It is to be noticed that the resolution carefully limits the decision of the people or States to “in the last resort.” It does not define when the last resort occurs. But the resolution (what the report is commenting on) is, “that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact”--that is, in cases of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous usurpation--there is a right of the parties to the compact or government to decide, to act, to resist that usurpation. This is a declaration of the right of revolution; it is an assertion of that right in the last resort,--when argument and reasoning fail; a right that Webster admitted; the right that we the colonies claimed against Great Britain; the right of resistance against deliberate, palpable, dangerous usurpations of power; otherwise there is no redress for tyranny. No one denies this right. If unsuccessful, it is rebellion, and punished as such. So carefully, however, did Virginia assert this right that the explanatory report itself calls attention to “guard against misconstruction.” The interposition is not only to be in cases of deliberate, dangerous, and palpable breaches of the Constitution, but “to be _solely_ that of arresting the progress of the evil of _usurpation_.” The resolutions do not even claim that in case of usurpation _the binding compact of the government is broken up_, but that the parties to it, which it has stated to be the people, should solely interfere to arrest the evil. The report proceeds with the statement that if there could be no interposition from _usurped_ powers there is a subversion of rights recognized under State constitutions, and a denial of the fundamental principle upon which our independence was declared. The report admits as true, “that the judicial department is in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution to decide in the last resort.” We have only to turn to the Constitution to see how extensive is this submission. It is in all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws made under it, in all cases in which States are parties, in all cases where treaties or the United States are concerned that it has this supreme power of judgment. This is precisely the contrary doctrine to that of nullification.