In the Federal Convention of 1787 the idea of state coercion
required little discussion; for the members were soon convinced
that it involved an impracticable, illogical, and unjust
principle. The prevailing view was voiced by Oliver Ellsworth
before the Connecticut ratifying convention: "We see how
necessary for Union is a coercive principle. No man pretends to
the contrary.... The only question is, shall it be a coercion
of law or a coercion of arms? There is no other possible
alternative. Where will those who oppose a coercion of law come
out? ...A necessary consequence of their principles is a war
of the States one against the other. I am for coercion by law,
that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals." If
anything, these words somewhat exaggerate the immunity of the
States from direct control by the National Government, for, as
James Madison pointed out in the "Federalist," "in several cases
...they [the States] must be viewed and proceeded against in
their collective capacities." Yet Ellsworth stated correctly the
controlling principle of the new government: it was to operate
upon individuals through laws interpreted and enforced by its own
courts.

A Federal Judiciary was provided for in every Plan offered on the
floor of the Federal Convention. There was also a fairly general
agreement among the members on the question of "judicial
independence." Indeed, most of the state constitutions already
made the tenure of the principal judges dependent upon their good
behavior, though in some cases judges were removable, as in
England, upon the joint address of the two Houses of the
Legislature. That the Federal judges should be similarly