Citizen Advocates for Constitutional Principles
Constitutional Gems - # 818 - 05-05-2008
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
Send us your comments about issues in this newsletter.
This is always a free subscription! We guarantee our subscription list is never shared with any third party. Ever!
|
|
|
Did
you miss an issue of Gems. Find it at CACP.info
To
unsubscribe click
here.
© 2007 - Citizen Advocates for
Constitutional Principles, Inc.
|
Select from menu for CACP page.
|