denied to
a state court the right to treat as unconstitutional a statute, treaty,
or authority exercised under the general government. The question might
properly be asked why this provision was not incorporated in the
Constitution itself. Why did not the framers of that document clearly
define the relation of the Federal to the state courts? To have included
the substance of this act in the Constitution as submitted to the
states, would have precluded the possibility of any future controversy
concerning the relation of the Federal to the state courts. From the
point of view of practical politics, however, there was one unanswerable
argument against this plan. It would have clearly indicated the
intention of the framers of the Constitution, but in doing so, it would
for that very reason have aroused opposition which it would have been
impossible to overcome. This is why the matter of defining the relation
of the Federal to the state courts was deferred until after the
Constitution had been ratified by the states. They chose the only
practicable means of accomplishing their purpose. With all branches of
the Federal government under their control, they were able to enact a
law which virtually amended the Constitution. Calhoun argues that in
passing this act Congress exceeded the powers granted to it by the
Constitution. What he fails to recognize, however, is the fact that this
measure, although at variance with the interpretation placed upon the
Constitution by the people generally, was, nevertheless, in entire
harmony with the general purpose of its framers and necessary to carry
that purpose into effect.

The view of the American Constitution herein presented may not be
familiar to the average reader of our political literature. For
notwithstanding the overwhelming proof of the aristocratic origin of our
constitutional arrangements accessible to the unbiassed student, the
notion has been sedulously cultivated that our general government was
based on the theory of majority rule. Unfounded as an analysis of our
political institutions shows this belief to be, it has by dint of
constant repetition come to be widely accepted. It is beyond question
that the Constitution was not so regarded by the people at the beginning
of our national life. How, then, was this change in the attitude of the
public brought about? There has doubtless been more than one influence
that has contributed to this result. The abundant natural resourc