What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
according administration adopted American annual appeared apportionment assembly Association authority Board Bulletin candidates committee Congress Constitution Contained convention course court delegates Democratic Department discussion districts documents early election fact federal give given Governor held Historical Society House important institutions instruction interest Iowa City issued January John Journal judges Justice League legislation legislature Lincoln lines March matter meeting ment Michigan Moines municipal Murphy names nature nomination officers organization original passed period persons political parties population present President primary primary election Printed printer published question records reference relation representation representatives Republican Science Secretary Senate session Society of Iowa Stephens Supreme Court Territory tion Union United University of Iowa volume vote Wisconsin
Page 289 - There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal, that the servant is above his master, that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves, that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only...
Page 289 - To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal ; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves ; that men, acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.
Page 463 - If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery . . . .
Page 290 - 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.
Page 464 - The constitution confers absolutely on the government of the union the powers of making war, and of making treaties ; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.
Page 296 - The rule applicable here is that effect is to be given, if possible, to the whole instrument, and to every section and clause. If different portions seem to conflict, the courts must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative, rather than one which may make some words idle and nugatory.
Page 448 - Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.
Page 447 - ... the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one.
Page 227 - I do not profess to be posted in history. On all such matters I will turn you over to Seward. All I distinctly recollect about the case of Charles I, is, that he lost his head in the end.
Page 290 - 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...