[16] Articles i., 8: 5; ii., 2: 2; i., 10: 3; i., 8: 2. [17] The License Cases, 5 Howard, 504 (1846); Kimmish _v._ Ball, 129 U. S., 217 (1889); Cook _v._ Marshall Company, 196 U. S., 261. [18] Discussed at length in the chapters on State Comity, and Commerce. [19] Art. iv. (and preceding note). [20] See also Chapters XII and XIII. [21] Barron _v._ Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243 (1833). [22] No. xxxix. [23] Cohens _v._ Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 382 (1821). Madison’s thought is incorporated into Weston _et al._ _v._ the City of Charleston, 2 Peters, 466 (1829.) [24] _The Federalist_, No. lxxxii. [25] Gallatin’s _Writings_, i., 11. [26] Sustained by Downes _v._ Bidwell, 182 U. S., 244 (1901). [27] The American Insurance Company _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, 511 (1828). [28] Compare the Preamble. The entire discussion in _The Federalist_ is of the conformity of the Constitution to a republican government and of the necessity of governmental powers adequate to governmental purposes. [29] Art. x. [30] Marbury _v._ Madison, 1 Cranch, 176 (1803). [31] Every question in constitutional law, in the United States, sooner or later leads back to a question of sovereignty. What that sovereignty is can be known only by its operation,—that is, by political experience. What powers are delegated by the Constitution is the question answered (at least in part) by courts of law and legislatures, by publicists and by the actual administration of government. Widely divergent interpretations of that sovereignty and that law have been held throughout our history as a nation. These divergent opinions are recorded in the Debates during the formation and ratification of the Constitution; in the discussions incident to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798; in the discussions relating to Nullification, in 1833; again in 1860 and immediately prior; and in various decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall’s decisions (some thirty-six in number), the opinion of that Court in his time, remain the classic interpretation of national sovereignty. _The Federalist_ remains the classic contemporaneous interpretation of the Constitution.