§ 332. Admitting, therefore, for the sake of argument, that the institution of a government is to be deemed, in the restricted sense already suggested, an original compact or contract between each citizen and the whole community, is it to be construed, as a continuing contract after its adoption, so as to involve the notion of there being still distinct and independent parties to the instrument, capable, and entitled, as matter of right, to judge and act upon its construction, according to their own views of its import and obligations? to resist the enforcement of the powers delegated to the government at the good pleasure of each? to dissolve all connexion with it, whenever there is a supposed breach of it on the other side?[1] These are momentous questions, and go to the very foundation of every government founded on the voluntary choice of the people; and they should be seriously investigated, before we admit the conclusions, which may be drawn from one aspect of them.[2]
- ↑ 9 Dane's Abridg. ch. 187, art. 20, § 13, p. 589.
- ↑ Mr. Woodeson (Elements of Jurisp. p. 22,) says, "However the historical fact may be of a social compact, government ought to be, and is generally considered as founded on consent, tacit or express, or a real,
first formation of civil societies and governments, that induced Doctor Paley to reject it. He supposed, that, if admitted, its fundamental principles were still disputable and uncertain; that, if founded on compact, the form of government, however absurd or inconvenient, was still obligatory; and that every violation of the compact involved a right of rebellion and a dissolution of the government.[a 1] Mr. Wilson (afterwards Mr. Justice Wilson) urged the same objection very forcibly in the Pennsylvania Convention for adopting the constitution. 3 Elliot's Debates, 28(5, 287, 288. Mr, Hume considers the true reason for obedience to government to be, not a contract or promise to obey; but the fact, that society could not otherwise subsist.[a 2]
