Having in the two preceding numbers, examined the nature and tendency of the judicial power,
as it respects the explanation of the constitution, I now proceed to the consideration of the
other matters, of which it has cognizance.
— The next paragraph extends its authority, to all cases, in law and equity, arising under
the laws of the United States.
This power, as I understand it, is a proper one.
The proper province of the judicial power, in any government, is, as I conceive, to declare
what is the law of the land.
To explain and enforce those laws, which the supreme power or legislature may pass; but
not to declare what the powers of the legislature are.
I suppose the cases in equity, under the laws, must be so construed, as to give the supreme
court not only a legal, but equitable jurisdiction of cases which may be brought before them,
or in other words, so, as to give them, not only the powers which are now exercised by
our courts of law, but those also, which are now exercised by our court of chancery.
If this be the meaning, I have no other objection to the power, than what arises from the undue
extension of the legislative power.
For, I conceive that the judicial power should be commensurate with the legislative.
Or, in other words, the supreme court should have authority to determine questions arising
under the laws of the union.
The next paragraph which gives a power to decide in law and equity, on all cases arising
under treaties, is unintelligible to me.
I can readily comprehend what is meant by deciding a case under a treaty.
For as treaties will be the law of the land, every person who have rights or privileges
secured by treaty, will have aid of the courts of law, in recovering them.
But I do not understand, what is meant by equity arising under a treaty.
I presume every right which can be claimed under a treaty, must be claimed by virtue
of some article or clause contained in it, which gives the right in plain and obvious
words; or at least, I conceive, that the rules for explaining treaties, are so well ascertained,
that there is no need of having recourse to an equitable construction.
If under this power, the courts are to explain treaties, according to what they conceive
are their spirit, which is nothing less than a power to give them whatever extension they
may judge proper, it is a dangerous and improper power.
The cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls — of admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction; controversies to which the United States are a party, and controversies between
states, it is proper should be under the cognizance of the courts of the union, because none but
the general government, can, or ought to pass laws on their subjects.
But, I conceive the clause which extends the power of the judicial to controversies arising
between a state and citizens of another state, improper in itself, and will, in its exercise,
prove most pernicious and destructive.
It is improper, because it subjects a state to answer in a court of law, to the suit of
an individual.
This is humiliating and degrading to a government, and, what I believe, the supreme authority
of no state ever submitted to.
The states are now subject to no such actions.
All contracts entered into by individuals with states, were made upon the faith and
credit of the states; and the individuals never had in contemplation any compulsory
mode of obliging the government to fulfil its engagements.
The evil consequences that will flow from the exercise of this power, will best appear
by tracing it in its operation.
The constitution does not direct the mode in which an individual shall commence a suit
against a state or the manner in which the judgment of the court shall be carried into
execution, but it gives the legislature full power to pass all laws which shall be proper
and necessary for the purpose.
And they certainly must make provision for these purposes, or otherwise the power of
the judicial will be nugatory.
For, to what purpose will the power of a judicial be, if they have no mode, in which they can
call the parties before them?
Or of what use will it be, to call the parties to answer, if after they have given judgment,
there is no authority to execute the judgment?
We must, therefore, conclude, that the legislature will pass laws which will be effectual in
this head.
An individual of one state will then have a legal remedy against a state for any demand
he may have against a state to which he does not belong.
Every state in the union is largely indebted to individuals.
For the payment of these debts they have given notes payable to the bearer.
At least this is the case in this state.
Whenever a citizen of another state becomes possessed of one of these notes, he may commence
an action in the supreme court of the general government; and I cannot see any way in which
he can be prevented from recovering.
It is easy to see, that when this once happens, the notes of the state will pass rapidly from
the hands of citizens of the state to those of other states.
And when the citizens of other states possess them, they may bring suits against the state
for them, and by this means, judgments and executions may be obtained against the state
for the whole amount of the state debt.
It is certain the state, with the utmost exertions it can make, will not be able to discharge
the debt she owes, under a considerable number of years, perhaps with the best management,
it will require twenty or thirty years to discharge it.
This new system will protract the time in which the ability of the state will enable
them to pay off their debt, because all the funds of the state will be transferred to
the general government, except those which arise from internal taxes.
The situation of the states will be deplorable.
By this system, they will surrender to the general government, all the means of raising
money, and at the same time, will subject themselves to suits at law, for the recovery
of the debts they have contracted in effecting the revolution.
The debts of the individual states will amount to a sum, exceeding the domestic debt of the
United States; these will be left upon them, with power in the judicial of the general
government, to enforce their payment, while the general government will possess an exclusive
command of the most productive funds, from which the states can derive money, and a command
of every other source of revenue paramount to the authority of any state.
It may be said that the apprehension that the judicial power will operate in this manner
is merely visionary, for that the legislature will never pass laws that will work these
effects.
Or if they were disposed to do it, they cannot provide for levying an execution on a state,
for where will the officer find property whereon to levy?
To this I would reply, if this is a power which will not or cannot be executed, it was
useless and unwise to grant it to the judicial.
For what purpose is a power given which it is imprudent or impossible to exercise?
If it be improper for a government to exercise a power, it is improper they should be vested
with it.
And it is unwise to authorise a government to do what they cannot effect.
As to the idea that the legislature cannot provide for levying an execution on a state,
I believe it is not well founded.
I presume the last paragraph of the 8th section of article 1, gives the Congress express power
to pass any laws they may judge proper and necessary for carrying into execution the
power vested in the judicial department.
And they must exercise this power, or otherwise the courts of justice will not be able to
carry into effect the authorities with which they are invested.
For the constitution does not direct the mode in which the courts are to proceed, to bring
parties before them, to try causes, or to carry the judgment of the courts into execution.
Unless they are pointed out by law, how are these to proceed, in any of the cases of which
they have cognizance?
They have the same authority to establish regulations in respect to these matters, where
a state is a party, as where an individual is a party.
The only difficulty is, on whom shall process be served, when a state is a party, and how
shall execution be levied.
With regard to the first, the way is easy, either the executive or legislative of the
state may be notified, and upon proof being made of the service of the notice, the court
may proceed to a hearing of the cause.
Execution may be levied on any property of the state, either real or personal.
The treasury may be seized by the officers of the general government, or any lands the
property of the state, may be made subject to seizure and sale to satisfy any judgment
against it.
Whether the estate of any individual citizen may not be made answerable for the discharge
of judgments against the state, may be worth consideration.
In some corporations this is the case.
If the power of the judicial under this clause will extend to the cases above stated, it
will, if executed, produce the utmost confusion, and in its progress, will crush the states
beneath its weight.
And if it does not extend to these cases, I confess myself utterly at a loss to give
it any meaning.
For if the citizen of one state, possessed of a written obligation, given in pursuance
of a solemn act of the legislature, acknowledging a debt due to the bearer, and promising to
pay it, cannot recover in the supreme court, I can conceive of no case in which they can
recover.
And it appears to me ridiculous to provide for obtaining judgment against a state, without
giving the means of levying execution.
For more infomation >> Nướng Cá Bên Suối .Sinh Tồn Trong Rừng Sâu .Village Food Cooking .Bắt Cá Và Nướng Cá Ăn Tại Chỗ - Duration: 6:49. 
For more infomation >> Xuân Miền Nam | Sáng tác: Văn Phụng & Tuấn Nghĩa | Ca sĩ :Hà Phương & Diệp Thanh | Asia 39 - Duration: 4:17. 
For more infomation >> Rev. Franklin Graham: We need more Christians in Washington - Duration: 4:33. 
For more infomation >> Mountain Biking Dangas Bike Park - Batam, Indonesia | PERFECT TROPICAL LOAM - Duration: 22:21. 
For more infomation >> 5 Cơn Ác Mộng Xuất Hiện Ngoài Đời Thực 100% | 360hot REN Ghost - Duration: 16:06. 
For more infomation >> Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz talk Rob Porter, Russia probe - Duration: 9:09. 
For more infomation >> Members-only cannabis club opens for business - Duration: 1:39. 
For more infomation >> 【シャドバ】そうだグラマスになろう ふーどの人のゲリラ放送(ふーどの部屋)2月09日 - Duration: 1:32:31. 
For more infomation >> Couples facing various drug charges after traffic stop - Duration: 2:00. 
For more infomation >> Körper, Geist und Seele - Kümmer dich um dein Leben | Zitate und Achtsamkeit - Duration: 4:29. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét