These  constitutional  restrictions  it  is  the  duty  of  the  judi-
ciary to  make  eifective,  whenever  a  litigant  asserts  a  right  or
defends  his  action  under  a  statute  passed  in  derogation  of  the
Constitution;  but  this  is  not  because  the  judiciary  have  any
control  over  the  legislative  power,  but  because  the  act  is  for-
bidden by  the  Constitution,  and  the  Constitution  is  the  para-
mount law.
In  England,  under  the  unwritten  constitution.  Parliament
might  be  regarded  as  the  highest  court.     As  the  House  of


312      IMPLIED   LIMITATIONS    UPON   LBQISLATIVB   POWER.
'^  A  legislative  mandate  to  change  the  settled  interpretation
of  a  statute,  and  uproot  titles  depending  on  past  adjudications,
or  a  legislative  direction  to  perform  a  judicial  function  in  a
particular  way,  would  be  a  direct  violation  of  the  Constitution,
which  assigns  to  each  organ  of  the  government  its  exclusive
function  and  a  limited  sphere  of  action.  A  court  could  not  be
bound  by  a  mandate  to  decide  a  principle  or  a  cause  in  a  par-
ticular way.  Such  a  mandate  would  be  a  usurpation  of  judi-
cial power,  and  more  intolerable  in  its  exercise  than  a  legisla-
tive writ  of  error,  because  the  losing  party  would  be  concluded
by  it  without  being  heard.'*  (O'Conner  v8,  Warner,  4  W.
&  S.  227).
