August 31, it was agreed to refer such parts of the plan of a constitution as had been postponed, and such reports as had been acted on, to a committee of one member from each state. (p. 307.)
On the 4th of September, Mr. Brearly reported certain alterations, &c., the fourth of which was, "The President shall hold his office for four years." In this the limitation was omitted. (p. 312.)
On the 5th of September, it was moved to postpone the report, and take up the following: "The President shall be elected by joint ballot of the legislature. He shall hold his office during seven years, but shall not be elected a second time." This was decided in the negative, and seems to have been the last effort in the Convention in favor of limitation.
On the ratification of the Constitution, several states proposed amendments.
Virginia proposed that no person should be capable of being President more than eight years in sixteen; North Carolina, the same.
New York proposed, that no person should be elected President a third time exactly what is now proposed.
Although the principle of hereditary succession has gained no force in our presidential elections, the principle of a different succession has already become almost irresistible. It is, that the President shall designate his successor, by placing him in the most important office in his gift, and clothing him with such a degree of patronage and power, as to make him an overmatch for any competitor in the walks of private life, whatever may be his merits or his services. The Federal Convention could not have foreseen the operation of this principle as we now see it, or they would have adopted some rule analogous to that most important provision of the Roman law, that no one could be a candidate for the consulship, unless he presented himself in a private station. As no President has yet discovered a disposition to hold the office more than eight years, it may be considered by some as having grown into a law, that no one shall hold the office for a longer period.
State Rights.—Foote's Resolutions.
Mr. WEBSTER. There remains to be performed by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled.
I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Hayne] to maintain that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operations of its laws.
I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Constitution; not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution.
I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers.
I understand him to maintain that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power.
I understand him to insist that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional.
This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider
