CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

or the

UNITED STATES

BY

WESTEL WooDBURY WILLoughby, PH. D.
~~
Professor of Political Science, Johns Hopkins University; Managing Editor
American Political Science Æeview; Author of “The American Con-
stitutional System,” “The Supreme Court of the United
S.ates: Its Place and Influence in our Consti-
tutional System,” “The Nature of the
State,” “Rights and Duties of
American Citizen-
ship,” etc.

VOL. II

NEW YORK :
BAKER, VOORHIS & COMPANY

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

WOLUME I.

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - -

TABLE of CoNTENTs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE of Cases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TEXT or THE CoNSTITUTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CHAPTER I.

THE SUPREMACY of THE CoNSTITUTION.

SECTION 1. The Courts and Unconstitutional Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Marbury v. Madison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Criticism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. The expediency of this judicial power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. The courts do not “nullify " laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SECTION 6.

7. Legislative motives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. Expediency and reasonableness of legislation not subject to

judicial determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9. Presumption in favor of the constitutionality of an act

of Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. Presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a state

statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ll. The force of contemporaneous or long continued legislative.

interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12. Legislative and executive practice not absolutely binding.

13. Extrinsic evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14. Technical terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15. The interpretative value of debates in constitutional con-

ventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16. The Federalist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17. History of the times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18. The interpretative value of legislative debates. . . . . . . . . . .

19. Resort to the preamble for purpose of construction. . . .

20. “We, the People”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21. “Constitution ”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22. “Common defense and general welfare ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23. The Constitution is to be construed as a whole. . . . . . . . .

24. So-called “natural ” or “unwritten constitutional * laws

25.

CHAPTER II.

PRINCIPLES OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.

Circumstances under which the courts will hold an act of

Congress void. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

have no constructive force. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The “spirit” of the Constitution...... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -