Talk:Downes v. Bidwell

The article cites FindLaw for the text "... two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions, the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument. By exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will result ... We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism ... It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence."

Looking at FindLaw a few moments ago, I find the similar but not word-for-word text "The idea prevails with some-indeed, it found expression in agruments at the bar-that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise. It is one thing to give such a latitudinarian construction to the Constitution as will bring the exercise of power by Congress, upon a particular occasion or upon a particular subject, within its provisions. It is quite a different thing to say that Congress may, if it so elects, proceed outside of the Constitution. The glory of our American system [182 U.S. 244, 381] of government is that it was created by a written constitution which protects the people against the exercise of arbitrary, unlimited power, and the limits of which instrument may not be passed by the government it created, or by any branch of it, or even by the people who ordained it, except by amendment or change of its provisions." (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=182&invol=244) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkpixel (talk • contribs) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Downes v. Bidwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603033716/http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/261/romafram.html to http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/frames/261/romafram.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)