on the Constitution or the laws of a state when they were
attacked as in conflict with the Federal Constitution in a case before
it. This right, he contended, belonged to all courts whether federal or
state. A decision of the Supreme Court of the United States adverse to
the constitution or law of a state was, however, he maintained, binding
only on the general government itself and the parties to the suit. As
against the state it had no power to enforce its decision.

His entire argument rests upon the assumption that the Federal and state
governments are co-equal and not superior and subordinate. This line of
argument naturally led to the conclusion that the Federal and state
courts were coordinate. It was perfectly natural for the advocate of
state rights to take this view of the matter. Moreover there was nothing
in the Constitution which expressly contradicted it. The framers of that
instrument, as hereinbefore shown, did not wish to make an open attack
on the generally accepted doctrine of state sovereignty before the
Constitution was adopted. Their purpose was fully disclosed only after
they had obtained control of the new government under the Constitution.
To carry out their plan of subordinating the states, it was necessary to
establish the supremacy of the Federal judiciary. This was accomplished
by an act of Congress[141] which provided that "a final judgment or
decree in any suit in the highest court ... of a state in which a
decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the
validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the
United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is
drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority
exercised under, any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to
the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the
decision is in favor of their validity; or where is drawn in question
the construction ... of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held
under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right,
privilege, or exemption specially set up or claimed by either party,
under such clause of said Constitution, treaty, statute, or Commission,
may be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the
United States upon a writ of error."

This act, while expressly conferring upon the Supreme Court of the
United States the power to veto a state law, at the same time