, but by a commentary a hundred times as large as the text. It must
be by going further, and saying that after a question has been fully
discussed and solemnly decided--after it has been recognised by every
department of the government--and acquiesced in by the people, it should
be considered as the best exposition the constitution is capable of, and
as no longer open to controversy: and if the decision was wrong,
according to a maxim of the common law, and which became common law only
because it was common sense, the universality of the error makes it
right.

Let it not be supposed, that if a false or inconvenient construction is
put on the constitution, or its meaning is considered doubtful and
uncertain, the evil may be corrected by an amendment. Supposing it to
take place, may we not, like bad tinkers, in stopping one hole, make
two? We can judge of the probable success of this course, by the various
laws passed to alter, or amend, or repeal, previous emendatory acts. But
if the remedy were effectual when attained, is it attainable? What
probability is there that three-fourths of the states will concur in any
amendment, or that motives of interest--of party sympathy--of delusive
argument--or the mere _nonchalance_ of men about evils which are not
immediately pressing, would not unite more than one-fourth of the
states? Besides, if the constitution were always to be changed whenever
a serious question of its construction arose, and amendments were as
practicable as they are difficult, the time required for the operation
would leave us nothing else to do. A century would scarcely suffice to
settle the questions which may occur in a single year.

There is another mischief, of no insignificant character, which results
from these excessive refinements in interpreting the constitution, and
from the doctrine that no length of time can settle its meaning. They
afford ready pretexts to cunning and timid politicians for screening
their real motives from the people. When they wish to evade
responsibility for their votes, they have nothing more to do than to
plead scruples of conscience, and the sacred obligation of an oath.
Where is the measure which a moderate degree of ingenuity may not
show--we may almost say--has not shown to be against the words, or the
meaning and spirit of the constitution? It is true, if the people
distrust the sincerity of this plea of conscience, or disapprove it,
they may remove their representativ