In the first case, he
was speaking of the power of the States over the militia, and is thus
reported:
"The State governments did not derive their powers from the
General Government; but each government derived its powers from
the people, and each was to act according to the powers given
it. Would any gentleman deny this?... Could any man say that
this power was not retained by the States, as they had not given
it away? For (says he) does not a power remain till it is given
away? The State Legislatures had power to command and govern
their militia before, and have it still, undeniably, unless
there be something in this Constitution that takes it away....
"He concluded by observing that the power of governing the
militia was not vested in the States by implication, because,
being possessed of it antecedently to the adoption of the
Government, and not being divested of it by any grant or
restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as
fully possessed of it as ever they had been, and it could not be
said that the States derived any powers from that system, but
retained them, though not acknowledged in any part of it."[85]
In the other case, the special subject was the power of the Federal
judiciary. Mr. Marshall said, with regard to this: "I hope that no
gentleman will think that a State can be called at the bar of the
Federal court.
Pages:
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280