.MTA2NA.NzIzMzI

not a direct usurpation of the legislative power of Congress? -- Nor let us be told that he has never presumed to place himself in the judicial chair, and to pass a formal judicial sentence. If he reverses a sentence of the Supreme Court it is equally a usurpation of judicial power. And will he not have reversed such a sentence, if he officially declares erroneous and void and refuses to execute it? Will not this be a practical reversal far more efficacious than a verbal one, and a direct invasion of the Constitutional Power of the Judiciary? These principles are so obvious that they require no amplitude of illustration. Will it be asked whether a President of the United States is bound to execute a law which he deems unconstitutional , or a sentence of the Supreme Court which he deems erroneous? The answer is found in the Constitution itself. The power of making the law is confided to Congress; the power of expounding and declaring it, in the last resort, to the Supreme Court. Each of these bodies is responsible in its separate department, for the faithful execution of the powers confided to it. The President has no responsibility for them, nor they for him. His separate and exclusive duty is not to make nor to expound, but solely to execute the law, as it has been made by one of these bodies, and expounded & declared by the other; and it is for the execution of the laws alone that he is responsible. His complete justification for executing the law is found in the law itself as made by Congress and expounded by the Supreme Court. There is no possible motive, therefore, for clothing him with a superintending and reversing power over acts of Congress which have been passed, in sentences by the Supreme Court which have been pronounced; while to concede such a power to him is to break up the whole demarcation so studiously introduced by the Constitution, to place the legislative and judicial departments under his entire controul, and to convert the Constitution into an absolute despotism, with all the powers of government virtually and practically concentrated in one hand.. If it is to rest in his arbitrary pleasure what laws he will execute, and what sentences of the Supreme Court he will carry into effect, we see no difference between a President of the United States and the most absolute monarch that exists either in Europe or Asia. His pleasure becomes his law: his will a sufficient reason. And judging by what he has already done, this is manifestly the state of things to which we are rapidly verging. This land of laws is to become a land governed by the arbitrary will of a single man. This laws, heretofore the