These judges will probably be surprised when I tell them that the constitution of the United States contains no such word as "sovereign," or "sovereignty"; that it contains no such word as "subjects"; nor any word that implies that the government is "sovereign," or that the people are "subjects." At most, it contains only the mistaken idea that a power of making laws--by lawmakers chosen by the people--was consistent with, and necessary to, the maintenance of liberty and justice for the people themselves. This mistaken idea was, in some measure, excusable in that day, when reason and experience had not demonstrated, to their minds, the utter incompatibility of all lawmaking whatsoever with men's natural rights. The only other provision of the constitution, that can be interpreted as a declaration of "sovereignty" in the government, is this: 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_.--_Art._ VI. This provision I interpret to mean simply that the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, shall be "the supreme law of the land"--_not anything in the natural rights of the people to liberty and justice, to the contrary notwithstanding_--but only that they shall be "the supreme law of the land," "_anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding_,"--that is, whenever the two may chance to conflict with each other. If this is its true interpretation, the provision contains no declaration of "sovereignty" over the natural rights of the people. Justice is "the supreme law" of this, and all other lands; anything in the constitutions or laws of any nation to the contrary notwithstanding. And if the constitution of the United States intended to assert the contrary, it was simply an audacious lie--a lie as foolish as it was audacious--that should have covered with infamy every man who helped to frame the constitution, or afterward sanctioned it, or that should ever attempt to administer it. Inasmuch as the constitution declares itself to have been "ordained and established" by We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, everybody who attempts to administer it, is bound to give it such an interpretation, and only such an interpretation, as is consistent with, and promotive of, those objects, if its language will admit of such an interpretation.