Isn't that what we're talking about here? Violations of the compact by other states so severe that one side can decide the compact is broken? Webster is saying that states cannot decide for themselves that some action is unconstitutional and that as a result the compact is broken. He is quite rightly pointing out that it is a matter for the judiciary to determine.
LOL! It was a letter. Trying to insinuate it was a ‘provision’ as if it had some force in Constitutional law is, well, pretty lame….IMHO.
Poor choice of words on my part. Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
No, we're talking about whether or not the federal authority has any say-so in the matter. Webster was speaking of a State that was in the compact picking and choosing which provisions it would observe, NOT leaving the Compact altogether.
-------
Poor choice of words on my part.
No biggie. Communicating solely with the written word without the subtle clues of voice inflection and body language seems to present it's own set of problems. Maybe that's why some of the Founders' writings just seem to go on, and on, and....on :-)
-----
Would it be better to say that Madison's position that states could not by themselves decide to leave the Union still stands?
Under those particular circumstances, yes, but not under all circumstances.
These letters were written during the threat of secession by the southern states due to federal tarriffs. In that respect, Madison was correct. As long as a State remained within the Compact, it was obligated to pay whatever taxes were imposed....BUT
He noted in the follow postscript that the discussion had concerned the abuse of the singular federal authority, NOT whether or not the majority of the other States were using the federal government as a tool to control/punish the minority.
P.S. No notice has been taken in the inclosed paper of the fact, that the present charge of usurpations & abuses of power, is not that they are measures of the Govt. violating the will of its Constituents, as was the case with the Alien & Sedition Acts, but that they are measures of a Majority of the Constituents themselves, oppressing the Minority thro’ the forms of the Govt. This distinction would lead to very different views of the topics under discussion. It is connected with the fundamental principles of Rep: Govt: and with the question of comparative danger of oppressive Majorities from the Sphere and Structure of the General Govt. and from those of the particular Govts.
James Madison to E Everett, April 1830
Whoops! There's that 'republican form of government' thing again!
:-)