enough to last for all time and that the burden of proof is on the judge who would declare unconstitutional a law within the broad words of the preamble of the constitution.
"How are we to determine when the purpose of a law, in the field of police power, and unaffected by any express prohibition, is legitimate? It seems the answer is easy. Look first to the purpose of the Constitution, found in the declaration, 'Grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquillity and promote the general welfare' we 'do establish this Constitution.' Then to the central thought—the very superstructure—upon which the whole was builded: 'All men are born equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' There is voiced a broad spirit, covering as this court has, in effect, many times said, a field as limitless as are human needs. The language was not used for mere rhetorical ornamentation or effect, but to suggest the permissible scope of legislation in the zone of general welfare, its extent and its limitations…
"So here, as it seems, the initial question was this: Is the purpose of the law legitimate, within the broad dominating spirit mentioned? The answer must be yes, as the manifest purpose is to promote every element of the central thought of the Constitution. Anything fairly within that has always been and must, necessarily always, be held legitimate. Keeping in mind that in the selection of means the Legislature has a very broad comprehensive field in which to freely make a choice, the next question is, Are the means contemplated reasonably appropriate to the end to be attained? Not are they the best means, but are they proper