Mr. Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court, writing, in part,
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles . …
[T]here is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. …
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Today’s readers come from Canada, Germany, and the United States—including, I am reminded, the seventh floor here at Happy Acres. Thanks to everyone for stopping by.