- Aug 27, 2008
- 18,450
- 1,823
- 205
I'm still trying to discover where Article V of the United States Constitution allows the Supreme Court to amend that precious document.
Can you guys help me?
Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
From the LINK in the OP:
"In 1798, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed a series of resolutions asserting that the states have the power to determine whether acts of Congress are constitutional. In response, ten states passed their own resolutions disapproving the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions.[40] Six of these states took the position that the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional lies in the federal courts, not in the state legislatures. For example, Vermont's resolution stated: "It belongs not to state legislatures to decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general government; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary courts of the Union."[41]
"Thus, five years before Marbury v. Madison, a number of state legislatures stated their understanding that under the Constitution, the federal courts possess the power of judicial review."
Three of those states were Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, who then turned around and adopted the very same arguments when Jefferson was President and imposed his embargo against Great Britain.
Massachusetts:
"It would be derogatory to the honour of the commonwealth to presume that it is unable to protect its subjects against all violations of their rights, by peaceable and legal remedies. While this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of the state government."
"Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for enforcing an act laying an embargo, and the several acts supplementary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this state."
Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations
"A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim."
The States Respond to ObamaCare
Connecticut:
"Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed, to enforce the Embargo."
Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations
"Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous taskit is their rightit becomes their duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." - Governor Jonathan Trumbull
Our state legislators? right and duty | Tenth Amendment Center Blog
Rhode Island:
"That the people of this State, as one of the parties to the Federal compact, have a right to express their sense of any violation of its provisions and that it is the duty of this General Assembly as the organ of their sentiments and the depository of their authority, to interpose for the purpose of protecting them from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and unconstitutional power."
Herman Ames: State Documents on Federal Relations
So it would seem that these states merely opposed the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 only on political reasons, those being that they, being dominated by Federalists, supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, rather than actual legal principles. Otherwise, they wouldn't have turned around and adopted the exact same arguments that they opposed in 1798 during Jefferson's Presidency.