"It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! What is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the praseology of the times, _during feeling_? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people who established the constitution, but the feeling of the State governments." In referring to remarks made by Mr. Hayne, concerning what Mr. Hillhouse should have said about not being bound to obey an unconstitutional law, Mr. Webster says: "He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his judgment the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. "That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. As unconstitutional law is not binding; _but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a State legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional_. An unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this District although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practiced and experienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? Who did he suppose was to decide that question? The State legislature? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips." Mr. Webster went on to ask from whence this supposed right of the States came? Where did they get the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? He contended that the notion was founded in a misapprehension of the origin of this government and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold, said he, this to be a popular government, erected by the people, those who administer it responsible to the people, and itself capable of being amended and modified just as the people may choose it should be.