Wynehamer v People.pdf - The University of Texas at Austin

476 CASES IN THE COURT OF APPEALS.Wynehamer against The People.troll able as laws flowing from the sovereign power underany other form of government." (1 Kent's Com., 441.)It is claimed that courts, independent of constitutionallimitations upon legislative power, have the right to annulstatutes and pronounce them void, whenever, in their judgment,they are in conflict with the fundamental principlesof the government and tend to individual oppression,although not in conflict with'any provision of the constitutionof the United States or of the state. I know of nosuch power vested in the courts, and they should neverattempt to usurp it. The limitations upon legislativepower are written in the fundamental law, and that is thestandard by which all questions of power exercised by thelegislature must be tried. To this extent the question is alegitimate one for adjudication by the courts, as 1he constructionof the fundamental law necessarily falls withintheir province. Nor does this involve the philosophicalabsurdity insisted upon by some writers, of the inferiorpower annulling the acts of the superior; because, uponour theory of government, the legislature is powerlesswhen it attempts to pass the limits prescribed by the constitution.To this extent, under a written constitution,this power may be safely and properly exercised by thecourts, and, indeed, its exercise often becomes necessary toprevent the encroachments of power, and to protect rightsshielded by the constitution.But, beyond this, such a power, exercised by the courts,would be a mere veto or dispensing power. No such poweris conferred by the constitution, nor does it pertain to thejudicial functions. Lord Campbell, in a recent case (Woodwardv. Watts, 2 E. Sf B., 457, 75 C. L. II.), emphaticallydisclaims any such jurisdiction on the part of the Englishcourts as that habitually exercised by our courts in thisrespect. Indeed, without a written constitution, it has nofoundation to stand upon.