...view of the earlier decisions, the Court very naturally answered the contention of counsel by saying: The idea that any legislature, State or Federal, can conclusively determine for the i*-ople and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorizes its agents...

...basis of judicial censorship may be stated in the words of the Supreme Court of the United States : The idea that any legislature, state or federal, can...when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see that no right secured by the supreme law of the land is impaired or destroyed by legislation. This...

...the subject of judicial inquiry." As the court further remarked, "the idea that any legislature . . . can conclusively determine for the people and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law ... is consistent with the fundamental law, is in opposition to the theory of our institutions." 1...

...conclusively determine for the people and for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law ... is consistent with the fundamental law, is in opposition to the theory of our institutions." 1 A notable assertion of the power of the courts to reject unreasonable acts of legislation, or so...

...land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. Article 6. The idea that any legislature. State or Federal, can...conclusively determine for the people and for the courts thnt what it enacts in the form of law, or what it ui.ithori7.es its agents to do, is consistent with...

...authority, that the matter may not become the subject of judicial inquiry. The court also held further that the idea that any legislature, state or federal, can conclusively determine for the people or for the courts that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorizes its agents to do, is...

...J. Herrlck argued the cause, and, with Mr. Chester M. Dawes, filed a brief for plaintiffs in error: The duty rests upon all courts, Federal and state, when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to declare unconstitutional and void any act of the legislature which impairs or destroys any right secured...

...J. Herrlck argued the cause, and, with Mr. Chester M. Dawes, flled a brief for plaintiffs in error: The duty rests upon all courts, Federal and state, when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to declare unconstitutional and void any act of the legislature which impairs or destroys any right secured...

...upon some theory of the general welfare. As the United States Supreme Court said in Smyth v. Ames: " "The idea that any legislature, state or federal,...when their jurisdiction is properly invoked, to see that no right secured by the supreme law of the land, is impaired or destroyed by legislation. This...

...view of the earlier decisions, the Court very naturally answered the contention of counsel by saying : The idea that any legislature, State or Federal, can...that what it enacts in the form of law, or what it authorises its agents to do, is consistent with the fundamental law, is in opposition to the theory...