Continental Monthly , Vol. 6, No. 1, July, 1864: Devoted to Literature and National Policy.Various
History
Continental Monthly , Vol. 6, No. 1, July, 1864: Devoted to Literature and National Policy.
Various
Literature, Modern -- 19th century -- Periodicals; United States -- Politics and government -- 19th century -- Periodicals
'No one will deny that all the great powers of sovereignty are directly
conceded to the Union. The right to make war and peace, to coin money,
maintain armies and navies, etc., etc., in themselves overshadow most of
the sovereignty of the States. The amendatory clause would seem to
annihilate it. By the provisions of that clause three fourths of the
States can take away all the powers and rights now resting in the hands
of the respective States, with a single exception. This exception gives
breadth and emphasis to the efficiency of the clause. It will be
remembered that all this can be done within the present Constitution.
It is a part of the original bargain. Thus, New York can legally be
deprived of the authority to punish for theft, to lay out highways, to
incorporate banks, and all the ordinary interests over which she at
present exercises control, every human being within her limits
dissenting. Now as sovereignty means power in the last resort, this
amendatory clause most clearly deprives the State of all sovereign power
thus put at the disposition of Conventions of the several States; in
fact, the votes of these Conventions, or that of the respective
Legislatures acting in the same capacity, is nothing but the highest
species of legislation known to the country; and no other mode of
altering the institutions would be legal. It follows unavoidably, we
repeat, that the sovereignty which remains in the several States must be
looked for solely in the exception. What, then, is this exception?
'It is a provision which says, that no State may be deprived of its
equal representation in the Senate, without its own consent. It might
well be questioned whether this provision of the Constitution renders a
Senate indispensable to the Government. But we are willing to concede
this point and admit that it does. Can the vote of a single State, which
is one of a body of thirty, and which is bound to submit to the decision
of a legal majority, be deemed a sovereign vote? Assuming that the whole
power of the Government of the United States were in the Senate, would
any one State be sovereign in such a condition of things? We think not.
But the Senate does not constitute by any means the whole or the half of
the authority of this Government; its legislative power is divided with
a popular body, without the concurrence of which it can do nothing; this
dilutes the sovereignty to a degree that renders it very imperceptible,
if not very absurd. Nor is this all. After a law is passed by the
concurrence of the two houses of Congress, it is sent to a perfectly
independent tribunal to decide whether it is in conformity with the
principles of the great national compact; thus demonstrating, as we
assume, that the sovereignty of this whole country rests, not in its
people, not in its States, but in the Government of the Union.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account