Strict Versus Loose Construction
495
Connecticut, to air their grievances and consider remedial action. The Report and Resolutions adopted by the Convention reflected deep dissatisfaction with the policies of the Jeffersonian Republicans, the administration of President Madison and the War of 1812, and the dominant
influence of the southern States in national affairs. The Hartford delegates complained about patronage, the Judiciary Act of 1801 abolishing
certain Federal district courts, ‘‘the easy admission of naturalized foreigners to places of trust, honor and profit,’’ the anti-British and proFrench stance of the Republican Party, and ‘‘the admission of new States
into the Union . . . [that] has destroyed the balance of power which existed among the original States, and deeply affected their interest.’’ Above
all, they objected to the wartime commercial policies of the Republicans,
which were injurious, they believed, to New England needs and interests.
To correct these problems, they proposed the adoption of seven constitutional amendments. Failing in that, they were prepared to consider
more drastic action, and hinted at a possible withdrawal from the Union.
If, said the Report, they were unsuccessful in getting the changes they
wanted, ‘‘it will, in the opinion of this Convention, be expedient for the
legislatures of the several States to appoint delegates to another Convention to meet in Boston.’’ When commissioners of the Convention arrived
in Washington to present their Resolutions, however, they decided to
abandon their mission after learning that the War of 1812 was over. The
Hartford Convention thus came to nothing, and the New England States
thereafter became reconciled to the Union.
The several States, notwithstanding their claims, have thus never established themselves as final interpreters of the Constitution, even to the
point of secession. Like Congress and the President, their primary interpretive role, once the Supreme Court has spoken on the issue, has been
to offer their own interpretations as mere recommendations, objections,
or expressions of opinion.
Strict Versus Loose Construction
In addition to arguing that the several States have a role to play in constitutional interpretation, many advocates of limited constitutional government have also insisted that there should be a rule of interpretation