◆ SpookStack

U v7, Euncrarle George Cochran Doub April 23, 1958 of course, At is not necessary far anyhadyw tn oe ae er ee aie Oe ee ee a ed aoe Wwe wait y a bee a _ that some argument cannot be made against constitutionality which indeed the Court will have to settle if and when it is made. But where a Bill is prima facie constitutional, as it certainly is in view of the unreversed decisions of the Supreme Court and of such authoritative commentators as Corwin, it is hardiy subject to administrative objection on that ground. ue: (d) The Konigsberg case asserts the power of Coangereaace 4ir an avytramalyw bimitad fiala erhann thea Ctateae al. a | VONEPESs mn @n ]@xeur SMOoayY 2aMmivea L1sacuGd, WNErS Ne SUECeEs Si0uUiG never have oveen deprived of jurisdiction in the first piace, It is not subject to the objections which could be made to the other sections of the original Jenner Bill because one can agree with most conservative lawyers that the power shouid be sparingly exercised, and yet agree, or at least not oppose, its exercise in such an extremely narrow field as the Konigsberg area. The right to practice law in a state court is (i) a privilege; (2) granted by the state; (3) no Federal right is involved; (4) no uniformity is necessary; (5) there is appellate jurisdiction already in state courts, so no chaos could resuit; (6) the Court never should have intervened in tie first place if it had ad- hered to its doctrine of political restraint in what is a pol- itical matter, namely, ‘state policy as to professional standards required of lawyers practicing before its courts; (/) Renquist, March 1955 A.B,A. Journal, demonstrates that the Supreme Court in its anxiety to reverse this case reviewed the facts and tried it de novo in the Supreme Court. Such an extension ot ite jur- fara h ad a Aina weroaredcn rnse Ma seo t isdiction has made every case a due process case, 40 S55ert that state courts cannot be trusted with constitutional questions is of course to deny the power of Congress under the language of Article III, §2(2). The most atrongly urged and most persuasive attack on the other sections of the original Jenner Billi, such as lack of a coordinating appellate jurisdiction, with chaccic results; Federal rights instead of state privileges, etc., are not in- yolved in Konigsberg at a1]. Here we have a simple case of another last stand of state sovereignty - can the state courts determine who will be their own officers, or who will have the privilege of practicing law, without interference by the Federal overnment? Surely, in Lhis limited field there is no reason why Congress should not say the state courts shall have the final say, even if the wisdom of extending it to other fields should be doubted - though, as 1 have said in the first place, I do not doubt the power. Indeed, the time may well come, if the Court continues on its present frolic - when the jails will be emptied of ail ordinary criminals convicted under ordinary criminal state laws having nothing to do with communism, such as Mallory,