按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
e jurisdiction of political bodies is looked upon as an extraordinary resource； which is only to be employed in order to rescue society from unwonted dangers。 It is not to be denied that these tribunals； as they are constituted in Europe； are apt to violate the conservative principle of the balance of power in the State； and to threaten incessantly the lives and liberties of the subject。 The same political jurisdiction in the United States is only indirectly hostile to the balance of power； it cannot menace the lives of the citizens； and it does not hover； as in Europe； over the heads of the community； since those only who have submitted to its authority on accepting office are exposed to the severity of its investigations。 It is at the same time less formidable and less efficacious； indeed； it has not been considered by the legislators of the United States as a remedy for the more violent evils of society； but as an ordinary means of conducting the government。 In this respect it probably exercises more real influence on the social body in America than in Europe。 We must not be misled by the apparent mildness of the American legislation in all that relates to political jurisdiction。 It is to be observed； in the first place； that in the United States the tribunal which passes sentence is composed of the same elements； and subject to the same influences； as the body which impeaches the offender； and that this uniformity gives an almost irresistible impulse to the vindictive passions of parties。 If political judges in the United States cannot inflict such heavy penalties as those of Europe； there is the less chance of their acquitting a prisoner； and the conviction； if it is less formidable； is more certain。 The principal object of the political tribunals of Europe is to punish the offender； the purpose of those in America is to deprive him of his authority。 A political condemnation in the United States may； therefore； be looked upon as a preventive measure； and there is no reason for restricting the judges to the exact definitions of criminal law。 Nothing can be more alarming than the excessive latitude with which political offences are described in the laws of America。 Article II。； Section 4； of the Constitution of the United States runs thus： … 〃The President； Vice…President； and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for； and conviction of； treason； bribery； or other high crimes and misdemeanors。〃 Many of the Constitutions of the States are even less explicit。 〃Public officers；〃 says the Constitution of Massachusetts； *b 〃shall be impeached for misconduct or maladministration；〃 the Constitution of Virginia declares that all the civil officers who shall have offended against the State； by maladministration； corruption； or other high crimes； may be impeached by the House of Delegates； in some constitutions no offences are specified； in order to subject the public functionaries to an unlimited responsibility。 *c But I will venture to affirm that it is precisely their mildness which renders the American laws most formidable in this respect。 We have shown that in Europe the removal of a functionary and his political interdiction are the consequences of the penalty he is to undergo； and that in America they constitute the penalty itself。 The consequence is that in Europe political tribunals are invested with rights which they are afraid to use； and that the fear of punishing too much hinders them from punishing at all。 But in America no one hesitates to inflict a penalty from which humanity does not recoil。 To condemn a political opponent to death； in order to deprive him of his power； is to commit what all the world would execrate as a horrible assassination； but to declare that opponent unworthy to exercise that authority； to deprive him of it； and to leave him uninjured in life and limb； may be judged to be the fair issue of the struggle。 But this sentence； which it is so easy to pronounce； is not the less fatally severe to the majority of those upon whom it is inflicted。 Great criminals may undoubtedly brave its intangible rigor； but ordinary offenders will dread it as a condemnation which destroys their position in the world； casts a blight upon their honor； and condemns them to a shameful inactivity worse than death。 The influence exercised in the United States upon the progress of society by the jurisdiction of political bodies may not appear to be formidable； but it is only the more immense。 It does not directly coerce the subject； but it renders the majority more absolute over those in power； it does not confer an unbounded authority on the legislator which can be exerted at some momentous crisis； but it establishes a temperate and regular influence； which is at all times available。 If the power is decreased； it can； on the other hand； be more conveniently employed and more easily abused。 By preventing political tribunals from inflicting judicial punishments the Americans seem to have eluded the worst consequences of legislative tyranny； rather than tyranny itself； and I am not sure that political jurisdiction； as it is constituted in the United States； is not the most formidable weapon which has ever been placed in the rude grasp of a popular majority。 When the American republics begin to degenerate it will be easy to verify the truth of this observation； by remarking whether the number of political impeachments augments。*d
＇Footnote b： Chap。 I。 sect。 ii。 Section 8。＇
＇Footnote c： See the constitutions of Illinois； Maine； Connecticut； and Georgia。＇
＇Footnote d： See Appendix； N。
＇The impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 … which was resorted to by his political opponents solely as a means of turning him out of office； for it could not be contended that he had been guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors； and he was in fact honorably acquitted and reinstated in office … is a striking confirmation of the truth of this remark。 … Translator's Note； 1874。＇＇
Chapter VIII： The Federal Constitution … Part I
I have hitherto considered each State as a separate whole； and I have explained the different springs which the people sets in motion； and the different means of action which it employs。 But all the States which I have considered as independent are forced to submit； in certain cases； to the supreme authority of the Union。 The time is now come for me to examine separately the supremacy with which the Union has been invested； and to cast a rapid glance over the Federal Constitution。
Chapter Summary
Origin of the first Union … Its weakness … Congress appeals to the constituent authority … Interval of two years between this appeal and the promulgation of the new Constitution。
History Of The Federal Constitution
The thirteen colonies which simultaneously threw off the yoke of England towards the end of the last century professed； as I have already observed； the same religion； the same language； the same customs； and almost the same laws； they were struggling against a common enemy； and these reasons were sufficiently strong to unite them one to another； and to consolidate them into one nation。 But as each of them had enjoyed a s