[29] Welldon (tr.), Book VI, chap. XIV (1888). Jowett and some others propose a different arrangement.
[30] John Locke. The Second Treatise on Civil Government, § 141. For the historical background of this principle, see P.W. Duff and H.E. Whiteside, "_Delegata Potestas Non P[=o]test Delegari_", _Selected Essays on Constitutional Law_, IV, 291-316 (1938).
[31] Panama Refining Co. _v._ Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935); Schechter Corp. _v._ United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
[35] Andrew C. McLaughlin, _A Constitutional History of the United States_, 81 (1935).
[38] Meyers _v._ United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).
[39] For the famous debate between "Pacificus" (Hamilton) and "Helvidius" (Madison), see E.S. Corwin, _The President's Control of Foreign Relations_, chap. I (1917).
[40] Writings of Thomas Jefferson, V, 209 (P.L. Ford, ed.; 1895).
[44] Fleming _v._ Page, 9 How. 602 (1850).
[45] United States _v._ Tingy, 5 Pet. 115, 122.
[50] United States _v._ Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220.
[55] _Constitutional Government in the United States_, 70 (1908).
[56] _See_ E.S. Corwin. _Total War and the Constitution_, 35-77 (1947).
[58] _See_ E.S. Corwin. _Liberty Against Government_, Chaps. III, IV (1948).
[59] "... the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his consent". _Second Treatise_, § 138.
[60] Van Home's Lessee _v._ Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304, 310 (1795).
[61] Calder _v._ Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388-389 (1798). _See also_ Loan Association _v._ Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 (1875).
[62] Bank of Columbia _v._ Okely, 4 Wheat. 235, 244.
[63] Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 How. 393, 450 (1857).
[65] Ibid. 390-392. The absolute veto of the Court of Appeals in the Wynehamer case was replaced by the Supreme Court, under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, by a more flexible doctrine, which left it open to the State to show reasonable justification for that type of legislation in terms of acknowledged ends of the Police Power, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety and morals. _See_ Mugler _v._ Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); and for a transitional case, Bartemeyer _v._ Iowa, 18 Wall. 129 (1874).
[66] The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 78-82 (1873). The opinion of the Court was focused principally on the privileges and immunities clause, and the narrow construction given it at this time is still the law of the Court. But Justices Bradley and Swayne pointed out the potentialities of the due process of law clause, and the former's interpretation of it may be fairly regarded as the first step toward the translation by the Court of "liberty" as Freedom on Contract.