case cognizable under Article III, in the Federal courts, in which original jurisdiction can not be exercised; and the extent of this judicial power is to be measured, not by giving the affirmative words of the distributive clause a negative operation in every possible case, but by giving their true meaning to the words which define its extent. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 394. Marbury v. Madison, 1. Cranch 174. Powers reserved by the States.-The rule of construction governing reserved state powers is given by the court in Livingston v. Van Ingen, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 507, in the following language: When the people create a single, entire government, they grant at once all the rights of sovereignty. The powers granted are indefinite and incapable of enumeration. Everything is granted that is not expressly reserved in the constitutional charter, or necessarily retained as inherent in the people. But when a federal government is erected with only a portion of the sovereign power, the rule of construction is directly the reverse, and every power is reserved to the members that is not, either in express terms or by necessary implication, taken away from them, and vested exclusively in the federal head. This rule has not only been acknowledged by the most intelligent friends to the Constitution, but is plainly declared by the instrument itself. Congress have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, and excises, but as these powers are not given exclusively, the States have a concurrent jurisdiction, and retain the same absolute powers of taxation which they possessed before the adoption of the Constitution, except the power of laying an impost, which is expressly taken away. This very exception proves that, without it, the States would have retained the power of laying an impost; and it further implies, that in cases not excepted, the authority of the States remains unimpaired (p. 574). Conflict between National and State laws.-It was held in Tarble's Case (13 Wall. 397), that whenever any conflict arises between the enactments of the National and State Governments, or in the enforcement of their asserted authorities, those of the National Government have supremacy until the validity of the different enactments and authorities are determined by the tribunals of the United States. The court said (p. 407): This temporary supremacy until judicial decision by the national tribunals, and the ultimate determination of the conflict by such decision, are essential to the preservation of order and peace, and the avoidance of forcible collision between the two Governments. In speaking of this conflict of authority in connection with State process in Ableman v. Booth (21 How. 506), and holding that the process of a State court or judge has no authority beyond the limits of the sovereignty which confers the judicial power, Chief Justice Taney said: The Constitution was not formed merely to guard the States against danger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure union and harmony at home; for if this object could be attained, there would be but little danger from abroad; and to accomplish this purpose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed the Constitution, and by the people who adopted it, that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government; and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from State authorities. This language was quoted in substantiation of the opinion of the court by Mr. Justice Field in Tarble's Case, supra. The seventh amendment applies only to proceedings in courts of the United States, and does not in any manner whatever govern or regulate trials by jury in State courts, or the standards which must. be applied concerning the same. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211. The guaranty of equal privileges and immunities to citizens of the United States by the fourteenth amendment does not limit the power of the State government over the rights of its own citizens. Holden v. Hardy, 46 Pac. 756, affirmed in 169 U. S. 366. Effect of exceptions.-The exceptions from a power mark its extent, and an exception of any particular case presupposes that those which are not excepted are embraced within the grant or prohibition. Where no exception is made in terms, none will be made by mere implication or construction. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 191. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 438. The rule that in the enforcement of provisions guaranteeing civil rights Congress is limited to the enactment of legislation corrective of any wrong committed by the States and not by the individuals, does not apply to those cases in which Congress is clothed with direct and plenary powers of legislation over the whole subject, accompanied with an express or implied denial of such powers to the States, as in the regulation of commerce, the coining of money, the estabJishment of post offices and post roads, the declaring of war, etc. In such cases Congress has power to pass laws for regulating the subjects specified in every detail, and the conduct and transactions of individuals in respect thereof. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 18. Where a particular power has been granted to Congress and has never been expressly denied to the States, the States may exercise the power, in the absence of congressional legislation, on the principle that it is not the grant of power to Congress, but its actual exercise of that power, that makes its action exclusive. State legislation which conflicts with the acts of Congress is, of course, null and void, ipso facto. Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 49. NOTES ON THE CONSTITUTION. LEADING GENERAL CASES. The cases cited below, under their respective headings, are considered leading cases and apply to the Constitution as a whole. They are all great outstanding cases, and are cited many times throughout these notes as also applying to particular clauses of the Constitution. Nature of the Constitution McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. Rogers v. Alabama, 192 U. S. 226. The Jurisdiction of the United States Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch 445. Serè v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511. Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540. Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S. 1. Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202. In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453. Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U. S. 698. Relation of the States to the Federal Government Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 1. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S. 483. Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275. Ex parte McNiel, 13 Wall. 240. Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 124. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 570. Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U. S. 604. Burnes Natl. Bank. v. Duncan, 265 U. S. 17. Checks and Balances in Government Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137. Chicago, &c, R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan, &c., Co., 158 U. S. 601. Field v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649. The Constitution went into operation on the first Wednesday (4th day) of March, 1789. (Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420.) |