SCOTUS: 'We the People' possess supreme authority

EARLY RULING FROM COURT UPHELD POWER OF THE PEOPLE

by John Charlton

(Oct. 22, 2009) — Among the early documents which explain the authority of We the People is the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1819, in the case McCulloch v. Maryland (4 Wheat. 316 1819), wherein Chief Justice Marshal wrote:

The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C.

In discussing this question, the counsel for the State of Maryland have deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the constitution, to consider that instrument not as emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent States.The powers of the general government,” it has been said, “are delegated by the States, who alone are truly sovereign; and must be exercised in subordination to the States, who alone possess supreme dominion.

It would be difficult to sustain this proposition. The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing Congress of the United States, with a request that it might “be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its Legislature, for their assent and ratification.” This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in Convention. It is true, they assembled in their several States–and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments.

From these Conventions the constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a Convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived, by the State governments. The constitution, when thus adopted, was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.

It has been said, that the people had already surrendered all their powers to the State sovereignties, and had nothing more to give. But, surely, the question whether they may resume and modify the powers granted to government does not remain to be settled in this country. Much more might the legitimacy of the general government be doubted, had it been created by the States. The powers delegated to the State sovereignties were to be exercised by themselves, not by a distinct and independent sovereignty, created by themselves. To the formation of a league, such as was the confederation, the State sovereignties were certainly competent. But when, “in order to form a more perfect union,” it was deemed necessary to change this alliance into an effective government, possessing great and sovereign powers, and acting directly on the people, the necessity of referring it to the people, and of deriving its powers directly from them, was felt and acknowledged by all.

The government of the Union, then, (whatever may be the influence of this fact on the case,) is, emphatically, and truly, a government of the people. In form and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.

This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it, would seem too apparent to have required to be enforced by all those arguments which its enlightened friends, while it was depending before the people, found it necessary to urge. That principle is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist.

It follows logically from this ruling, then, that if the Federal government derives all authority from the people, there must be some circumstance or injury when the People have the right to move a quo warranto action in their own name, as well as claim any and all rights which they had before the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution, which they did not conceded expressly in it.

If this right is denied by Courts, it is clear that We the People are then justified to enforce this right by force of arms; just as our forefathers did against the British Tyrant King George.  The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence fully justify this course of action and this remedy.

Print Friendly

0 Responses to "SCOTUS: 'We the People' possess supreme authority"

  1. drkate   Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 12:49 PM

    Excellent piece. Thank you

  2. yo   Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 8:33 AM

    I think that’s what the right to bear arms and to convene a citizen militia was meant for.

    How coincidental that many of those who wish to take away the right to bear arms are also in the camp of taking away the right of we the people. They kind of go together, me thinks.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.