyontheparticulartermsofthepreamble.Thelanguageis:\"We,thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,doordainandestablishthisConstitutionfortheUnitedStatesofAmerica.\"\"Thepeopledoordainandestablish,notcontractandstipulatewitheachother.\"\"ThepeopleoftheUnitedStates,notthedistinctpeopleofaparticularStatewiththepeopleoftheotherStates.\"
Inthusrelyingonthelanguageofthepreamble,JudgeStoryrejectsthelightsofhistoryaltogether.Iwillendeavor,inthefirstplace,tomeethimonhisownground.
Itisanadmittedrule,thatthepreambleofastatutemayberesortedtointheconstructionofit;anditmay,ofcourse,beusedtothesameextentintheconstructionofaconstitution,whichisasupremelaw.Buttheonlypurposeforwhichitcanbeusedistoaidinthediscoveryofthetrueobjectandintentionofthelaw,wherethesewouldotherwisebedoubtful.Thepreamblecan,innocase,beallowedtocontradictthelaw,ortovarythemeaningofitsplainlanguage.Stilllesscanitbeusedtochangethetruecharacterofthelawmakingpower.IfthepreambleoftheConstitutionhaddeclaredthatitwasmadebythepeopleofFranceorEngland,itmight,indeed,havebeenreceivedasevidenceofthatfact,intheabsenceofallprooftothecontrary;butsurelyitwouldnotbesoreceivedagainsttheplaintestimonyoftheinstrumentitself,andtheauthentichistoryofthetransaction.IftheconventionwhichformedtheConstitutionwasnot,inpointoffact,aconventionofthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,ithadnorighttogiveitselfthattitle;norhaditanyrighttoactinthatcharacter,ifitwasappointedbyadifferentpower.
AndiftheConstitution,whenformed,wasadoptedbytheseveralStates,actingthroughtheirseparateConventions,itis,historicallyuntruethatitwasadoptedbytheaggregatepeopleoftheUnitedStates.Thepreamble,therefore,isofnosortofvalueinsettlingthisquestion;anditismatterofjustsurprisethatitshouldbesooftenreferredto,andsopertinaciouslyreliedon,forthatpurpose.Historyalonecansettlealldifficultiesuponthissubject.
Thehistoryofthepreambleitselfoughttohaveconvincedourauthor,thattheinferencewhichhedrawsfromitcouldnotbeallowed.Onthe6thofAugust,1787,thecommitteeappointedforthatpurposereportedthefirstdraftofaConstitution.Thepreamblewasinthesewords:\"We,thepeopleoftheStatesofNewHampshire,Massachusetts,RhodeIslandandProvidencePlantations,Connecticut,NewYork,NewJersey,Pennsylvania,Delaware,Maryland,Virginia,NorthCarolina,SouthCarolinaandGeorgia,doordain,declareandestablishthefollowingConstitution,forthegovernmentofourselvesandourposterity.\"1Elliott\'sDebates,255.Ontheverynextdaythispreamblewasunanimouslyadopted;andthereaderwillatonceperceive,thatitcarefullypreservesthedistinctsovereigntyoftheStates,anddiscountenancesallideaofconsolidation.Ib.263.ThedraftoftheConstitutionthussubmittedwasdiscussed,andvariousalterationsandamendmentsadopted,butwithoutanychangeinthepreamble,untilthe8thofSeptember,1787,whenthefollowingresolutionwaspassed:\"Itwasmovedandsecondedtoappointacommitteeoffive,torevisethestyleof,andarrangethearticlesagreedtoby,theHouse;whichpassedintheaffirmative.\"Ib.324.Itismanifestthatthiscommitteehadnopowertochangethemeaningofanythingwhichhadbeenadopted,butwereauthorizedmerelyto\"revisethestyle,\"andarrangethematterinproperorder.On,the12thofthesamemonththeymadetheirreport.Thepreamble,astheyreportedit,isinthefollowingwords\"We,thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,inordertoformamoreperfectunion,16toestablishjustice,insuredomestictranquility,provideforthecommondefence,promotethegeneralwelfare,andsecuretheblessingsoflibertytoourselvesandourposterity,doordainandestablishthisConstitutionfortheUnitedStatesofAmerica.\"Ib.326.Itdoesnotappearthatanyattemptwasmadetochangethisphraseologyinanymaterialpoint,ortoreinstatetheoriginal.Thepresumptionis,therefore,thatthetwowereconsideredassubstantiallythesame,particularlyasthecommitteehadnoauthoritytomakeanychangeexceptinthestyle.Thedifferenceinthemerephraseologyofthetwowascertainlynotoverlooked;foronthe13thSeptember,1787,\"itwasmovedandsecondedtoproceedtothecomparingofthereportfromthecommitteeofrevision,withthearticleswhichwereagreedtobytheHouse,andtothemreferredtoforarrangement;whichpassedintheaffirmative.Andthesamewasreadbyparagraphs,compared,and,insomeplaces,correctedandamended,\"Ib.
338.Inwhatparticularsthesecorrectionsandamendmentsweremade,wearenotverydistinctlyinformed.Theonlychangewhichwasmadeinthepreamble,wasbystrikingouttheword\"to,\"beforethewords\"establishjustice\";andtheprobabilityis,thatnootherchangewasmadeinanyofthearticles,exceptsuchaswouldmake\"thereportofthecommitteeofrevision\"\"correspondwiththearticlesagreedtobytheHouse.\"Theinference,therefore,isirresistible,thattheconventionconsideredthepreamblereportedbythecommitteeofrevision,assubstantiallycorrespondingwiththeoriginaldraft,asunanimously\"agreedtobytheHouse.\"
Thereis,however,anotherandaperfectlyconclusivereasonforthechangeofphraseology,fromtheStatesbyname,tothemoregeneralexpression\"theUnitedStates\";andthis,too,withoutsupposingthatitwasintendedtherebytoconveyadifferentideaastothepartiestotheConstitution.
Thereviseddraftcontainedaproviso,thattheConstitutionshouldgointooperationwhenadoptedandratifiedbynineStates.Itwas,ofcourse,uncertainwhethermorethanninewouldadoptitornot,andiftheyshouldnot,itwouldbealtogetherimpropertonamethemaspartiestothatinstrument.
Astooneofthem,RhodeIsland,shewasnotevenrepresentedintheconvention,and,consequently,theothershadnosortofrighttoinsertherasaparty.
HenceitbecamenecessarytoadoptaformofexpressionwhichwouldapplytothosewhoshouldratifytheConstitution,andnottothosewhoshouldrefusetodoso.Theexpressionactuallyadoptedanswersthatpurposefully.
Itmeanssimply:\"We,thepeopleofthoseStateswhohaveunitedforthatpurpose,doordain,\"&c.Thisconstructioncorrespondswiththehistoricalfact,andreconcilesthelanguageemployedwiththecircumstancesofthecase.Indeed,similarlanguagewasnotunusual,throughthewholecourseoftheRevolution.\"ThepeopleofHisMajesty\'scolonies,\"\"thepeopleoftheunitedcolonies,\"\"thepeopleoftheUnited,States,\"areformsofexpressionwhichfrequentlyoccur,withoutintendingtoconveyanyotherideathanthatofthepeopleoftheSeveralcoloniesorStates.
Itis,perhaps,notaltogetherunworthyofremark,inreferencetothisinquiry,thattheword\"people\"hasnopluralterminationinourlanguage.
Ifithad,theprobabilityisthattheexpressionwouldhavebeen\"we,thepeoples,\"conveying,distinctly,theideaofthepeopleoftheseveralStates.But,asnosuchpluralterminationisknowninourlanguage,theleastthatwecansayis,thatthewantofitaffordsnoargumentinfavoroftheauthor\'sposition.
Thisbriefhistoryofthepreamble,collectedfromtheJournalsoftheConvention,willbesufficienttoshowthattheauthorhasalloweditanundueinfluenceinhisconstructionoftheConstitution.Itisnotfromsuchvagueanduncertainpromises,thatconclusions,soimportantandcontrolling,canbewiselydrawn.JudgeStory,however,isperfectlyconsistentinthetwocharactersinwhichheappearsbeforeus;thecommentatortakesnogroundwhichthejudgedoesnotfurnish.ItisremarkablethatalthoughthisquestionwasdirectlypresentedinthecaseofMartinvs.Hunter\'sLessees,andalthoughthefactthattheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates\"wasordainedandestablished,notbytheStatesintheirsovereigncapacities,butemphaticallybythepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"ismadethefoundationofthejudgmentoftheSupremeCourtinthatcase;yet,JudgeStory,indeliveringtheopinionoftheCourt,reststhatpositionuponthepreamblealone,andoffersnootherargumentwhatevertosupportit.Andthis,too,althoughinhisownopinion,upontherightdecisionofthatcaserested\"someofthemostsolidprincipleswhichhavehithertobeensupposedtosustainandprotecttheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates.\"Itismuchtoberegretted,thatprinciplessoimportantshouldbeadvancedasmeredogmas,eitherbyourjudgesorbytheinstructorsofouryouth.
Inthiscase,asinothers,however,weoughtnottobesatisfiedwithsimplyprovingthattheauthor\'sconclusionsarenotwarrantedbythefactsandargumentsfromwhichhederivesthem.Justicetothesubjectrequiresamuchmorefullanddetailedexaminationofthisimportantandfundamentalquestion.Ihaveendeavoredtoshow,intheprecedingpartofthisreview,thatthepeopleoftheseveralStates,whileinacolonialcondition,werenot\"onepeople\"inanypoliticalsenseoftheterms;thattheydidnotbecomesobytheDeclarationofIndependence,butthateachStatebecameacompleteandperfectsovereigntywithinitsownlimits;thattherevolutionarygovernment,priortotheestablishmentoftheconfederation,was,emphatically,agovernmentoftheStatesassuch,throughCongress,astheircommonagentandrepresentative,andthatbytheArticlesofConfederation,eachStateexpresslyreserveditsentiresovereigntyandindependence.Innooneofthevariousconditions,throughwhichwehavehithertotracedthem,doweperceiveanyfeatureofconsolidation;buttheircharacterasdistinctandsovereignStatesisalwayscarefullyandjealouslypreserved.Weare,then,tocontemplatethemassovereignStates,whenthefirstmovementstowardstheformationofthepresentConstitutionweremade.
JudgeStoryhasgivenacorrecthistoryofthepreparatorystepstowardsthecallofaconvention.Itwasoneofthoseremarkableevents,ofwhichthehistoryoftheworldaffordsmanyexamples,whichhaveexertedthemostimportantinfluenceuponthedestinyofmankind,andyethavesprangfromcauseswhichdidnotoriginallylooktoanysuchresults.Itistrue,thedefectsoftheconfederation,anditstotalinadequacytothepurposesofaneffectivegovernment,weregenerallyacknowledged;butIamnotawarethatanydecisivestepwastakeninanyoftheStates,fortheformationofabettersystem,priortotheyear1786.Inthatyearthedifficultiesandembarrassmentsunderwhichourtradesuffered,inconsequenceoftheconflictingandoftenhostilecommercialregulationsoftheseveralStates,suggestedtotheLegislatureofVirginiathenecessityofformingamongalltheStatesageneralsystem,calculatedtoadvanceandprotectthetradeofallofthem.Theyaccordinglyappointedcommissioners,tomeetatAnnapolis,commissionersfromsuchoftheotherStatesasshouldapproveoftheproceeding,forthepurposeofpreparingauniformplanofcommercialregulations,whichwastobesubmittedtoalltheStates,and,ifbythemratifiedandadopted,tobeexecutedbyCongress.Suchofthecommissionersasmet,however,soondiscoveredthattheexecutionoftheparticulartrustwithwhichtheywereclothed,involvedothersubjectsnotwithintheircommission,andwhichcouldnotbeproperlyadjustedwithoutagreatenlargementoftheirpowers.They,therefore,simplyreportedthisfact,andrecommendedtotheirrespectivelegislaturestoappointdelegatestomeetingeneralconventioninPhiladelphia,forthepurposenotmerelyofformingauniformsystemofcommercialregulations,butofreformingthegovernmentinanyandeveryparticularinwhichtheinterestsoftheStatesmightrequireit.ThisreportwasalsosubmittedtoCongress,whoapprovedoftherecommendationitcontained,andonthe21stofFebruary,1787,resolved,\"thatintheopinionofCongress,itisexpedientthat,onthesecondMondayinMaynext,aconventionofdelegates,whoshallhavebeenappointedbytheseveralStates,beheldatPhiladelphia,forthesoleandexpresspurposeofrevisingtheArticlesofConfederation,andreportingtoCongressandtheseverallegislatures,suchalterationsandprovisionstherein,asshall,whenagreedtoinCongress,andconfirmedbytheStates,rendertheFederalConstitutionadequatetotheexigenciesofgovernment,andthepreservationoftheUnion.\"\'1Elliott\'sDebates,185.
SuchwastheoriginoftheConventionof1787.Itisapparentthatthedelegatestothatbodyweretobeappointedbythe\"severalStates,\"andnotby\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\";thattheyweretoreporttheirproceedingsto\"Congressandtheseverallegislatures,\"andnotto\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\";andthattheirproceedingsweretobepartoftheConstitution,onlywhen\"agreedtoinCongressandconfirmedbytheStates,\"andnotwhenconfirmedby\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates.\"
Accordingly,delegateswere,inpointoffact,appointedbytheStates;
thesedelegatesdid,inpointoffact,reporttoCongressandtheStates;
andCongressdid,inpointoffact,approve,andtheStatesdid,inpointoffact,adopt,ratifyandconfirmtheConstitutionwhichtheyformed.
NootheragencythanthatoftheStatesassuch,andof,Congress,whichwasstrictlytherepresentativeoftheStates,istobediscernedinanypartofthiswholeproceeding.Wemaywellask,therefore,fromwhatunknownsourceourauthorderivestheidea,thattheConstitutionwasformedby\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"sincethehistoryofthetransaction,evenashehashimselfdetailedit,provesthat\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\"didnotappointdelegatestotheConvention,werenotrepresentedinthatbody,anddidnotadoptandconfirmitsactastheirown!
Even,however,ifthequestionnowbeforeusbenot,merelyandexclusively,aquestionofhistoricalfact,thereareotherviewsofitscarcelylessdecisiveagainstourauthor\'sposition.Inthefirstplace,Ihavetoremark,thattherewerenosuchpeopleas\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"inthesenseinwhichheusesthoseterms.TheArticlesofConfederationformed,atthattime,theonlygovernmentoftheUnitedStates;and,ofcourse,wearetocollectfromthemalonethetruenatureoftheconnectionoftheStateswithoneanother.WithoutdeemingitnecessarytoenumerateallthepowerswhichtheyconferredonCongress,itissufficienttoremarkthattheywereallexercisedinthenameoftheStates,asfree,sovereignandindependentStates.Congresswas,inthestrictestsense,therepresentativeoftheStates.ThememberswereappointedbytheStates,inwhatevermodeeachStatemightchoose,withoutreferenceeithertoCongressortheotherStates.Theycould,attheirownwillandpleasure,recalltheirrepresentatives,andsendothersintheirplaces,preciselyasanysovereignmayrecallhisministerataforeigncourt.ThemembersvotedinCongressbyStates,eachStatehavingonevote,whatevermightbethenumberofitsrepresentatives!
TherewasnoPresident,orothercommonexecutive,head.TheStatesalone,astoallthemoreimportantoperationsofthegovernment,werereliedontoexecutetheresolvesofCongress.Inallthis,andinotherfeaturesoftheconfederation,whichitisunnecessarytoenumerate,werecognizealeaguebetweenindependentsovereignties,andnotonenationcomposedofallofthemtogether.Itwouldseemtofollow,asanecessaryconsequence,thatiftheStates,thusunitedtogetherbyleague,didnotformonenation,therecouldnotbeacitizenorsubjectofthatnation.Indeed,Congresshadnopowertomakesuchcitizen,eitherbynaturalizationorotherwise.
Itistrue,thecitizensofeveryStatewereentitled,withcertainexceptions,suchaspaupers,vagabonds,&c.,toalltheprivilegesofcitizensofeveryotherState,whenwithintheterritoriesthereof;butthiswasbyexpresscompactintheArticlesofConfederation,anddidnototherwiseresultfromthenatureoftheirpoliticalconnection.ItwasonlybyvirtueofcitizenshipinsomeparticularState,thatitscitizenscouldenjoywithinanyotherStatetherightsofcitizensthereof.TheywerenotknownascitizensoftheUnitedStates,inthelegislationeitherofCongressoroftheseveralStates.HewhoceasedtobeacitizenofsomeparticularState,withoutbecomingacitizenofsomeotherparticularState,forfeitedalltherightsofacitizenineachandalloftheStates.Therewasnoonerightwhichthecitizencouldexercise,andnoonedutywhichhecouldbecalledontoperform,exceptasacitizenofsomeparticularState.
Inthatcharacteralonecouldheownrealestate,voteatelections,sueorbesuedandinthatcharacteralonecouldhebecalledontobeararms,ortopaytaxes.
What,then,wasthiscitizenshipoftheUnitedStates,whichinvolvednoallegiance,conferrednorightandsubjectedtonoduty?Whowere\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates?\"Wherewastheirdomicil,andwhatwerethepoliticalrelationswhichtheyboretooneanother?Whatwastheirsovereignty,andwhatwasthenatureoftheallegiancewhichitclaimed?Wheneverthesequestionsshallbesatisfactorilyanswered,designatingthepeopleoftheseveralStates,distinctivelyassuch,Ishallfeelmyselfinpossessionofnewandunexpectedlightsuponthesubject.
Even,however,ifweconcedethattherewassuchapeopleas\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"ourauthor\'spositionisstilluntenable.Iadmitthatthepeopleofanycountrymay,iftheychoose,alter,amendorabrogatetheirformofgovernment,orestablishanewone,withoutinvokingtheaidoftheirconstitutedauthorities.Theymaydothis,simplybecausetheyhavethephysicalpowertodoit,andnotbecausesuchaproceedingwouldbeeitherwise,just,orexpedient.Itwouldberevolutioninthestrictestsenseoftheterm.Bethisasitmay,nooneeversupposedthatthiscoursewaspursuedinthecaseunderconsideration.Everymeasure,bothforthecallingoftheconventionandfortheratificationoftheConstitution,wasadoptedinstrictconformitywiththerecommendations,resolutionsandlawsofCongressandtheStatelegislatures.Andas\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\"didnot,inpointoffact,takethesubjectintotheirownhands,independentoftheconstitutedauthorities,theycouldnotdoitbyanyagencyofthoseauthorities.SofarastheFederalGovernmentwasconcerned,theArticlesofConfederation,fromwhichaloneitderiveditspower,containednoprovisionbywhich\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\"couldexpressauthoritativelyajointandcommonpurposetochangetheirgovernment.AlawofCongressauthorizingthemtodoso,wouldhavebeenvoid,forwantofrightinthatbodytopassit.Nomode,whichCongressmighthaveprescribedforascertainingthewillofthepeopleuponthesubject,couldhavehadthatsanctionoflegalauthority,whichwouldhavebeenabsolutelynecessarytogiveitforceandeffect.ItisequallyclearthattherewasnorightorpowerreservedtotheStatesthemselves,byvirtueofwhichanysuchauthoritativeexpressionofthecommonwillandpurposeofalltheStatescouldhavebeenmade.ThepowerandjurisdictionofeachStatewaslimitedtoitsownterritory;ithadnopowertolegislateforthepeopleofanyotherState.NosingleState,therefore,couldhaveaffectedsuchanobject;andiftheyhadallconcurredinit,eachacting,asitwasonlyauthorizedtoact,foritself,thatwouldhavebeenstrictlytheactionofthestatesassuch,andascontradistinguishedfromtheactionofthemassofthepeopleofalltheStates.If\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\"couldnot,byanyaidtobederivedfromtheircommongovernment,haveeffectedsuchachangeintheirConstitution,thatgovernmentitselfwasequallydestituteofallpowertodoso.TheonlyclauseintheArticlesoftheConfederation,touchingthissubject,isinthefollowingwords:
\"AndtheArticlesofthisConfederationshallbeinviolablyobservedbyeveryState,andtheUnionshallbeperpetual;norshallanyalteration,atanytimehereafter,bemadeinanyofthem,unlesssuchalterationbeagreedtoinCongressoftheUnitedStatesandbeafterwardsconfirmedbythelegislatureofeveryState.\"
EvenifthispowerhadbeengiventoCongressalone,withoutsubjectingtheexerciseofittothenegativeoftheStates,itwouldstillhavebeenthepoweroftheStatesintheirseparateandindependentcapacities,andnotthepowerofthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,ascontradistinguishedfromthem.ForCongresswas,aswehavealreadyremarked,strictlytherepresentativeoftheStates;andeachState,beingentitledtoonevote,andoneonly,waspreciselyequal,inthedeliberationofthatbody,toeachotherState.Nothingless,therefore,thanamajorityoftheStatescouldhavecarriedthemeasureinquestion,eveninCongress.But,surelytherecouldbenodoubtthatthepowertochangetheircommongovernmentwasreservedtotheStatesalone,whenweseeitexpresslyprovidedthatnothinglessthantheirunanimousconsent,asStates,shouldbesufficienttoeffectthatobject.
Thereisyetanotherviewofthissubject.Itresultsfromthenatureofallgovernment,freelyandvoluntarilyestablished,thatthereisnopowertochange,exceptthepowerwhichformedit.Itwillscarcelybedeniedbyanyone,thattheconfederationwasagovernmentstrictlyoftheStates,formedbythemassuch,andderivingallitspowersfromtheirconsentandagreement.Whatauthoritywasthere,superiortotheStates,whichcouldundotheirwork?Whatpowerwasthere,otherthantheStatesthemselves,whichwasauthorizedtodeclarethattheirsolemnleagueandagreementshouldbeabrogated?CouldamajorityofthepeopleofalltheStateshavedoneit?Ifso,whencedidtheyderivethatright?CertainlynotfromanyagreementamongtheStates,orthepeopleofalltheStates;
anditcouldnotbelegitimatelyderivedfromanyothersource.Iftherefore,theyhadexercisedsuchapower,itwouldhavebeenaplainactofusurpationandviolence,Besides,ifwemayjudgefromtheapportionmentofrepresentationasproposedintheconvention,amajorityofthepeopleofalltheStatesweretobefoundinthefourStatesofMassachusetts,NewYork,PennsylvaniaandVirginia;sothat,uponthisidea,thepeopleoflessthanone-thirdofalltheStatescouldchangetheArticlesofConfederation,althoughthosearticlesexpresslyprovidedthattheyshouldnotbechangedwithouttheconsentofalltheStates!TherewasthennopowersuperiortothepoweroftheStates;and,consequently,therewasnopowerwhichcouldalterorabolishthegovernmentwhichtheyhadestablished.IftheConstitutionhassupercededtheArticlesofConfederation,itisbecausethepartiestothosearticleshaveagreedthatitshouldbeso.Iftheyhavenotsoagreed,thereisnosuchConstitution,andtheArticlesofConfederationarestilltheonlypoliticaltieamongtheStates.Weneednot,however,lookbeyondtheattestationoftheConstitutionitself,forfullevidenceuponthispoint.Itprofessestohavebeen\"donebytheunanimousconsentoftheStatespresent,&c.,\"andnotinthenameorbytheauthorityof\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates.\"
Butitisnotthemereframingofaconstitutionwhichgivesitauthorityassuch.Itbecomesobligatoryonlybyitsadoptionandratification;andsurelythatact,Ispeakoffreeandvoluntarygovernment,makesittheconstitutionofthoseonlywhodoadoptit.Letusascertain,then,fromtheauthentichistoryofthetimes,bywhomourownConstitutionwasadoptedandratified.
TheresolutionofCongressalreadyquoted,contemplatesaconvention\"forthesoleandexpresspurposeofrevisingtheArticlesofConfederation,\"
andreportingsuitable\"alterationsandprovisionstherein.\"TheproceedingsoftheconventionweretobereportedtoCongressandtheseverallegislatures,andweretobecomeobligatory,onlywhen\"agreedtoinCongressandconfirmedbytheStates.\"ThisispreciselythecourseofproceedingprescribedintheArticlesofConfederation.Accordingly,thenewConstitutionwassubmittedtoCongress;wasbythemapprovedandagreedto,andwasafterwards,inpursuanceoftherecommendation,oftheconvention,laidbeforeconventionsoftheseveralStates,andbythemratifiedandadopted.Inthisproceeding,eachStateactedforitself,withoutreferencetoanyotherState.Theyratifiedatdifferentperiods;someofthemunconditionally,andotherswithprovisosandpropositionsforamendment.ThiswascertainlyStateaction,inasdistinctaformascanwellbeimagined.Indeed,itmaywellbedoubtedwhetheranyotherformofratification,thanbytheStatesthemselves,wouldhavebeenvalid.Atallevents,noneotherwascontemplated,sincetheConstitutionitselfprovides,thatitshallbecomeobligatory,\"whenratifiedbynineStates,\"betweentheStatesratifyingthesame.\"ThepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"asanaggregatemass,arenowhereappealedto,forauthorityandsanctiontothatinstrument.EvenittheycouldhavemadeittheirConstitution,byadoptingit,theycouldnot,beingastheywereseparateanddistinctpoliticalcommunities,haveunitedthemselvesintoonemassforthatpurpose,withoutpreviouslyoverthrowingtheirownmunicipalgovernments;and,eventhen,thenewConstitutionwouldhavebeenobligatoryonlyonthosewhoagreedtoandadoptedit,andnotontherest.
ThedistinctionbetweenthepeopleoftheseveralStatesandthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,asitistobeunderstoodinreferencetothepresentsubject,isperfectlyplain.Ihavealreadyexplainedtheterms\"apeople,\"
whenusedinapoliticalsense.ThedistinctionofwhichIspeakmaybeillustrated,byasingleexample.IftheConstitutionhadbeenmadeby\"thepeopleoftheunitedstates,\"acertainportionofthosepeoplewouldhavehadauthoritytoadoptitintheabsenceofallexpressprovisiontothecontrary,wemayconcedethatamajoritywould,primafacie,havehadthatright.Didthatmajority,infact,adoptit?Wasiteverascertainedwhetheramajorityofthewholepeoplewereinfavorofitornot?Wasthereanyprovision,eitheroflaworconstitution,bywhichitwaspossibletoascertainthatfact?Itisperfectlywellknownthattherewasnosuchprovision;thatnosuchmajoritywaseverascertained,orevencontemplated.
LetussupposethatthepeopleoftheStatesofMassachusetts,NewYork,PennsylvaniaandVirginia,containing,aswehaveseentheyprobablydid,amajorityofthewholepeople,hadbeenunanimousagainsttheConstitution,andthatabaremajorityofthepeople,ineachoftheothernineStatesactingintheirseparatecharacterasStates,hadadoptedandratified.
Therecanbenodoubt,thatitwouldhavebecometheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates;andthat,too,bythesuffragesofadecidedminority,probablynotexceedingone-fourthoftheaggregatepeopleofalltheStates.Thissingleexampleshows,conclusivelythatthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,ascontradistinguishedfromthepeopleoftheseveralStates,hadnothingtodo,andcouldnothaveanthingtodowiththematter.
ThisbriefhistoryoftheformationandadoptionoftheConstitution,whichisfamiliartothemindofeveryonewhohasattendedtothesubjectatall,ought,asitseemstome,tobeperfectlysatisfactoryandconclusive,andshouldsilenceforeverallthosearguments,infavorofconsolidation,which,arefoundedonthepreambletothatinstrument.Idonotperceivewithwhatproprietyitcanbesaid,thatthe\"peopleoftheUnitedStates\"
formedtheConstitution,sincetheyneitherappointedtheconvention,norratifiedtheiract,norotherwiseadopteditasobligatoryuponthem.Evenifthepreamblebeentitledtoalltheinfluencewhichhasbeenallowedtoit,JudgeStory\'sconstructionofitslanguageisnot,ashasalreadybeenremarked,theonlyoneofwhichitissusceptible.\"We,thepeopleoftheUnitedStates,\"may,withoutanyviolencetotherulesoffairconstruction,mean\"we,thepeopleoftheStatesunited.\"Inthisacceptation,itstermsconformtothehistoryofthepreambleitself,tothatofthewholeConstitution,andthosewhomadeit.Inanyotheracceptation,theyareeitherwithoutmeaning,orelsetheyaffirmwhathistoryprovestobefalse.17
Itwouldnot,perhaps,havebeendeemednecessarytobestowquiteasmuchattentiononthispartofthework,ifitwerenotevidentthattheauthorhimselfconsidereditofgreatconsequence,notasmatterofhistory,butaswarrantingandcontrollinghisconstructionoftheConstitution,insomeofitsmostimportantprovisions.Theargumentisnotyetexhausted,andIamawarethatmuchofwhatIhavesaidistrite,andthatlittle,perhapsnopartofit,isnew.Indeed,thesubjecthasbeensooftenandsoablydiscussed,particularlyinparliamentarydebates,thatitadmitsveryfewnewviews,andstillfewernewargumentsinsupportofoldviews.
Itisstill,however,anopenquestion,andthereisnothinginthepresentconditionofpublicopiniontodepriveitofanyportionofitsoriginalimportance.TheideathatthepeopleoftheseStateswere,whilecolonists,and,consequently,arenow,\"onepeople,\"insomesensewhichhasneverbeenexplained,andtosomeextentwhichhasneverbeendefined,isconstantlyinculcatedbythosewhoareanxioustoconsolidateallthepowersoftheStatesintheFederalGovernment.Itisremarkable,however,thatscarcelyonesystematicargument,andveryfewattemptsofanysort,haveyetbeenmadetoprovethisimportantposition.EventhevastandclearmindofthelateChiefJusticeoftheUnitedStates,whichneverfailedtodisembarrassandelucidatethemostobscureandintricatesubject,appearstohaveshrunkfromthis.Inallhisjudicialopinionsinwhichthequestionhasbeenpresented,theunityoridentityofthepeopleoftheUnitedStateshasbeentakenasapostulatum,withoutoneseriousattempttoproveit.Thecontinuedrepetitionofthisidea,andtheboldnesswithwhichitisadvanced,have,Iaminducedtothink,givenitanunduecreditwiththepublic.
Fewmen,fartoofew,inquirenarrowlyintothesubject,andeventhosewhodo,arenotingeneralskepticalenoughtodoubtwhatissooftenandsoperemptorilyasserted;andasserted,too,withthatsortofhardyconfidencewhichseemstosay,thatallargumenttoproveittruewouldbesupererogatoryanduseless.Itisnot,therefore,outofplace,noroutoftime,torefreshthememoryofthereader,inregardtothosewellestablishedhistoricalfacts,whicharesufficientinthemselvestoprovethatthefoundationonwhichtheconsolidationistsbuildtheirtheory,isunsubstantialandfallacious.
Iwouldnotbeunderstoodascontending,inwhatIhavealreadysaid,thattheConstitutionisnecessarilyfederative,merelybecauseitwasmadebytheStatesassuch,andnotbytheaggregatepeopleoftheUnitedStates.Ireadilyadmit,thatalthoughtheprevioussystemwasstrictlyfederative,andcouldnothavebeenchangedexceptbytheStateswhomadeit,yettherewasnothingtopreventtheStatesfromsurrendering,intheprovisionsofthenewsystemwhichtheyadoptedalltheirpower,andeventheirseparateexistence,iftheychosetodoso.Thetrueinquiryis,therefore,whethertheyhaveinfactdonesoornot;or,inotherwords,whatisthetruecharacter,inthisrespect,ofthepresentConstitution.
Inthisinquiry,thehistoryoftheirpreviouscondition,andoftheConstitutionitself,ishighlyinfluentialandimportant.
Theauthor,carryingouttheideaofaunitybetweenthepeopleoftheUnitedStates,which,inthepreviouspartofhiswork,hehadtreatedasapostulatum,verynaturally,andindeednecessarily,concludesthattheConstitutionisnotacompactamongsovereignStates.Hecontendsthatitis\"notacontractimposingmutualobligations,andcontemplatingthepermanentsubsistenceofpartieshavinganindependentrighttoconstrue,control,andjudgeofitsobligations.Ifinthislattersense,itistobedeemedacompact,itmustbe,eitherbecauseitcontains,onitsface,stipulationstothateffect,orbecauseitisnecessarilyimplied,fromthenatureandobjectsofaframeofgovernment.\"
Thereisawantofappositenessandaccuracyinthefirstsentenceofthisextract,whichrendersitsomewhatdifficulttodeterminewhethertheauthordesigneditasasingleproposition,orasaseriesofindependentpropositions.Ifthefirst,thereisnotonepersonintheUnitedStates,itispresumed,whowouldventuretodifferfromhim.Iconfess,however,Idonotveryclearlydiscernwhatbearingithasonthequestionhewasexamining.Itinvolvesnopointofdifferencebetweenpoliticalparties,nordoesitpropoundanyquestionwhichhasheretoforebeencontested,orwhichmaybeexpectedtoarisehereafter,touchingthetruenatureoftheConstitution.Ifhedesignedaseriesofpropositions,thenthetwofirstaresoobviouslyfalse,thatJudgeStoryhimselfwouldnotventuretomaintainthem,andthelastissoobviouslytrue,thatnoonewoulddreamofdenyingit.Forexample:hecanscarcelymeantosaythatourgovernmentisnota\"contract\"whethermadebytheStatesassuch,orby\"thepeopleoftheUnitedStates\";anditisperfectlyclearthatit\"contemplatesthepermanentsubsistenceofthepartiestoit,\"whoeverthosepartiesmaybe.Thesetwopropositions,therefore,takendistinctly,arenottrueinthemselves,andneitherofthemwasnecessary,asqualifyingorformingapart,ofthethird.And,astothethird,itisnoteasytoseewhyheannouncedit,sinceitneverenteredintotheconceptionofanyone,thatthepartiestotheConstitutionhad\"anindependentright,\"asageneralright,\"toconstrue,controlorjudgeofitsobligations.\"WealladmitthatthepowerandauthorityoftheFederalGovernment,withinitsconstitutionalsphere,aresuperiortothoseoftheStates,insomeinstances,andco-ordinateinothers,andthateverycitizenisunderanabsoluteobligationtorenderthemrespectandobedience:andthissimplybecausehisownState,bytheactofratifyingtheConstitution,hascommandedhimtodoso.Wealladmitittobetrue,asageneralproposition,thatnocitizennorStatehasanindependentrightto\"construe,\"andstilllessto\"control\"theconstitutionalobligationsofthatgovernment,andthatneitheracitizennoraStatecan\"judge,\"thatis,decide,onthenatureandextentofthoseobligations,withaviewtocontrolthem.Allthatwasevercontendedforis,thataStatehasarighttojudgeofitsownobligations,and,consequently,tojudgeofthoseoftheFederalGovernment,sofarastheyrelatetosuchStateitself,andnofarther.Itisadmittedonallhands,thatwhentheFederalGovernmenttranscendsitsconstitutionalpower,andwhen,ofcourse,itisnotactingwithinits\"obligations,\"thepartiestothatgovernment,whoevertheymaybe,arenolongerunderanydutytorespectorobeyit.