mply with the one was to
disobey the other. A result like this, so monstrous in its aspect,
excludes the interpretation which produces it. It is a safe course
in attempting to ascertain the meaning of a law or constitution to
connect different clauses (no matter how detached) upon the same
subject together. Let us do it in this case. The President shall
have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
make treaties, which treaties shall be the supreme law of the
land. I seek to gain no surreptitious advantage from the word
supreme, because I frankly admit that it is used in the
Constitution, in relation to the laws and constitutions of the
States; but I appeal to it merely to ascertain the high authority
intended to be imparted by the framers of the constitution to a
ratified treaty. It is classed in point of dignity with the laws of
the United States. We ask for no superiority, but equality; and as
the last law made annuls a former one, where they conflict, so we
contend that a subsequent treaty, as in the present case, revokes a
former law in opposition thereto. But the other side contend that it
is inferior to the law in point of authority, which continues in
full force despite of a treaty, and to its repeal the assent of the
whole legislature is necessary. Our claims rest on the expressed
words of the constitution--the opposite on implication; and if the
latter be just, I cannot forbear to say that the framers of the
constitution would but ill deserve what I have heretofore thought a
just tribute to their meritorious services. If they really designed
to produce the effect contended for, instead of so declaring by a
positive provision, they have used a language which, to my mind,
operates conclusively against it. Under what clause of the
constitution is the right to exercise this power set up? The reply
is, the third clause of eighth section, first article--Congress
shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, etc. I
immediately inquire to what extent does the authority of Congress,
in relation to commercial treaties, reach? Is the aid of the
legislature necessary in all cases whatsoever, to give effect to a
commercial treaty? It is readily admitted that it is not. That a
treaty, whose influence is extra territorial, becomes obligatory the
instant of its ratification. That, as the aid of the legislature is
not necessary to its execution, the legislature has no right to