It is a general law in politics, that the power most to be distrusted, is that which, poss

essing the greatest force, is the least responsible. Under the constitutional monarchies of Europe, (as they exist in theory at least, ) the king besides uniting in his single person all the authority of the executive, which includes a power to make war, create peers, and unconditionally to name all employments, has an equal influence in enacting laws, his veto being absolute; but in America, the executive, besides being elective, is stripped of most of these high sources of influence, and is obliged to keep constantly in view the justice and. legality of his acts, both on account of his direct responsibilities, and on account of the force of public opinion.

In this country, there is far more to apprehend from Congress, than from the executive, as is seen in the following reasons: —Congress is composed of many, while the executive is one, bodies of men notoriously acting with less personal responsibilities than individuals; congress has power to enact laws, which it becomes the duty of the executive to see enforced, and the rally legislative authority of a country is always its greatest authority; from the decisions and constructions of the executive, the citizen can always appeal to the courts for protection, but no appeal can lie from the acts of congress, except on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the executive has direct personal responsibilities under the laws of the land, for any abuses of his authority, but the member of congress unless guilty of open corruption, is almost beyond personal liabilities.

It follows that the legislature of this country, by the intention of the constitution, wields the highest authority under the least responsibility, and that it is the power most to be distrusted. Still, all who possess trusts, are to be diligently watched, for there is no protection against abuses without responsibility, nor any real responsibility, without vigilance.

Political partisans, who are too apt to mistake the impulses of their own hostilities and friendships for truths, have laid down many false principles on the subject of the duties of the executive. When a law is passed, it goes to the executive for execution, through the executive agents, and, at need to the courts for interpretation. It would seem that there is no discretion vested in the executive concerning the constitutionality of a law. If he distrusts the constitutionality of any law, he can set forth his objections by resorting to the veto; but it is clearly the intention of the system that the whole legislative power, in the last resort, shall abide in congress, while it is necessary to the regular action of the government, that none of its agents, but those who are especially appointed for that purpose, shall pretend to interpret the constitution, in practice. The citizen is differently situated. If he conceives himself oppressed by an unconstitutional law, it is his inalienable privilege to raise the question before the courts, where a final interpretation can be had. By this interpretation the executive and all his agents are equally bound to abide. This obligation arises from the necessity of things, as well as from the nature of the institutions. There must be somewhere a power to decide on the constitutionality of laws, and this power is vested in the supreme court of the United States, on final appeal.

The author's purpose in writing this passage is to indicate ______.

A．the difference between kings and presidents

B．the power of the Supreme Court

C．the limitations of the presidency

D．the irresponsibility of Congress