On the other hand, where there is this requirement of unanimity of vote for purposes of constitutional amendment, a Confederacy is not necessarily created, any more than the absence of such a provision denotes the existence of a Federal State. To be sure, under such a condition, no individual State can be further deprived of any of its powers without its own consent, yet, on the other hand, it may not legally escape from the obligations already imposed upon it by the constitution, or withdraw from the union. Where there is not this power on the part of a State of avoiding obligations already created, the Sovereignty must be held to rest with the central authority. The fact that the unanimous vote of the federated States is necessary means only that the federal State has made the act of altering its actual competence extremely difficult. In other words, no one individual State has the legal power to alter its actual legal competence, and hence is not sovereign. The central State alone has the power of constitutional amendment, though it is a power subject to extreme formal limitation. But the fact that it is so formally limited does not mean that the power does not exist, any more than it can be claimed that the old Polish assembly did not have legislative power because of the existence of the liberum veto. Practically, of course, in any State of developing civilization, such a condition as this in which the individual State has not the power of secession, and, at the same time, the central power cannot change its governmental powers except under conditions that in the great majority of cases could not be obtained, would soon prove unworkable and would precipitate a revolution either by way of secession on the part of the individual States, or by an unconstitutional enlargement of central powers.

fourths of the States can compel the remaining one-fourth to give up a further portion of their attributes contrary to their will." Pomeroy, Constitutional Law, p. 111.

Fourthly, and finally, the distinction between a Federal and a Confederate State is not one of enumerated or unenumerated powers. It is not a question, as has been already said, of the amount of powers actually exercised at any one time by the central government. Even Westerkamp, who holds the distinction between these two types of union to be a quantitative rather than a qualitative one, does not place any weight upon this feature.24

The True Test. The final test in all cases is, as has been so many times said, the power or lack of power of the individual State to determine the extent of its own obligations under the articles of union, and, in the last resort, if their view be not acquiesced in by the general government, to withdraw from the union. Where it is constitutionally provided that, in case of alleged conflict between federal and state law, such conflict shall be considered by a federal tribunal whose decrees are enforceable by the federal executive, then, in such case, a Bundesstaat certainly exists. If, on the other hand, it be held that a dissatisfied State has the right of secession, there is only a provisional right of federal enforcement, namely, provisional upon the consent of the State to remain in the union.

Nullification. The doctrine of nullification which grants to the individual members of the union the right to refuse obedience to any general law that it deems inconsistent with the articles of union is of course applicable only to a Confederacy. But even there it cannot be termed a legal "right" of nullification. Each member of the union, being completely sovereign, may govern its action by its own will, and no other member may legally say nay. But, as a practical proposition, it is inconceivable that the assertion of such a power on the part of a particular State would not lead to disruption of the union. "Staatenbund und Bundesstaat, p. 45.

For it can scarcely be imagined that the other members would consent to the avoidance by such State of the execution of a part of the general law while they held themselves bound to it. Such a condition of affairs would, in fact, result, ipso facto, in a destruction of the union to that extent, its sole purpose being to secure a concert of action in matters of general interest. It would, indeed, be a just casus belli against the State so refusing obedience to the agreement in which it bound itself to common action. Jefferson, the author of the Kentucky Resolutions, himself asserted the propriety of even a confederate government coercing a State when he wrote to Cartwright advising the Congress of the old Confederacy to send a frigate and compel a State to pay its quota of taxes.

American and German Federations Contrasted. The foregoing has had reference to the essential juristic distinction between Confederacies and Federal States. It has been seen that the difference is not a quantitative one as to the number or importance of the powers which are exercised by the central government. With reference to most of the functions of government it is a matter of policy rather than of constitutional or juristic necessity as to which of them shall be exercised by organs and agencies of the central government or by the member States through their several governmental organizations. Thus the United States and the German Republic are both types of Federal States, but they differ widely in this respect. The United States is legislatively decentralized; that is, the great body of the private law is furnished by each State of the union for its own citizens. The subjects of legislation that are placed within the control of the national congress, though very important, are not many in number. From the governmental point of view, however, the United States is a highly developed

Federal Union, for there exists a complete central governmental machinery-executive and judicial as well as legislative through which all the federal powers are exercised. Only in a very few instances are federal laws enforced through the agencies of the individual State.

As contrasted with the United States, the German Republic is legislatively highly centralized. The entire body of the private law and judicial procedure, civil and criminal, is within the control of the national Parliament, the States retaining legislative powers only with reference to their own public law and local police. When, however, it comes to the interpretation and execution of the law thus federally determined, the governments of the States are relied upon. Thus the executive branch of the national government includes only those bureaus or departments which have to deal with certain national matters the execution of which it is impossible to concede to the States, and there is no complete judicial system such as is found in the United States.

It does not need to be pointed out that it is an element of weakness for the Federal State to be obliged to resort to the authorities of the member States for the enforcement of its commands. In Germany, however, this weakness under the Empire was rendered negligible by reason of the fact that one State-Prussia-had a prestige and military power that made futile any attempt upon the part of the other States to resist its will, and that the King of this State was ex officio Emperor of the Union and constitutionally vested with the duty of bringing back into obedience to federal authority such States as might be declared by the Bundesrath to be derelict in the performance of their imperial duties. In such cases the imperial coercion was to be applied directly to the States concerned.

In the United States the existence of complete execu

tive and judicial departments makes possible the vindication of national supremacy by applying compulsion to the individuals who resist the national authority. If, in justification of this resistance, these individuals appeal to laws or executive orders which their respective States have issued, the reply is that, insofar as those laws or orders are in violation of the Federal Constitution or laws, they are without legal force and therefore furnish no legal defence for any actions taken in pursuance of them. Thus, in constitutional theory, the American Civil War of 1861-1865 was a contest carried on by the United States against the citizens of the eleven Southern States which had sought to withdraw from the union, rather than against those States themselves.

Citizenship in Federal States. In all federally organized States the aim is to harmonize the continued existence of the member States with the maintainance of national unity and strength. Thus we find alongside of national citizenship the recognition of a State citizenship which has no real analogue in the most autonomous local government areas of unitary States.

In the United States there was for many years a dispute as to the constitutional nexus or relation between federal and state citizenship-whether the former depended upon or arose out of the latter or vice versa― and this controversy was not finally settled until the adoption, in 1868, of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. This made it certain that federal citizenship was to be held paramount to State citizenship, for, upon the one hand, the States were permitted to play no part in determining who should be deemed citizens of the United States, and, upon the other hand, they were not henceforth to be able to control their own citizenship since it was provided that any person enjoying national citizenship should, by mere residence within a State