written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to
limit a power, in its own nature, inimitable.

"Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate
them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and
consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act
of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. This theory
is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, consequently,
to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of
our society."

And of the same opinion was Montesquieu who gave the high authority of the
_Esprit des Lois_ to the declaration that

"There is no liberty if the power of judging be not separate from the
legislative and executive powers; were it joined with the legislative
the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary
control."

It is to be observed that the wit of man has not yet devised any better
way of reaching a just conclusion as to whether a statute does or does not
conflict with a constitutional limitation upon legislative power than the
submission of the question to an independent and impartial court. The
courts are not parties to the transactions upon which they pass. They are
withdrawn by the conditions of their office from participation in business
and political affairs out of which litigations arise. Their action is
free from the chief dangers which threaten the undue extension of power,
because, as Hamilton points out in The Federalist, they are the weakest
branch of government: they neither hold the purse, as does the legislature,
nor the sword, as does the executive. During all our history they have