In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents; but I must beg to indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems he had been presented by a gentleman of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the "Republican," and he was writing in acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope that the work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, he proceeds to say:
"That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions——a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege for their corps. Their maxim is, `boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem;’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co—equal and co—sovereign within themselves."
Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy.
Now, I have said no more than this——in fact, never quite so much as this——at least, I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson.
Why are we so stupid as to accept the position counter to these forefathers?
Thanks for that post, here, from the Great voices of the past.
Thank you for that refreshing bit of historical background. I wish more Americans, esp elected officials, would familiarize themselves with the sources of our republican form of gov't.
btw, it is the one thing to be admired about Byrd - that he keeps a pocket Constitution. I do as well and find it a great argument winner.