is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning
the government. It is no doctrine of mine that
unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great
question is, Whose prerogative is it to decide on the
constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws?
On that, the main debate hinges. The proposition,
that, in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution
by Congress, the States have a constitutional right
to interfere and annul the law of Congress is the
proposition of the gentleman. I do not admit
it. If the gentleman had intended no more than
to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause,
he would have said only what all agree to. But
I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course,
between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced
constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance,
which is revolution or rebellion, on the other.
I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress
cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the inalienable
right of man to resist oppression; that is to say,
upon the ground of revolution. I admit that there
is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution
and in defiance of the Constitution, which may be
resorted to when a revolution is to be justified.
But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution and
in conformity with it, there is any mode in which
a State government, as a member of the Union, can
interfere and stop the progress of the General Government,
by force of her own laws, under any circumstances
whatever.
This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government
and the source of its power. Whose agent is it?
Is it the creature of the State Legislatures, or the
creature of the people? If the Government of the
United States be the agent of the State governments,
then they may control it, provided they can agree
in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent
of the people, then the people alone can control it,
restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable
enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable
gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining,
not only that this General Government is the creature
of the States, but that it is the creature of each
of the States, severally, so that each may assert
the power for itself of determining whether it acts
within the limits of its authority. It is the
servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills
and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all.
This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from
a misconception as to the origin of this government
and its true character. It is, sir, the people’s
Constitution, the people’s government, made
for the people, made by the people, and answerable
to the people. The people of the United States
have declared that this Constitution shall be supreme
law. We must either admit the proposition, or
deny their authority. The States are, unquestionably,
sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected
by this supreme law. But the State Legislatures,