[416] Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, McMaster and Stone, 254. Both Hamilton and Wilson were overruled by the public demand for a Bill of Rights, and the first ten Amendments were speedily added to the Constitution.
[417] Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheaton, 332 (1827); Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816); United States v. Aaron Burr, Cotton’s Constitutional Opinions of John Marshall, 1.100; Sturgis v. Crowningshield, 4 Wheaton, 122 (1819); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 264 (1821); Cooley, Constitutional Limitations, 6th Edition, 204.
[418] Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U. S., 425.
[419] The relation of the judiciary to ministerial officers has already been examined; see Chapters [VII] and [VIII]. But see in this connection, the Secretary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wallace, 298; United States v. Black, 128 U. S., 40; United States v. Windom, 137 U. S., 636; United States v. Blaine, 139 U. S., 306; State ex rel. v. Stone, 120 Missouri, 428.
[420] Pennsylvania, 1873, Art. iv. §16. This provision does not empower the Governor to cut down an item, but in practice, it is so construed.
[421] As sovereignty is a unit, any examination of particular aspects of it must be but a partial examination of its operations. The Constitution of the United States is a unit, in so far as the sovereignty,—the people of the United States,—have made it the expression of their plan of government. It follows that close examination of any department or feature of the Constitution as a plan of government discloses that feature in relation with other features; the Constitution is an expression of a mass of relations. Thus it is that a decision of the Supreme Court may relate to several matters, seemingly without relation, but necessarily co-related. The present chapter on [The Law of Limitations] discusses executive, legislative, and judiciary and the principles of government by which it acts. The entire subject of American constitutional law must be viewed as a whole. See Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S., 601 (1895); Field v. Clark, 143 U. S., 649 (1892). Also The Federalist, Nos. xliv.-lvi.
[422] Art. ii., 2: 2.
[423] American Insurance Company v. Canter, 1 Peters, 511.
[424] Amendments IX., X.
[425] Art. vi., 3. The ratifying conventions, 1788–9, formulated in the aggregate some two hundred amendments in the nature of provisions in a Bill of Rights. These, reduced to twelve, were presented by Madison (May 25, 1789) in the House of Representatives and were duly submitted to the States for ratification. Ten were ratified (1790).