January 18, 2013

The President of the United States

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC, 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The Report on the Alien and Sedition Acts was issued January 7, 1800 by the Virginia Legislature in answer to criticism leveled at the Virginia Resolution against the Alien and Sedition Acts. In the report author James Madison makes a trenchant argument for the legitimacy of the states collectively interposing in “the case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous breach of the constitution, by the exercise of powers not granted by it.”1 The following are excerpts from his exegesis of the third resolution.

“It appears…to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts; that where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made, has been pursued or violated. The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the states, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.

It does not follow, however, that because the states as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such a decision ought to be interposed either in a hasty manner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions…but in the case of an intimate and constitutional union, like that of the United States, it is evident that the interposition of the parties, in their sovereign capacity, can be called for by occasions only, deeply and essentially affecting the vital principles of their political system.”2

“If the deliberate exercise, of dangerous powers, palpably withheld by the constitution, could not justify the parties to it, in interposing even so far as to arrest the progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the constitution itself as well as to provide for the safety of the parties to it; there would be an end to all relief from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the rights specified or recognized under all the state constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental principle on which our independence itself was declared.

But it is objected that the judicial authority is to be regarded as the sole expositor of the constitution, in the last resort; and it may be asked for what reason, the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it to be theoretically true, could be required at the present day and in so solemn a manner.

On this objection it might be observed first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department: secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the Judicial Department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the constitution; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.     

However true therefore it may be that the Judicial Department, is in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power, would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.

The truth declared in the resolution being established, the expediency of making the declaration at the present day, may safely be left to the temperate consideration and candid judgment of the American public.”3

For a quarter century the United States government has with utmost address and malefic abandon forced my family to suffer. Furthermore, this has been done while fully cognizant of our unqualified innocence. The crimes therefore committed, the crimes of others consequently revealed in these letters and our federal functionaries refusal to enforce the law have lead us to a blatant constitutional bloodletting and, hence, meet Mr. Madison’s test of a “deliberate, palpable and dangerous breach of the constitution, by the exercise of powers not granted by it.”4

This letter is an approach to the state legislatures to exercise interposition to halt this putrescence. (Interposition is here being interpreted as collective free speech of state legislatures and moreover must not be construed as any form of nullification). You have been duly informed.  Personalize that. Based on my brief conversation with you in Billings Montana at the local YMCA and of course subsequent experience, that seems to be what you do best.

Yours Truly,

Lynn Swartos

232 South 12^th Avenue

Phoenix, AZ 85007-3101

(406) 694-3475

lynn.swartos@yahoo.com

Cc: Various media, groups and individuals

 

1. Writings. James Madison. Edited by Jack Rakove. New York: Library of America, 1999, p. 612.
2. Ibid., p. 611, 612.
3. Ibid., p. 613, 614.
4. Ibid., p. 612.

[These letters are now on my Facebook page. Tell a friend. (This note was not included in the original letter.)]