FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253  
254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   >>   >|  
e existing republican forms are continued by the States, they are guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the federal guaranty for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for antirepublican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance. A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article. Protection against domestic violence is added with equal propriety. It has been remarked, that even among the Swiss cantons, which, properly speaking, are not under one government, provision is made for this object; and the history of that league informs us that mutual aid is frequently claimed and afforded; and as well by the most democratic, as the other cantons. A recent and well-known event among ourselves has warned us to be prepared for emergencies of a like nature. At first view, it might seem not to square with the republican theory, to suppose, either that a majority have not the right, or that a minority will have the force, to subvert a government; and consequently, that the federal interposition can never be required, but when it would be improper. But theoretic reasoning, in this as in most other cases, must be qualified by the lessons of practice. Why may not illicit combinations, for purposes of violence, be formed as well by a majority of a State, especially a small State as by a majority of a county, or a district of the same State; and if the authority of the State ought, in the latter case, to protect the local magistracy, ought not the federal authority, in the former, to support the State authority? Besides, there are certain parts of the State constitutions which are so interwoven with the federal Constitution, that a violent blow cannot be given to the one without communicating the wound to the other. Insurrections in a State will rarely induce a federal interposition, unless the number concerned in them bear some proportion to the frien
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253  
254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

federal

 

republican

 

majority

 

authority

 

Constitution

 

States

 
history
 
interposition
 

violence

 

government


cantons

 

restriction

 

improper

 

required

 

square

 

theoretic

 

nature

 

theory

 

emergencies

 
warned

minority

 

proportion

 

prepared

 

suppose

 

subvert

 

practice

 

number

 

constitutions

 
Besides
 

magistracy


support

 

interwoven

 

violent

 

rarely

 

Insurrections

 
communicating
 

induce

 

protect

 

illicit

 

combinations


purposes

 
lessons
 

qualified

 

formed

 

recent

 

concerned

 
county
 

district

 

reasoning

 
society