dissenting opinion of the four, written by Chief Justice Fuller,
concludes:

I regard this decision as inconsistent with the views of the
framers of the Constitution, and of Marshall, its great
expounder. Our form of government may remain notwithstanding
legislation or decision, but, as long ago observed, it is with
governments, as with religions, the form may survive the
substance of the faith.

[Footnote 1: _Champion v. Ames_, 188 U.S., 321.]

[Footnote 2: _Hammer v. Dagenhart_, 247 U.S., 251.]

[Footnote 3: _United States v. Doremus_, 249 U.S., 86.]

Whatever view one may hold to-day as to the question of expediency, no
thoughtful mind can escape the conclusion that, in a very real and
practical sense, the Constitution has changed. In a way change is
inevitable to adapt it to the conditions of the new age. There is
danger, however, that in the process of change something may be lost;
that present-day impatience to obtain desired results by the shortest
and most effective method may lead to the sacrifice of a principle of
vital importance.

The men who framed the Constitution were well advised when they sought
to preserve the integrity of the states as a barrier against the
aggressions and tyranny of the majority acting through a centralized
power. The words "state sovereignty" acquired an odious significance in
the days of our civil struggle, but the idea for which they stand is