rity, and the deep interest which the people of
the United States must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger
measures, while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to
reasoning and remonstrances, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify,
a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the views I
entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation
of the course which my sense of duty will require me to pursue.

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting
acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be
endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only
declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution--that they
may do this consistently with the Constitution--that the true
construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in
the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may
choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that, to
justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the
Constitution; but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting
laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide
what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all
laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by
the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public
opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may be
asked why is it not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an
unconstitutional act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this
last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible,
and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an
unconstitutional act passed by Congress--one to the judiciary, the other
to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision
in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are
closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors
being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is
superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the
laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it,
are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, "that the
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any State to the contra