{"character_count": 5160, "word_count": 863, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9661999940872192], "ccnet_perplexity": [840.2000122070312], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
So great is the caution on this point, that IN
two cases where peculiar interests were at
stake, d proportion even Of three tourths is
distrlsted, and unaninity required to make an
ALTERATION.


| When the Constitution was adopted as a
whole, it is certain that there were many
parts, which, if separately proposed, would
have been promptly rejected. 1t is far from
that every part of Constitution
might be rejected by a majority, and yet taken
together as a whole b.. unanimously accepted.
Free Constitution will rarely if ever be formed
without reciprocal concessions; without arti-
Giles conditioned on and balancing each other.
Is there Constitution Of single State out OF
he twenty four that would bear the experiment
If having its component parts submitted to the
people and separately decided onP


What the fate of the Constitution of the
Uuited Sta,es would be,if small proportion


f the States could expunge parts of it particu-
arly valued by large majority, can have but
one answer.


The difficulty is not removed by limiting
The doctrine to cases of construction. How
many cases of that sort, involving cardinal pro-
visions of the Constitution, have occurred
How MANY now exis.? How many may here
after spring up? How many might be ingen>
uousy created, if entitled to the privilege Of a
decision in the mode proposed?


| is it certain that the principle of that mode
would not reach further than Is contemplated!
If single State can OF right require the threes
fourths of Its co-States to overru!e its exposl-
ton of the Constitution, because that propor>
ton is authorized to amend it, would the plea
be less plausible that as, the Constitution was
unanimously established, il ought to be unan-
tmously expounded?


The reply to all such Suggestions seems to
be unavoidable and irresistible; that the Con
sttution is a compact, that its text is to be eX~
pounded according to the provisions more
than any other part. When such right ac-
crues, as may accrue, it must grow out OF
abuses of the compact releasing the sutter
rom their fealty to it.


In favor of the nullifying claim for the
States, individually, it appears, as you obser.
thai the proceedings Of the Legislature OF VT'
.inia, in '9s aud '99, against the Alien and
Sedltion Acts, are much dwelt upon.


1T may often happen, as experience proves
that erroneous constructions not, anticipated
may not be sufficiently guarded against, IN The
language used and it is due to the distinguish
ed individuals, who have misconceived the
intention of those proceedings to suppose thai
the meaning of the Legislature, though well
com pretended at the time, may not now be
ubvious, to those unacquaiuted with the con
Temporary indications and impressions.


But it is believed thai by keeping in view
the distinction between the Government Of the
States, and the States in the sense in which
they are parties to the Constitutions; between
the rights Of the parties, in their concurrent
and in their individual capacities; between the
several modes and objects of interpcsition
against the abuses Of power, and especially
between interp nsitions within the purview OF


the Constitution, and inierpositions appealing
from the Constitution to the rights of nature
paramount to all constitutions with an inten
ZION, always of explanatory use, TO the views
and arguments which were combatted, the
Resolutions of Virginia, as vindicated in the
Report ON them, will he found entitled to an
|exposltion, showing a consistency in their parts
and an inconsistency of the whole with the
doctrine under consideration.


THAT the Legislature could not have intend
ed to sanction such doctrine, is to be inferred
from the debates in the House OF Delegates,
and from the address of the two Houses to heir
constituents, on the subject ofthe Resolutions.
The tenor OF the. debates, hlch were ably
conducted and understood to have been revised
for the press by most, ii not ALL OF the speakers,
ldlscloses no reference whatever to a constitu
tional right in an individual State to arrest by
force the operation of law of the United
States. Concert among the States for
redress against the alien and sedition laws, as
acts of usurped power, was leading sentiment,
and the attainment OF concert, the immediate
object of The course adopted by the Legisla
ture, which was that Of inviting the other
States "to concur in declaring the acts to be
Unconstitutional, and to CO operate, by the
necessary and proper measures, in maintain
ing unimpaired the authorities, rights, and
liberties reserved to the Safes respectively
and to the People."t Thatby the necessary
aud proper measures to be currently and CO.
operatipely taken,were meant measures known
to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary
control of the People and Legislatures of the
States, over the Government of the United
States, cannot be donbted and the nterposi
ton of this control, as the event showed, was
equal to the occasion.


1T is worthy of remark and explanatory Of the
intentions of the Legislature, that the words
''not law, but utterly null, void, and Of no force
or effect" which had followed, in one of the
| ll ,etrt rt,,t,S, al