WEBSTER to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturn- ing the government. It is no doctrine of Q3^ne that unconstitutional laws bind the people. |The great question is, Whose prerogative is ft to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitu- tionality of the laws? On that the main debate hinges!^ The proposition that in case of a supposed violation of the Constitution by Congress the States have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of Congress, is the prop- osition of the gentleman. I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. teut I can not conceive that there can be d middle course, between submission to the laws when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance (which is revolution or rebellion) on the other This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it? Is it the creature of the State Legislatures, or the creature of the people? If the government of the United States be the agent of the State governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it ; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. /It is observable enough that the doctrine for which the honorable gen- tleman contends leads him to the necessity of 45
