“But in regard to this question the Constitution is still more express and emphatic. It declares that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all _cases_ in law or equity arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties; that there shall be one Supreme Court, and that this Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction of all these cases, subject to such exceptions as Congress may make.” “No language could provide with more effect and precision than is here done, for subjecting constitutional questions to the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court.” “And after the Constitution was formed and while the whole country was engaged in discussing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, Madison, told the people ‘it was true that in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the General Government.’ Mr. Martin who had been a member of the convention, asserted the same thing to the Legislature of Maryland and urged it as a reason for rejecting the Constitution.[7] Mr. Pinckney, himself also a leading member of the convention, declared it to the people of South Carolina; everywhere it was admitted by friends and foes that this power was given to the United States Judiciary in the Constitution.” [7] As the whole question of nullification depends upon whether a State is bound by a decision of the United States Court we give Mr. Martin’s succinct and comprehensive statement of the power that the third article of the Constitution conferred on the United States. “Whether, therefore, any laws or _regulations_ of the Congress, any acts of _its President or other officers_, are contrary to, or not warranted by the Constitution, rests only with the judges, who are appointed by Congress, to determine; by whose determination every State must _be bound_.” Luther Martin’s letter, Elliot’s _Debates_ (second ed.), 1863, vol. i., p. 380. We must bear in mind that this discussion was on the power of South Carolina while remaining in the Union to declare the laws of the United States null and void, and her own laws preventing their execution valid. A singular claim that a State could enjoy the benefits of the Union and at the same time disobey its laws; this is nullification which Mr. Webster had to combat. His argument, however, applies equally strongly to the claim of the right of secession. Indeed he says in his speech in reply to Calhoun: