Mr.. Madison's letter-conclut ed.
{"character_count": 3487, "word_count": 598, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9345999956130981], "ccnet_perplexity": [1021.7000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
hi' hduisoliS IttttT-CU0Clu eu.
'Shonld the provisions of the Constitution
as here reviewed, be found not to secure the
Government and rights of the States against
usurpatiens and abuses on the part of the
United States, the final resort, within the pur
view of the Constitution, lies in an amend
ment OF the Constitution, according to pro
cess applicable by the States.


'And in the event of failure of every con,
stitutinnal resort, and aecucoplaiion Of usurpa
tions and abuses, rendering passive obedlenc,
and on-resistance a greater evil than resist,
ance and revolution, there can remain but on,
resort, the last Of all; an appeal from the can
|celled obligations Of the constitutional com
pact, to original rights and the law of self-pre,
servaton. This is the ultima ratio under al
Governments, whether consolidated, confeier
ated, or compound OF both; and it cannot be
doubted, that single member Of the I'm
ion, in the extremity supposed, but in thai
|oaly, would have right, as an extra and ultra.
constitutional right, TO make the appeal


This brings us to the expedent lately ad-
vanced, which claims for single State right
to appeal against an exercise of power by The
Government of the United States decided bv
the State to be unconstitutional, to the parties
to the constitutional compact; the decision Of
the State to have the effect of nulltyine the
act of the Government of the United States
unless the decision of the State be reversed by
three iourths of the parties.


'The distinguished names and high authori
ties which appear to have asserted and given &
practical scope to The doctrine, entitle it to &
respect which ii might be difficult otherwise tt
feel for it,


If the doctrine were to be understood re.
quirng the three tourths of the States to sus
tain, instead of that proportion to reverse the
decision of the appealing State, the decision te
be without effect during the appeal, 1t would be
sufficient to remark, that this extra constitu.
tional course might well give way to tha
marked ont by the Constitution, which authori
zes two thirds of the States to institute anC
three fourths to etfectuaie an amendment O
the Constitution, establishing permanent rule
of the lightest authority, in place of an irreg,
ular precedent of construction only.


But 1t is understood that the nullfying doc
trine imports that the decision of the State i:
to be presumed valid, and that it overruIes tn,
law of the United States, unless overruled b,
three iourlhs of the States.


Can more be necessary to demonstrate The
inadmlssibility Of such doctrine. than that i
puts it in the power of the smallest fraction
over one fourth of the United States, that is, o
seven States out of twenty,four, to give tn,
law and even the Constitution to the seventeen
States, each of the seventeen having, as par
ties to the Constitution, an equal right Will
each of the seven, to expound it, and to insis
on the expositioh2 That the seven might, il
particular instances be right, and the seventeen
wrong, is more than possible. But to estab
lish positive and permanent rule giving sucl
power, to such minority, over such nIajori,
ty, would oyerturn the first principle of fre,
government, and in practice necessarily over.
turn the Government itself


lit is to be recoIected that the Constitu
ton was proposed to the people of the State,
as a whole, and unanlm5sIy adopted by til,
States as ,chole, it being part of the Con,
1t lsttution that no less than three tourths of the