Closely allied to the assertion that the Constitution is to be interpreted in the light of "natural law," is the doctrine that the fundamental purpose of the constitutional fathers was the erection of a free republican government, and that, therefore, the be absolute and without control; although the authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution, or fundamental law of the State. The people of the United States erected their Constitution or form of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence. The purposes for which men enter into society will determine the nature and terms of the social compact; and as they are the foundations of the legislative power they will decide what are the proper objects of it. The nature and ends of the legislative power will limit the exercise of it. This fundamental principle follows from the very nature of our republican governments, that no man should be compelled to do what the laws do not require; nor to refrain from acts which the laws permit. There are acts which the federal or state legislatures cannot do without exceeding their authority. There are certain vital principles in our free republican governments which will determine and overrule an apparent and flagrant abuse of legislative power; as to authorize manifest injustice by positive law; or to take away that security for personal liberty or private property, for the protection whereof the government was established. An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principle of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of the legislative authority. The obligation of a law in governments established on express compact, and on republican principles must be determined by the nature of the power on which it is founded. A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. A law that punished a citizen for an innocent action, or, in other words, for an act which, when done, was in violation of no existing law; a law that destroys, or impairs, the lawful private contracts of citizens; a law that makes a man a judge in his own cause; a law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit of our state governments amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them. The legislature may enjoin, permit, forbid and punish; they may declare new crimes; and establish rules of conduct for all its citizens in future cases; they may command what is right and prohibit what is wrong; but they cannot change innocence into guilt; or punish innocence as a crime; or violate the right of an antecedent lawful private contract: or the right of private property. To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if they had not been expressly restrained, would in my opinion be a political heresy, altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments."

Constitution should, whatever its express terms may provide, never be so construed as to violate the abstract principles deducible from this fundamental fact. Generally speaking, whereas the so-called natural laws have reference to the .private rights of the citizen, the protection of his person and property; these principles claimed to be deducible from the spirit of the Constitution as the framework of a free government have reference to the public and political rights of the individual.

Stated in this abstract, philosophical form, the doctrine that the "Spirit" of the Constitution is to prevail over its language has no more legal validity than has the doctrine of natural law.