the american republic-第32部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


　the　　General　government　holds　its　powers。　　It　holds　them；　as　we　I　　have　seen；　from　〃We；　the　people　235　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　of　the　United　States；〃　not　we；　　the　people　of　the　States　severally；　but　of　the　States　united。　　If　it　had　meant　the　States　severally；　it　would　have　said；　We；　the　　States；　if　it　had　recognized　and　meant　the　population　of　the　　country　irrespective　of　its　organization　into　particular　States；　　it　would　have　said　simply；　We；　the　people。　　By　saying　〃We；　the　　people　of　the　United　States；〃　it　placed　the　sovereign　power　where　　it　is；　in　the　people　of　the　States　united。

The　convention　ordains　that　the　powers　not　conceded　to　the　　General　government　or　prohibited　to　the　particular　governments；　　〃are　reserved　to　the　States　respectively；　or　to　the　people。〃　But　　the　powers　reserved　to　the　States　severally　are　reserved　by　order　　of　the　United　States；　and　the　powers　not　so　reserved　are　reserved　　to　the　people。　　What　people？　　The　first　thought　is　that　they　are　　the　people　of　the　States　severally；　for　the　constitution　　understands　by　people　the　state　as　distinguished　from　the　state　　government；　but　if　this　had　been　its　meaning　in　this　place；　it　　would　have　said；　〃are　reserved　to　the　States　respectively；　or　to　　the　people〃　thereof。　　As　it　does　not　say　so；　and　does　not　define　　the　people　it　means；　it　is　necessary　to　understand　by　them　the　　people　called　in　the　preamble　〃the　people　of　the　United　States。〃　　　This　is　con…　236　　　　　　　　　　　　firmed　by　the　authority　reserved　to　amend　the　　constitution；　which　certainly　is　not　reserved　to　the　States　　severally；　but　necessarily　to　the　power　that　ordains　the　　constitution〃We；　the　people　of　the　United　States。〃　　No　power　　except　that　which　ordains　is　or　can　be　competent　to　amend　a　　constitution　of　government。　　The　particular　mode　prescribed　by　　the　convention　in　which　the　constitution　of　the　government　may　be　　amended　has　no　bearing　on　the　present　argument；　because　it　is　　prescribed　by　the　States　united；　not　severally；　and　the　power　to　　amend　is　evidently　reserved；　not　indeed　to　the　General　　government；　but　to　the　United　States；　for　the　ratification　by　any　　State　or　Territory　not　in　the　Union　counts　for　nothing。　　The　　States　united；　can；　in　the　way　prescribed；　give　more　or　less　　power　to　the　General　government；　and　reserve　more　or　less　power　　to　the　States　individually。　　The　so…called　reserved　powers　are　　really　reserved　to　the　people　of　the　United　States；　who　can　make　　such　disposition　of　them　as　seems　to　them　good。

The　conclusion；　then；　that　the　General　government　holds　from　the　　States　united；　not　from　the　States　severally；　is　not　invalidated　　by　the　fact　that　its　constitution　was　completed　only　by　the　　ratification　of　the　States　in　their　individ…　237　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ual　capacity。　　The　　ratification　was　made　necessary　by　the　will　of　the　people　in　　convention　assembled；　but　the　convention　was　competent　to　　complete　it　and　put　it　in　force　without　that　ratification；　had　it　　so　willed。　　The　general　practice　under　the　American　system　is　for　　the　convention　to　submit　the　constitution　it　has　agreed　on　to　the　　people；　to　be　accepted　or　rejected　by　a　plebiscitum；　but　such　　submission；　though　it　may　be　wise　and　prudent；　is　not　necessary。　　　The　convention　is　held　to　be　the　convention　of　the　people；　and　to　　be　clothed　with　the　full　authority　of　the　sovereign　people；　and　　it　is　in　this　that　it　differs　from　the　congress　or　the　　legislature。　　It　is　not　a　congress　of　delegates　or　ministers　who　　are　obliged　to　act　under　instructions；　to　report　their　acts　to　　their　respective　sovereigns　for　approval　or　rejection；　it　is　　itself　sovereign；　and　may　do　whatever　the　people　themselves　can　　do。　　There　is　no　necessity　for　it　to　appeal　to　a　plebiscitum　to　　complete　its　acts。　　That　the　convention；　on　the　score　of　　prudence；　is　wise　in　doing　so；　nobody　questions；　but　the　　convention　is　always　competent；　if　it　chooses；　to　ordain　the　　constitution　without　appeal。　　The　power　competent　to　ordain　the　　constitution　is　always　competent　to　change；　modify；　or　amend　it。　　　That　amend…　238　　　　　　　　　　　ments　to　the　constitution　of　the　government　can　be　　adopted　only　by　being　proposed　by　a　convention　of　all　the　States　　in　the　Union；　or　by　being　proposed；　by　a　two…thirds　vote　of　both　　houses　of　Congress；　and　ratified　by　three…fourths　of　the　States；　　is　simply　a　conventional　ordinance；　which　the　convention　can　　change　at　its　pleasure。　　It　proves　nothing　as　it　stands　but　the　　will　of　the　convention。

The　term　ratification　itself；　because　the　term　commonly　used　in　　reference　to　treaties　between　sovereign　powers；　has　been　seized　　on；　since　sometimes　used　by　the　convention；　to　prove　that　the　　constitution　emanates　from　the　States　severally；　and　is　a　treaty　　or　compact　between　sovereign　states；　not　an　organic　or　　fundamental　law　ordained　by　a　single　sovereign　will；　but　this　　argument　is　inadmissible；　because；　as　we　have　just　seen；　the　　convention　is　competent　to　ordain　the　constitution　without　　submitting　it　for　ratification；　and　because　the　convention　uses　　sometimes　the　word　adopt　instead　of　the　word　ratify。　　That　the　　framers　of　the　constitution　held　it　to　be　a　treaty；　compact；　or　　agreement　among　sovereigns；　there　is　no　doubt；　for　they　so　held　　in　regard　to　all　constitution　of　government；　and　there　is　just　as　　little　doubt　that　they　intended　to　constitute；　and　firmly　　believed　that　239　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　they　were　constituting　a　real　government。　　　Mr。　Madison's　authority　on　this　point　is　conclusive。　　They　　unquestionably　regarded　the　States；　prior　to　the　ratification　of　　the　constitution　they　proposed；　as　severally　sovereign；　as　they　　were　declared　to　be　by　the　old　Articles　of　Confederation；　but　　they　also　believed　that　all　individuals　are　sovereign　prior　to　　the　formation　of　civil　society。　　Yet　very　few；　if　any；　of　them　　believed　that　they　remained　sovereign　after　the　adoption　of　the　　constitution；　and　we　may　attribute　to　their　belief　in　the　　conventional　origin　of　all　government；the　almost　universal　　belief　of　the　time　among　political　philosophers；the　little　　account　which　they　made　of　the　historical　facts　that　prove　that　　the　people　of　the　United　States　were　always　one　people；　and　that　　the　States　never　existed　as　severally　sovereign　states。

The　political　philosophers　of　the　present　day　do　not　generally　　accept　the　theory　held　by　our　fathers；　and　it　has　been　shown　in　　these　pages　to　be　unsound　and　incompatible　with　the　essential　　nature　of　government。　　The　statesmen　of　the　eighteenth　century　　believed　that　the　state　is　derived　from　the　people　individually；　　and　held　that　sovereignty　is　created　by　the　people　in　convention。　　　The　rights　and　powers　of　the　state；　they　held；　were　made　up　of　　the　　240　　　　　rights　held　by　individuals　under　the　law　of　nature；　and　which　　the　individuals　surrendered　to　civil　society　on　its　formation。　　　So　they　supposed　that　independent　sovereign　states　might　meet　in　　convention；　mutually　agree　to　surrender　a　portion　of　their　　rights；　organize　their　surrendered　rights　into　a　real　government；　　and　leave　the　convention　shorn；　at　least；　of　a　portion　of　their　　sovereignty。　　This　doctrine　crops　out　everywhere　in　the　writings　　of　the　elder　Adams；　and　is　set　forth　with　rare　ability　by　　Mr。　Webster；　in　his　great　speech　in　the　Senate　against　the　State　　sovereignty　doctrine　of　General　Hayne　and　Mr。　Calhoun；　which　won　　for　him　the　honorable　title　of　Expounder　of　the　Constitutionand　　expound　it　he；　no　doubt；　did　in　the　sense　of　its　framers。　　He　　boldly　concedes　that　prior　to　the　adoption　of　the　constitution；　　the　people　of　the　United　States　were　severally　sovereign　states；　　but　by　the　constitution　they　were　made　one　sovereign　political　　community　or　people；　and　that　the　States；　though　retaining　　certain　rights；　have　merged　their　several　sovereignty　in　the　　Union。

The　subtle　mind　of　Mr。　Calhoun；　who　did　not　hold　that　a　state　can　　originate　in　compact；　proved　to　Mr。　Webster　that　his　theory　could　　not　stand；　that；　if　the　States　went　into　241　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　the　convention　sovereign　　States；　they　came　out　of　it　sovereign　States；　and　that　the　　constitution　they　formed　could　from　the　nature　of　the　case　be　　only　a　treaty；　compact；　or　agreement　between　sovereigns。　　It　　could　create　an　agency；　but　not　a　government。　　The　sovereign　　States　could　only　delegate　the　exercise　of　their　sovereign　　powers；　not　the　sovereign　powers　themselves。　　The　States　could　　agree　to　exercise　certain　specific　powers　of　sovereignty　only　in　　common；　but　the　force　and　vitality　of　the　agreement　depended　on　　the　States；　parties　to　the　agreement　retaining　respectively　their　　sovereignty。　　Hence；　he　maintained　that　sovereignty；　after　as　　before　the　convention；　vested　in　the　States　severally。　　Hence　　State　sovereignty；　and　hence　his　doctrine　that　in　all　cases　that　　cannot　come　properly　before　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　　States　for　decision；　each　State　is　free　to　decide　for　itself；　on　　which　he　based　the　right　of　nullification；　or　the　State　veto　of　　acts　of　Congress　whose　constitutionality　the　State　denies。　　　Mr。　Calhoun　was　himself　no　secessionist；　but　he　laid　down　the　　premises　from　which　secession　is　the　logical　deduction；　and　large　　numbers　of　young　men；　among　the　most　open；　the　most　generous；　and　　the　most　patriotic　in　the　country；　adopted　his　premises；　242　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　without　　being　aware　of　this　fact　any　more　than　he　himself　was；　and　who　　have　been　behind　none　in　their　loyalty　to　the　Union；　and　in　their　　sacrifices　to　sustain　it；　in　the　late　rebellion。

The　formidable　rebellion　which　is　now　happily　suppressed；　and　　which　attempted　to　justify　itself　by　the　doctrine　of　State　　sovereignty；　has　thrown；　in　many　minds；　new　light　on　the　subject；　　and　led　them　to　re…examine　the　historical　facts　in　the　case　from　　a　different　point　of　view；　to　see　if　Mr。　Calhoun's　theory　is　not　　as　unfounded　as　be　had　proved　Mr。　Webster's　theory　to　be。　　The　　facts　in　the　case　really　sustain　neither；　and　both　failed　to　see　　it：　Mr。　Calhoun　because　be　had　purposes　to　accomplish　which　　demanded　State　sovereignty；　and　Mr。　Webster　because　he　examined　　them　in　the　distorting　medium　of　the　theory　or　understanding　of　　the　statesmen　of　the　eighteenth　century。　　The　civil　war　has　　vindi