sition has been sustained by opinions of some of our most eminent statesmen and judges.[1] It was truly remarked by the Federalist,[2] that the constitution was the result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the union, nor from that of a majority of the states. It resulted from the unanimous assent of the several states that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent, than its being expressed, not by the legislative authority but by that of the people themselves.
- ↑ See Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199; 1 Cond. Rep. 99, 112; Chisholm v. Georgia, 3 Dall. 419; 2 Cond. R. 668, 671; Elliot's Debates, 72; 2 Elliot's Debates, 47; Webster's Speeches, p. 410; The Federalist, No. 22, 33, 39; 2 Amer. Museum, 536, 546; Virginia Debates in 1798, on the Alien Laws, p. 111, 136, 138, 140; North Amer. Rev. Oct. 1830, p. 437, 444.
- ↑ No. 39.
himself. 'The convention were forming contracts!' with whom? I know no bargains, that were there made, I am unable to conceive, who the parties could be. The state governments make a bargain with each other. That is the doctrine, that is endeavoured to be established by gentlemen in the opposition; their state sovereignties wish to be represented. But far other were the ideas of the convention. This is not a government founded upon compact. It is founded upon the power of the people. They express in their name and their authority, we, the people, do ordain and establish," &c. 3 Elliot's Debates, 286, 287. He adds (Id. 288) "This system is not a compact or contract. The system tells you. what it is; it is an ordinance and establishment of the people." 9 Dane's Abridg. ch 187, art. 20, § 15, p. 589, 590; Dane's App. § 10, p. 21, § 59, p. 69.
