So you’re saying it wasn’t ratified unanimously....? Name one state that did not ratify the Constitution.
Ratification of the Constitution, by the Convention of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations We the Delegates of the People of the State of Rhode-Island, and Providence Plantations, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of this State, do declare and make known In That there are certain natural rights, of which men when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. 2d That all power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that magistrates therefore are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them. 3d That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:-
Daniel Webster Corrected:
More than half of Hayne’s final argument was devoted to an examination of Webster’s views on Federal powers. His authorities, as before, were Madison and Jefferson. He too, went back to the origin of the government, which he found in the independence of the individual States before the existence of the Constitution.
He quoted Madison’s definition of the nature of the Constitution, --“a compact to which the States are parties.” Hayne argued: “Nothing can be clearer than that under such a system the Federal government, exercising strictly delegated powers, can have no right to act beyond the pale of its authority, and that all such acts are void.
A State, on the contrary, retaining all powers not expressly given away, may lawfully act in all cases where she has not voluntarily imposed restrictions on herself. Here then, is a case of compact between sovereigns, and the question arises, “What is the remedy for a clear violation of its express terms by one of the parties?”
He answers by a quotation from Madison’s Report to the Virginia Legislature, page 20: “That where resort can be had to no common superior, the parties to the compact must themselves be the rightful judge whether the bargain has been pursued or violated.” He challenged Webster to show from the Constitution the grant of claimed power in the Federal government to decide ultimately and conclusively the extent of its own authority.
Hayne declared, “the whole form and structure of the Federal government, the opinions of the framers of the Constitution, and the organization of the State governments, demonstrate that though the States have surrendered certain specific powers they have not surrendered their sovereignty.” The doctrine of the final supremacy of the Federal government, he said, was based on the notion that the States were inferior to the mass of people in all the States. The phrase, “We, the people of the United States,” referred to the people as citizens of the several States and not to the mass. This was thesense of the word as used in different parts of the Constitution, and in the State legislatures and conventions at the time of the adoption.
As to Supreme Court jurisdiction, he held that questions of sovereignty were not proper subjects of judicial investigation. They were much too large and of too delicate a nature to be brought within the jurisdiction of a court of justice. Courts were the mere creatures of the sovereign power, designed to expound and carry into effect its sovereign will. The name Supreme Court, he contended, had relation to its supremacy over the inferior courts provided by the Constitution.
The powers of Congress were restricted by the very terms of the constitution. When, therefore, Congress exceeded these terms, their acts were null and void. Such acts must be so declared by the courts in cases within their jurisdiction, and may be pronounced to be so by the States themselves in cases not within the jurisdiction of the courts or of sufficient importance to justify interference.”