He has been scarcely less unfortunate in the next proposition.Taking his words in their most enlarged sense,he is probably correct in his idea,though he is not accurate in his language;but in the sense in which his own reasoning shows that he himself understands them,his proposition is wholly untenable.If,by the words "stipulations to that effect,"he means simply that the effect must necessarily result from the provisions of the Constitution,he has merely asserted a truism which no one will dispute with him.Certainly,if it does not result from the nature of all government,that it is a compact,and if there be nothing in our Constitution to show that it is so,then it is not a compact.His own reasoning,however,shows that he means by the word "stipulations,"something in the nature of express agreement or declaration;and,in that sense,the proposition is obviously untrue,and altogether defective as a statement for argument.It is very possible that our Constitution may be a compact,even though it contain no express agreement or declaration so denominating it,and though it may not "result from the nature and objects of a frame of government,"that it is so;and this simply because it may "result from the nature and objects of our government"that it is a compact,whether such be the result of other governments or not.If the author designed to take this view of the subject,the examination which he has given of the Constitution,in reference to it,is scarcely as extended and philosophical as we had a right to expect from him.He has not even alluded to the frame and structure of the government in its several departments,nor presented any such analysis of it in any respect as to enable the reader to form any satisfactory conclusion as to its true character in the particular under consideration.Everything which he has urged as argument to prove his proposition,may well be true,and every sentence of the Constitution which he has cited for that purpose,may be allowed its full effect,and yet our government may be a compact,even in the strictest sense in which he has understood the term.
His first argument is,that the "United States were no strangers to compacts of this nature,"and that those who ratified the Constitution,if they had meant it as a compact,would have used "appropriate terms"
to convey that idea.I have already shown that if he means by this,that the Constitution would have contained some express declaration to that effect,he is altogether inaccurate.He himself knows,as a judge,that a deed,or other instrument,receives its distinctive character,not from the name which the parties may choose to give it,but from its legal effect and operation.The same rule applies to constitutions.Ours is a compact or not,precisely as its provisions make it so,or otherwise.The question,who are the parties to it,may influence,and ought to influence,the construction of it in this respect;and I propose presently to show,from this and other views of it,that it is,in its nature,"a mere confederation,"and not a consolidated government,in any one respect.It does,therefore,contain "appropriate terms,"if we take those words in an enlarged sense,to convey the idea of a compact.
Our author supposes,however,that a "conclusive"argument upon this subject is furnished by that clause of the Constitution which declares that:"This Constitution,and the laws of the United States,which shall be made in pursuance thereof,and all treaties made,or which shall be made,under the authority of the United States,shall be the supreme law of the land;and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Hence he concludes that the "people of any State cannot by any form of its own Constitution or laws,or other proceedings,repeal or abrogate,or suspend it."
