The
thing may be done, and has been done, and well done, without this
assumption; therefore, it does not stand on that degree of
_necessity_ which can honestly justify it.
It may be said that a bank whose bills would have a currency
all over the States, would be more convenient than one whose currency
is limited to a single State. So it would be still more convenient
that there should be a bank, whose bills should have a currency all
over the world. But it does not follow from this superior
conveniency, that there exists anywhere a power to establish such a
bank; or that the world may not go on very well without it.
Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a
shade or two of _convenience_, more or less, Congress should be
authorised to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the
several States; such as those against Mortmain, the laws of Alienage,
the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat
and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly? Nothing but a necessity
invincible by any other means, can justify such a prostitution of
laws, which constitute the pillars of our whole system of
jurisprudence. Will Congress be too straight-laced to carry the
constitution into honest effect, unless they may pass over the
foundation-laws of the State government for the slightest convenience
of theirs?
The negative of the President is the shield provided by the
constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1.
Pages:
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155