of government may be conceded the ultimate power of interpretation: “It was assumed by the people that the new government could not be permitted to determine the limits of its own authority, since this would make it, and not the Constitution, supreme.” [1]
The solution advanced by Calhoun (and seconded,
in this century, by such writers as Smith)
was, of course, the famous doctrine of the
“concurrent majority.” If any substantial minority
interest in the country, specifically a state
government, believed that the Federal Government
was exceeding its powers and encroaching on
that minority, the minority would have the right
to veto this exercise of power as unconstitutional.
Applied to state governments, this theory
implied the right of “nullification” of a Federal
law or ruling within a state’s jurisdiction.
In theory, the ensuing constitutional system would assure that the Federal Government check
- ↑ J. Allen Smith, The Growth and Decadence of Constitutional Government (New York: Henry Holt, 1930), p. 88. Smith added:
it was obvious that where a provision of the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of a governmental organ, it could be effectively nullified if its interpretation and enforcement are left to the authorities as it designed to restrain. Clearly, common sense required that no organ of the government should be able to determine its own powers.
Clearly, common sense and “miracles” dictate very different views of government. (p. 87)
