338 BURR— THE TREATY-MAKING POWER [April 20, 



Richard Henry Lee, another delegate from \'irginia, gave similar 

 reasons : 



" In the new Constitution, the President and Senate have all the execu- 

 tive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some' weighty instances (as 

 making all kinds of treaties, which are to he the laws of the land), they 

 have the whole legislative and executive powers."""' 



Patrick Henry was a violent opponent of the adoption of the 

 Constitution in the Virginia debates. The reporter says that he 

 urged that 



" the power of making treaties, by this Constitution, ill-guarded as it is, 

 extended farther than it did in any country in the world. — Treaties were to 

 have more force here than in any part of Christendom. For he defied any 

 gentleman to shew anything so extensive in any strong energetic government 

 in Europe. Treaties rest, says he, on the laws and usages of nations. To 

 say that they are municipal, is, to me, a doctrine totally novel. To make them 

 paramount to the Constitution, and laws of the states, is unprecedented. I 

 would give them the same force and obligation they have in Great Britain, or 

 any other country in Europe. Gentlemen are going on in a fatal career ; but 

 I hope they will stop before they concede this power unguarded and un- 

 altered.'"'' 



In the North Carolina convention, Mr. Bloodworth thus opposed 

 the supremacy assigned to the acts of Congress and to the treaty- 

 making power: 



" This clause will be the destruction of every law which will come in 

 competition with the laws of the United States. Those laws and regulations 

 which have been, or shall be made in this state, must be destroyed by it if 

 they come in competition with the powers of Congress. "^^^ 



To him Governor Johnston thus replied: 



" The Constitution must be the supreme law of the land, otherwise it 

 will be in the power of any one state to counteract the other states, and with- 

 draw itself from the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Con- 

 gress, ought to be the supreme law of the land, otherwise any one state might 

 repeal the laws of the Union at large. Without this clause, the whole Con- 

 stitution would be a piece of blank paper. Every treaty should be the 

 supreme law of the land; without this, any one state might involve the whole 

 Union in war.""*'' 



''" Ibid., Vol. I., p. 503, Ed. of 1854. 



«' Ibid., Vol. II., p. 368. 



"* Ibid., Vol. III., p. 160. 



■"=' Ibid., Vol. III., p. 166. 



