"The Supreme Law Of The Land"

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives, and the members of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.''It has been asked why it was thought necessary, that the State magistracy should be bound to support the federal Constitution, and unnecessary that a like oath should be imposed on the officers of the United States, in favor of the State constitutions. Several reasons might be assigned for the distinction. I content myself with one, which is obvious and conclusive. The members of the federal government will have no agency in carrying the State constitutions into effect. The members and officers of the State governments, on the contrary, will have an essential agency in giving effect to the federal Constitution."

- James Madison, Federalist #44

"Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the People is SUPERIOR to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in OPPOSITION to that of The People, DECLARED IN THE CONSTITUTION, the judges ought to be governed by the LATTER rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the FUNDAMENTAL LAWS, rather than by those which are NOT fundamental....

"...But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former....

"...This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies, 3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society. These sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the private rights of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial laws. Here also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast importance in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of such laws. It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of those which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon the legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that obstacles to the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from the scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the very motives of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts. This is a circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the character of our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress.

"That inflexible and uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution, and of individuals, which we perceive to be indispensable in the courts of justice, can certainly not be expected from judges who hold their offices by a temporary commission. Periodical appointments, however regulated, or by whomsoever made, would, in some way or other, be fatal to their necessary independence. If the power of making them was committed either to the Executive or legislature, there would be danger of an improper complaisance to the branch which possessed it; if to both, there would be an unwillingness to hazard the displeasure of either; if to the people, or to persons chosen by them for the special purpose, there would be too great a disposition to consult popularity, to justify a reliance that nothing would be consulted but the Constitution and the laws....

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A CONSTITUTION is, in FACT, and MUST be regarded by the judges, as a FUNDAMENTAL law."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

Very simple and straightforward proposition isn't it? It was agreed to by the people, and the states in which they reside, in every state of the Union. It is impossible that it can be set aside by minions in black robes as they possess not the power to do so. The proper role of the court is to decide the Constitutionality of laws made by the legislature. Not to alter or decide which parts of the Constitution apply and which parts don't. For ALL parts apply, and ALL parts are binding, and ALL parts were agreed to. This FACT has long been known and is already settled. Witness:

“Mr. Rutlidge moved to amend Art: VIII to read as follows,

"This Constitution & the laws of the U. S. made in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the several States and of their citizens and inhabitants; and the Judges in the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the Constitutions or laws of the several States, to the contrary notwithstanding"--⁷

[Note 7: 7 See Appendix A, CXCII, CCCXCVIII.]

which was agreed to, hem: contrad: ...”

- The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 2]
MADISON In Convention Thursday Aug: 23. 1787

"The state of Rhode island having acceded to the Federal constitution, the Union & Government have become compleat.--To comprehend the extent of the General government, & to discern the relation between that & those of the states, will be equally our interest & duty. The Constitution, laws, & treaties of the Union are paramount."

- Judge Walton, Charge to Grand Jury, as reported in the Georgia Gazette Aug. 7, 1790. As quoted by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Hammond, May 29, 1792. [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes. Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford.]

*****

"§ 43. In Georgia, Judge Walton, in a charge to a Grand Jury, says "The state of Rhode island having acceded to the Federal constitution, the Union & Government have become compleat.--To comprehend the extent of the General government, & to discern the relation between that & those of the states, will be equally our interest & duty. The Constitution, laws, & treaties of the Union are paramount." [See Georgia Gazette Aug. 7. 1790.]

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to George Hammond, May 29, 1792. [The Thomas Jefferson Papers, in the Library of Congress.]

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Oath.--On a Bill prescribing the Oath to support the Constitution.

May 6, 1789.

Mr. GERRY said, he did not discover what part of the Constitution gave to Congress the power of making this provision, (for regulating the time and manner of administering certain oaths,) except so much of it as respects the form of the oath; it is not expressly given by any clause of the Constitution, and, if it does not exist, must arise from the sweeping clause, as it is frequently termed, in the 8th section of the 1st article of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." To this clause there seems to be no limitation, so far as it applies to the extension of the powers vested by the Constitution; but even this clause gives no legislative authority to Congress to carry into effect any power not expressly vested by the Constitution. In the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provision is made that the members of the legislatures of the several states, and all executive and judicial officers thereof, shall be bound by oath to support the Constitution: But there is no provision for empowering the government of the United States, or any officer or department thereof, to pass a law obligatory on the members of the legislatures of the several states, and other officers thereof, to take this oath. This is made their duty already by the Constitution, and no such law of Congress can add force to the Obligation; but, on the other hand, if it is admitted that such a law is necessary, it tends to weaken the Constitution, which requires such aid: neither is any law, other than to prescribe the form of the oath, necessary or proper to carry this part of the Constitution into effect; for the oath required by the Constitution, being a necessary qualification for the state officers mentioned, cannot be dispensed with by any authority whatever, other than the people, and the judicial power of the United States, extending to all cases arising in law or equity under this Constitution. The judges of the United States, who are bound to support the Constitution, may, in all cases within their jurisdiction, annul the official acts of state officers, and even the acts of the members of the state legislatures, if such members and officers were disqualified to do or pass such acts, by neglecting or refusing to take this oath.

Mr. BLAND had no doubt respecting the powers of Congress on this subject. The evident meaning of the words of the Constitution implied that Congress should have the power to pass a law directing the time and manner of taking the oath prescribed for supporting the Constitution. There can be no hesitation respecting the power to direct their own officers, and the constituent parts of Congress: besides, if the state legislatures were to be left to direct and arrange this business, they would pass different laws, and the officers might be bound in different degrees to support the Constitution. He not only thought Congress had the power to do what was proposed by the Senate, but he judged it expedient also.

Mr. JACKSON. The states had better be left to regulate this matter among themselves; for an oath that is not voluntary is seldom held sacred. Compelling people to swear to support the Constitution will be like the attempts of Britain, during the late revolution, to secure the fidelity of those who fell within the influence of her arms; and like those attempts they will be frustrated. The moment the party could get from under her wings, the oath of allegiance was disregarded. If the state officers will not willingly pay this testimony of their attachment to the Constitution, what is extorted from them against their inclination is not much to be relied on.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Only a few words will be necessary to convince us that Congress have this power. It is declared by the Constitution, that its ordinances shall be the supreme law of the land. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, every part of it must partake of this supremacy; consequently, every general declaration it contains is the supreme law. But then these general declarations cannot be carried into effect without particular regulations adapted to the circumstances: these particular regulations are to be made by Congress, who, by the Constitution, have power to make all laws necessary or proper to carry the declarations of the Constitution into effect. The Constitution likewise declares that the members of the state legislatures, and all officers, executive and judicial, shall take an oath to support the Constitution. This declaration is general, and it lies with the supreme legislature to detail and regulate it.

Mr. SHERMAN. It appears necessary to point out the oath itself, as well as the time and manner of taking it. No other legislature is competent to all these purposes; but if they were, there is a propriety in the supreme legislature's doing it. At the same time, if the state legislatures take it up, it cannot operate disagreeably upon them, to find all their neighboring states obliged to join them in supporting a measure they approve: What a state legislature may do, will be good as far as it goes. On the same principle, the Constitution will apply to each individual of the state officers: they may go, without the direction of the state legislature, to a justice, and take the oath voluntarily.

This, I suppose, would be binding upon them; but this is not satisfactory; the government ought to know that the oath has been properly taken; and this can only be done by a general regulation. If it is in the discretion of the state legislatures to make laws to carry the declaration of the Constitution into execution, they have the power of refusing, and may avoid the positive injunctions of the Constitution. As the power of Congress, in this particular, extends over the whole Union, it is most proper for as to take the subject up, and make the proper provision for carrying it into execution, to the intention of the Constitution.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Treaty-Making Power.--[Jay's Treaty.]

House of Representatives, March 23, 1796.

Mr. MURRAY said, in construing our Constitution, in ascertaining the metes and bounds of its various grants of power, nothing, at the present day, is left for expedience or sophistry to new-model or to mistake. The explicitness of the instrument itself; the contemporaneous opinions, still fresh from the recency of its adoption; the journals of that Convention which formed it, still existing, though not public,--all tend to put this question, in particular, beyond the reach of mistake. Many who are now present were in the Convention; and on this question, he learned a vote was actually taken.

That the paper upon the table, issued by the President's proclamation, as a treaty, was a treaty in the eye of the Constitution, and the law of nations; that as a treaty, it is the supreme law of the land, agreeably to the Constitution; that, if it is a treaty, nothing that we can rightfully do, or refuse to do, will add or diminish its validity, under the Constitution and law of nations.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]

PRESIDENT JACKSON'S PROCLAMATION, Of the 10th December, 1833, CONCERNING THE ORDINANCE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ON THE SUBJECT OF THE TARIFF, ON THE 24TH NOVEMBER, 1832.

“...The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add that, to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution; but it is evident that, to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws: for, as by the theory, there is no appeal: the reasons alleged by the state, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint, in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a state more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress--one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the states. There is no appeal from the state decision in theory, and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous when our social compact, in express terms, declares that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and, for greater caution, adds, "that the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected any where; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat, that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the state itself; for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional; and, as has been shown, there is no appeal....”

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand's Records, Volume 3]
CCCXCVIII. James Madison on Nullification.¹

[Note 1: 1 Letters and other Writings of James Madison, IV, 425.]

1835--'6

A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a government in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative empire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject while the Constitution was under the consideration of the people It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution and laws of the United States should be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding.^* It was the same view which specially prohibited certain powers and acts to the States, among them any laws violating the obligation of contracts, and which dictated the appellate provision in the judicial act passed by the first Congress under the Constitution.^†

[Note *: * See Article vi.]

[Note †: † See Article i.]

"I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States. The court held otherwise, however, in the case of the People vs. Goodwin, (16 John. Rep. 200) and Chief Justice Spencer, who delivered its opinion, says: "The defendant's counsel rely principally on the fifth article of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which contains this provision "Nor, shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It has been urged by the prisoner's counsel, that this constitutional provision operates upon State courts--proprio vigore. This has been denied on the other side. I am inclined to the opinion, that the article in question does extend to all judicial tribunals whether constituted by the Congress of the United States or the States individually. The provision is general in its nature and unrestricted in its terms; and the sixth article of the Constitution declares, that the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary not withstanding. These general and comprehensive expressions extend the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to every article which is not confined by the subject matter to the national government, and is equally applicable to the States. Be this as it may, the principle is undeniable, that no person can be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offence.

The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature."

- Nunn v. The State of Georgia, AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846

Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
TUESDAY, August 6, 1850.

...By the constitution of the United States, the President is constituted commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. The constitution declares, also, that he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and that he shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union.

Congress has power, by the constitution, to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union; and suitable and appropriate acts of Congress have been passed, as well for providing for calling forth the militia as for placing other suitable and efficient means in the hands of the President to enable him to discharge the constitutional functions of his office.

The second section of the act of the 28th of February, 1795, declares that whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or their execution obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or the power vested in the marshals, the President may call forth the militia, as far as may be necessary, to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.

By the act of March 3, 1807, it is provided that in all cases of obstruction to the laws either of the United States or any individual State or Territory, where it is lawful for the President to call forth the militia for the purpose of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States as shall be judged necessary.

These several enactments are now in full force; so that, if the laws of the United States are opposed or obstructed, in any State or Territory, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the judicial or civil authorities, it becomes a case in which it is the duty of the President either to call out the militia or to employ the military and naval force of the United States, or to do both, if, in his judgment, the exigency of the occasion shall so require, for the purpose of suppressing such combinations. The constitutional duty of the President is plain and peremptory, and the authority vested in him by law for its performance clear and ample.

Texas is a State, authorized to maintain her own laws, so far as they are not repugnant to the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; to suppress insurrections against her authority; and to punish those who may commit treason against the State, according to the forms provided by her own constitution and her own laws.

But all this power is local, and confined entirely within the limits of Texas herself. She can possibly confer no authority which can be lawfully exercised beyond her own boundaries.

All this is plain, and hardly needs argument or elucidation. If Texas militia, therefore, march into any one of the other States, or into any Territory of the United States, there to execute or enforce any law of Texas, they become at that moment trespassers; they are no longer under the protection of any lawful authority, and are to be regarded merely as intruders; and if, within such State or Territory, they obstruct any law of the United States, either by power of arms or mere power of numbers, constituting such a combination as is too powerful to be suppressed by the civil authority, the President of the United States has no option left to him, but is bound to obey the solemn injunction of the constitution, and exercise the high powers vested in him by that instrument and by the acts of Congress.

Or if any civil posse, armed or unarmed, enter into any Territory of the United States, under the protection of the laws thereof, with intent to seize individuals, to be carried elsewhere for trial for alleged offences, and this posse be too powerful to be resisted by the local civil authorities, such seizure or attempt to seize is to be prevented or resisted by the authority of the United States.

The grave and important question now arises, whether there be in the Territory of New Mexico any existing law of the United States, opposition to which, or the obstruction of which, would constitute a case calling for the interposition of the authority vested in the President.

The constitution of the United States declares that "this constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." If, therefore, New Mexico be a Territory of the United States, and if any treaty stipulation be in force therein, such treaty stipulation is the supreme law of the land, and is to be maintained and upheld accordingly....

- President Millard Fillmore.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1858-1859 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES.

"With my deep convictions of duty, I could have pursued no other course. It is true, that, as an individual, I had expressed an opinion, both before and during the session of the convention, in favor of submitting the remaining clauses of the constitution, as well as that concerning slavery, to the people. But, acting in an official character, neither myself nor any human authority had the power to rejudge the proceedings of the convention, and declare the constitution which it had framed to be a nullity. To have done this would have been a violation of the Kansas and Nebraska act, which left the people of the Territory "perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." It would equally have violated the great principle of popular sovereignty, at the foundation of our institutions, to deprive the people of the power, if they thought proper to exercise it, of confiding to delegates elected by themselves the trust of framing a constitution, without requiring them to subject their constituents to the trouble, expense, and delay of a second election. It would have been in opposition to many precedents in our history, commencing in the very best age of the republic, of the admission of Territories as States into the Union, without a previous vote of the people approving their constitution."

- President James Buchanan, Washington City, December 6, 1858.

CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, United States Circuit Court, DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SPECIAL JULY TERM, 1861. JULY 10, 1861.

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...”

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1866-1867.

“In our efforts to preserve "the unity of government which constitutes us one people," by restoring the States to the condition which they held prior to the rebellion, we should be cautious, lest, having rescued our nation from perils of threatened disintegration, we resort to consolidation, and in the end absolute despotism, as a remedy for the recurrence of similar troubles. The war having terminated, and with it all occasion for the exercise of powers of doubtful constitutionality, we should hasten to bring legislation within the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution, and to return to the ancient landmarks established by our fathers for the guidance of succeeding generations. "The Constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." "If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional Power be in any particular, wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way in which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation: for" "it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Washington spoke these words to his countrymen, when, followed by their love and gratitude, he voluntarily retired from the cares of public life. "To keep in all things within the pale of our constitutional powers, and cherish the federal Union as the only rock of safety," were prescribed by Jefferson as rules of action to endear to his "countrymen the true principles of their Constitution, and promote a union of sentiment and action equally auspicious to their happiness and safety." Jackson held that the action of the general government should always be strictly confined to the sphere of its appropriate duties, and justly and forcibly urged that our government is not to be maintained nor our Union preserved "by invasions of the rights and powers of the several States. In thus attempting to make our general government strong, we make it weak. Its true strength consists in leaving individuals and States as much as possible to themselves; in making itself felt, not in its power, but in its beneficence; not in its control, but in its protection; not in binding the States more closely to the centre, but leaving each to move unobstructed in its proper constitutional orbit." These are the teachings of men whose deeds and services have made them illustrious, and who, long since withdrawn from the scenes of life, have left to their country the rich legacy of their example, their wisdom, and their patriotism. Drawing fresh inspiration from their lessons, let us emulate them in love of country and respect for the Constitution and the laws....”

- President Andrew Johnson, Dec. 3, 1866 message to U.S. House and Senate.

Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States,
WEDNESDAY, June 24, 1868.

(Note: There are some offensive terms used in the following).

By unanimous consent, Mr. Brooks presented a protest; which was ordered to be entered on the journal, as follows:

The recognized presence of three persons on the floor of this house from the State of Arkansas, sent here by military force acting under a brigadier general of the army, but nevertheless claiming to be members of this Congress, and to share with us, the representatives from free States, in the imposition of taxes and customs and other laws upon our people, makes it our imperative duty in this, the first case, to remonstrate most solemnly, and to protest as solemnly, against this perilous and destructive innovation upon the principles and practices of our hitherto constitutional self-government. The so-called reconstruction acts which created the military government in Arkansas and like governments in other southern States to share with us in the legislative power of the northern and western free people, we have every reason to believe, have been held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States, the public declaration of which fact was avoided only by the extraordinary and strange device of this Congress in snatching jurisdiction from the court in the McCardle case when such a public decision was about to be made.

Of the three great branches of the government, it seems, then, that after the Executive vetoed these acts as unconstitutional, the judiciary adjudicated them to be so, while a Congress, the creation of but twenty-seven of the thirty-seven States of the Union, overrides these equal and co-ordinate branches of that government, first by voting down the vetoes, next by nullifying the judgments of the court! In an era of profound peace, when not an armed man rises against the government from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, there, in ten States, our American historical way of creating the organic law has been utterly subverted by the bayonet. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, with scarcely an exception, and even amid the battles of the Revolution, conventions have been convoked through, and constitutions created by, the electors of the States, the only authorized depositaries of the sovereign power of every State without exterior dictation or domination, as well under the old confederation as under the existing federal Constitution. The hardest and harshest test-oath required from 1766 to the peace of 1783 was an abjuration oath of allegiance to George III, while some of the now so-called bayonet-made constitutions from the south propose absurd and cruel tests; absurd, as in Arkansas, where is interwoven in the organic law a mere party test between the radical reconstructionists and the democratic conservatives, such as would exclude from voting, if living there, the thousands and tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of democrats in the free States, (art. S, sec. 4;) or cruel, as in Alabama, where no white man can vote who will not forever forswear his own race and color, and perjure himself by swearing, in defiance of the law of God, that the negro is his equal and forever to be his equal at the ballot-box, in the jury-box, with the cartridge-box; in the school, in the college, in house and home, and by the fire-side; in short, in every way, everywhere, (art. 7, sec. 4.)

Now, in these and the other southern States in the midst of war President Lincoln, in his proclamation, December 8, 1863, offered amnesty and pardon to rebels then in arms, if they would lay down their arms and take an oath of fidelity, while now, not a Union man in Arkansas or Alabama can vote unless in the first place he swears allegiance to the majesty of this Congress, and in the next swears off his Americanism and Africanizes himself. Hitherto constitutions with us have been the outgrowth of popular life, springing from the exuberance of our enterprise and energy in the settlement of the forests or prairies of our country; but here, before us now. are nine constitutions, with one if not three more yet to come from Texas, which have all been imposed upon the people by five military satraps or pentarchs, in a manner never before known under our law, but borrowed at best from imperial Roman military colonization, or from the worst precedents of the French revolution. France is then recorded to have had five constitutions in three years, so frequently made and so frequently changed that they were ironically classed by the French people with the periodical literature of the day. Louisiana, a colony of that France, has had four constitutions in four years, and a constitution there has now become periodical literature, as in France, in the agonies and throes of the great revolution. Laws, mere statute laws, which can never be created by conventions, are appended, more or less, to all these constitutions, and bayonet-created, one-branch governments, with no executive, no senate, no house of representatives, no judiciary, have ordained irrepealable, irreversible laws in the very organism of the State, such as cannot be thus created by the executive, the senate, and the house of representatives of legitimate governments when acting in unison and all combined. All this has been done, without regard to preceding constitutions or precedents, or to the common law of the States or the law of nations.

The military, which, under legitimate institutions, can only be used in time of peace to conserve or preserve the State, have here been used to destroy States. The General of the army, who represents the sword, and only the sword of the republic, has been exalted by acts of Congress above the constitutional Commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in order to execute those military decrees, and as the surer way to root out every vestige left of constitutional law or liberty. The same General of the army, in order to prolong or perpetuate his military domination north and west as well as south, has been selected in party convention at Chicago to head the electoral vote for the Presidency in ten of our States which are as much under his feet as Turkey is under the Sultan or Poland under the Czar of Russia. But, as if only to add insult to the injury of this military outrage upon popular government in these ten States, either by act of Congress or by these Congress-soldier-made State constitutions, at least 250,000 whites have been disfranchised, while 750,000 negroes, inexperienced in all law-making, and more ignorant than our children, have been enfranchised in their stead, and have thus been created absolute masters and sovereigns over the whole white population of the south.

Because of all this, and in opposition to all this, we, representatives of the people from the free States, in behalf of our constituents and of thousands and tens of thousands of others who would be here represented if the popular power without could now constitutionally act here within, earnestly and solemnly protest against this violence upon our Constitution and upon our people, and do hereby counsel and advise all friends of popular government to submit to this force and fraud only until at the ballot-box, operating through the elections, this great wrong can be put right. There is no law in the land supreme over the constitutional law. There is no government but constitutional government; and hence all bayonet-made, all Congress-imposed constitutions are of no weight, authority, or sanction, save that enforced by arms, an element of power unknown to Americans in peace, and never recognized but as it acts in and under the supreme civil law, the Constitution, and the statutes enacted in pursuance thereof. We protest, then, in behalf of the free people of the north and the west, against the right of this military oligarchy established in Arkansas or elsewhere in the now re-enslaved States of the south to impose upon us, through Congress, taxes or customs or other laws to maintain this oligarchy or its Freedmen's Bureau. We protest against going into the now proposed copartnership of military dictators and negroes in the administration of this government. We demand, in the name of the fathers of the Constitution and for the sake of posterity, not its reconstruction, but the restoration of that sacred instrument, which has been to us all a pillar of fire from 1787 on to its present overthrow; and in all solemnity, before God and man, under a full sense of the responsibility of all we utter, we do hereby affix our names to this protest against the admission of these three persons, claiming to be members of Congress from Arkansas.

"...As the object of the first eight amendments to the Constitution was to incorporate into the fundamental law of the land certain principles of natural justice which had become permanently fixed in the jurisprudence of the mother country, the construction given to those principles by the English courts is cogent evidence of what they were designed to secure and of the limitations that should be put upon them. This is but another application of the familiar rule that where one State adopts the laws of another, it is also presumed to adopt the known and settled construction of those laws by the courts of the State from which they are taken...."

"...There is no such restriction, however, upon the applicability of Federal statutes. The Sixth Article of the Constitution declares that "this Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Henry B. Brown. [Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).]

"..."The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation; security of the person and of the home; the right to speedy and public trial by jury; protection against oppressive bail and cruel punishment, are, together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features of English liberty. Each one of these features had been involved in the struggle above referred to in England within the century and a half immediately preceding the adoption of the Constitution, and the contests were fresh in the memories and traditions of the people at that time."

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Field, in dissent. [Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896).]

Return to: