founded exclusively on either ground, is safe, or satisfactory. There ought to be power in each government to maintain itself, and execute its own powers; but it does not necessarily follow, that either would become dangerous to the other. The objection, indeed, is rather aimed at the structure, and organization of the government, than at its powers; since it is impossible, if the structure and organization be reasonably skillful, that any usurpation or oppression can take place.[1]
§ 937. But waiving this consideration, it will at once be seen, that the state governments have complete means of self-protection, as with the sole exception of duties on imports and exports, (which the constitution has taken from the states, unless it is exercised by the consent of congress,) the power of taxation remains in the states concurrent and co-extensive with that of congress. The slightest attention to the subject will demonstrate this beyond all controversy. The language of the constitution does not, in terms, make it an exclusive power in congress; the existence of a concurrent power is not incompatible with the exercise of it by congress; and the states are not expressly prohibited from using it by the constitution. Under such circumstances, the argument is irresistible, that a concurrent power remains in the states, as a part of their original and unsurrendered sovereignty.[2]
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 31, 32.
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 32. See Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. R. 1, 199 to 202. 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 18, p. 363, 367, 368, 369.—This subject has been already considered in these Commentaries, in the rules of interpretation of the constitution; and a very important illustration, in the Federalist, No. 32, on this very point of taxation, was cited there. It seems, therefore, wholly unnecessary to repeat the reasoning. See also 4 Wheaton's R. 193, 316; 5 Wheaton's R. 22, 24, 28, 45, 49; 9 Wheaton's R. 199, 210, 238; 12 Wheaton's R. 448.
