FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287  
288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   >>   >|  
s is all that is essential in the case supposed. The presence or absence of a _non obstante_ clause cannot affect the extent or operation of the act of Congress. Congress has no power of revoking State laws, as a distinct power. It legislates over subjects; and over those subjects which are within its power, its legislation is supreme, and necessarily overrules all inconsistent or repugnant State legislation. If Congress were to pass an act expressly revoking or annulling, in whole or in part, this New York grant, such an act would be wholly useless and inoperative. If the New York grant be opposed to, or inconsistent with, any constitutional power which Congress has exercised, then, so far as the incompatibility exists, the grant is nugatory and void, necessarily, and by reason of the supremacy of the law of Congress. But if the grant be not inconsistent with any exercise of the powers of Congress, then, certainly, Congress has no authority to revoke or annul it. Such an act of Congress, therefore, would be either unconstitutional or supererogatory. The laws of Congress need no _non obstante_ clause. The Constitution makes them supreme, when State laws come into opposition to them. So that in these cases there is no question except this; whether there be, or be not, a repugnancy or hostility between the law of Congress and the law of the State. Nor is it at all material, in this view, whether the law of the State be a law regulating commerce, or a law of police, nor by what other name or character it may be designated. If its provisions be inconsistent with an act of Congress, they are void, so far as that inconsistency extends. The whole argument, therefore, is substantially and effectually given up, when it is admitted that Congress might, by express terms, abrogate the State grant, or declare that it should not stand in the way of its own legislation; because such express terms would add nothing to the effect and operation of an act of Congress. I contend, therefore, upon the whole of this point, that a case of actual collision has been made out between the State grant and the act of Congress; and as the act of Congress is entirely unexceptionable, and clearly in pursuance of its constitutional powers, the State grant must yield. There are other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, which have more or less bearing on this question. "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287  
288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Congress

 

inconsistent

 

legislation

 
Constitution
 
powers
 

express

 

provisions

 
question
 

constitutional

 

operation


supreme

 

obstante

 

revoking

 
clause
 

necessarily

 

subjects

 

admitted

 
character
 

declare

 
bearing

abrogate

 
inconsistency
 

consent

 

extends

 
designated
 

effectually

 

substantially

 

argument

 

collision

 

United


actual

 

unexceptionable

 

pursuance

 

States

 
contend
 

effect

 
authority
 
wholly
 
annulling
 

expressly


useless

 

inoperative

 

exists

 
nugatory
 

incompatibility

 

exercised

 

opposed

 
repugnant
 

overrules

 
absence