Constitution

OF
THE

United States.

Constitutional construction.-A constitution is an instrument of government, made and adopted by the people for practical purposes, and can only operate prospectively.2 It should be construed so as best to subserve the great objects for which it was made. Like every other grant it is to have a reasonable construction according to the import of its terms, 4 as defined in the vocabulary of the nation which adopted it.5 Courts of justice cannot give it a strained construction, and they are not authorized to so construe any clause as to defeat its obvious ends when another construction, equally accordant with the words and sense, will enforce and protect them. So, where words admit of different intendments, that must be selected which is most consonant to the object in view.8 It should be so construed as to give effect to its different clauses, as far as possible reconcile them, and not let their seeming repugnancy destroy them.9 It is not to be construed technically, 10 but must receive a practical construction. Perhaps the safest rule of interpretation is to look to the nature and objects of the particular powers, duties, and rights, with all the lights and aids of contemporary history, and to give to the words of each clause such operation and force as is consistent with its legitimate meaning, 12 and not nullify or evade them by astute verbal criticism without regard to the aim and objects of the instrument, and the principles on which it is based.13 Courts can only construe the powers granted, they cannot inquire into the policy or principles which induced the grant.14 1 Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 400.

2 Chicago v. Rumsey, 87 Ill. 385.

3 North Riv. S. Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cow. 713; 1 Hopk. 150; Hague v. Powers, 39 Barb. 427; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 40). 4 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; 7 Cranch, 727.

5 Kunzler v. Kohaus, 5 Hill, 317; Padleford v. Mayor &c. 14 Ga. 438. 6 Law v. People, 87 Ill. 385.

7 Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Peters, 539.

8 Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380.

9 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 138.

10 People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247; Dorman v. State, 34 Ala. 216.

11 Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5.

12 Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Peters, 539.

13 Passenger Cases, 7 How. 282.

14 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; 7 Cranch, 727.

Construction of terms.-Although the spirit of the Constitution is to be respected not less than its letter, yet the spirit is to be collected chiefly from its words. The argument from inconvenience cannot prevail over plain words or clear reason; but a construction which would necessarily occasion public or private mischief must yield to a construction which will occasion neither.2 So, a construction long carried into practice, though not sanctioned by judicial authority, is worthy of great consideration; 3 so, great weight is attached to contemporaneous exposition, or where the commencement of the practice was almost coeval with the adoption of the instrument.5 A case within the words of a rule must be within its operation, unless something in the literal construction is so obviously absurd or mischievous, or so repugnant to the general spirit of the instrument, as to justify an exception.6 Words are to be taken in their natural and obvious sense, and not in a sense unreasonably restricted or enlarged." Adherence to the letter must not be had in opposition to the reason and spirit of the enactment, and to effectuate the object intended, it may be proper to deviate from the usual sense of the words.8 Every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, and no word should be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and care should be taken to reconcile words apparently discordant, in such a manner as to give, if possible, meaning to every word.10 The same words have not necessarily the same meaning when found in different parts of the instrument, and the peculiar sense in which a word is used is to be determined b. the context, unless the meaning is completely ascertained.12 Affirmative words are often in their operation negative of other objects than those affirmed, but they should not be construed negatively where they have full operation without such construction.18 The exception of a thing from the general words proves that the thing excepted would be within the general clause had the exception not been made. 14 See Supplement, post, 289.

11

1 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122.

2 Ex parte Griffin, Chase, 364; 25 Tex. Supp. 623.

3 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; 3 Serg. & R. 169; Briscoe v. Bank of Ky. 11 Peters, 257; Cooley v. Port Wardens, 12 How. 299; Adams v. Story, 1 Paine, 79; Hicks v. Hotchkiss, 7 Johns. Ch. 297; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 400.

4 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.

5 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Peters, 539; Jack v. Martin, 12 Wend. 311; 14 Wend. 507.

6 Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518; Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380.

7 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 400.

8 Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380.

9 Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540; Hitchcock v. Aiken, 1 Caines, 460; State v. Scott, 9 Ark. 270.

10 Curtis v. Gibbs, 2 N. J. 405.

11 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters, 1; Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Peters, 591.

12 U. S. v. Burr, 2 Whart. Cr. Cas. 573.

13 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.

14 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; 17 Johns. 488; 4 Johns. Ch. 150; Brown v. State, 12 Wheat. 419.

PREAMBLE.

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The people of the United States.-The body of electors composing the State,1 people and citizens being synonymous terms, both describing the political body who form the sovereignty, hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives, the sovereign people, every citizen being a constituent member.2 Freemen of color were a part of the people. The people of the United States had the power to invest the General Government with all the powers they might deem proper and necessary, and to prohibit to the States the exercise of any powers incompatible with the objects of the general compact, and to resume or modify the powers granted.5 1 Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dall. 93.

2 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404.

3 Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 573, per Curtis, J.; U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 41; North Carolina v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & B. 20.

4 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 325.

5 McCulloch v. Maryland. 4 Wheat. 404.

It

More perfect union. This phrase recognizes a political body known as the United States. "In order to form a more perfect union" by substituting a National Government, acting with ample powers directly upon the citizen, instead of the Confederate Government, which acted with powers greatly restricted, and only upon the States. is the union of States under a common constitution which forms the distinct and greater political unit designated as the United States, 4 by a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects in a certain manner;5 a government emanating from the people; the creation of their will, and existing only by their will; and for certain purposes, a consolidated government; a body politic and corporate.9 It is a Government of delegated powers alone, limited in number but not in degree, and supreme within the scope of its delegated powers, 10 with absolute sovereignty to the extent of its powers, 11 the sovereignty being separate and distinct from State sovereignty, 12 the State constitutions being limitations on sovereign powers already existing. 18 1 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 727.

2 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 463; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 550.

3 Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 125.

4 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 721.

5 Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 463.

6 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316.

7 Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.

8 North River S. Co. v. Livingston, 3 Cowen, 713.

9 Duncan v. U. S. 3 Wheat. 181; U. S. v. Tingey, 5 Peters, 128; U. S. v. Bradley, 10 Peters, 343; Neilson v. Lagow, 12 How. 108; Dixon . U. S. 1 Brock. 177; U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 109; U. S. v. Lane, 3 McLean, 365; Stearns v. U. S. 2 Paine, 301; Dikes v. Miller, 25 Tex. Supp. 290.

10 U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 550; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Scott v. Sandford. 19 How. 393; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 76. See Supplement, post, 289.

11 Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 407.

12 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 190; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; Newell v. People, 7 N. Y. 93; People v. N. Y. Cent. R. R. Co. 24 N. Y. 486; Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. 411.

13 Ohio Life Ins. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 428.

To provide for the common defense is an absolute right of every nationality. The Constitution was "ordained and established" by "the people" for themselves, and their own government, and not for the goverument of the individual States; 2 and not by the States, but by the people of the United States, acting through delegates by whom they were represented, and resulted neither from the majority of the people nor of the States. 5 It did not go into effect until the first Wednesday in March, 1789.6

1 Ex parte Coupland, 26 Tex. 393.

2 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 343; Withers v. Buckley, 21 How. 84; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 326; U. S. t. Cruikshank, 92 U. S.

550.

3 Chisholm . Georgia, 2 Dall. 463; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 324; Banks v. Greenleaf, 6 Call, 277.

4 Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Peters, 569; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243.

5 Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199; Chisholm v. Georgia, 3 Dall. 419. 6 Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420.

Powers of government.-The Federal Government is one of enumerated powers1-of delegated powers.2 The sovereignty of Congress, though limited to specific objects, is plenary as to those objects, and supreme in its sphere. The powers of government in the United States and in the States are separate and distinct, although they may act on the same subject: 5 but in case of conflict, that of the United States Government is supreme. The Government is constituted with its legislative, judicial, and executive departments, to act directly on the people without the intervention of the State governments. The powers of Congress are not exclusive except where the Constitution expressly in terms so provides, or where they are prohibited to the States, or where there is a direct repugnance or incompatibility in their exercise by the States. 8 The exercise by a State of a concurrent power must yield when it conflicts with, or is repugnant to, congressional legislation."

1 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden. 9 Wheat. 1.

2 Briscoe v. Bk. of Ky. 11 Peters, 257; 7 J. J. Marsh. 349.

3 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1.

4 McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316; Osborn v. Bank of U. S. 9 Wheat. 738; Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 273; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; Fifield v. Close, 15 Mich. 505; State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 1; State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389; People v. Brady, 40 Cal. 193; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 76; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; 1 Woods, 308; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 203.