◆ SpookStack

-h- Honorable George Cochran Doub April 23, 1956 =_— 2 ie be - hw a -oT a Pe ee oe | _ -_ &sp well as with the SUaAtvES, and created a fundamental attack on our entire conception of a Federal republic - because, among other things, it ignores the most fundamental right of a state, its right of self-preservation. I need not repeat my arguments because the Department of Justice did support the Bill. 4. Yates. I don't know how the Department stands on Yates. I should think you would enthusiastically welcome it, even if you might prefer some other language. Perhaps it 4s not polite in form but this is not the firsat time rude is not polite form, but this is first language has been used by one department against another. Us- ually it has been Presidents in the past, or the Court in the past. So far as the substance is concerned, the correction of the construction of "organization" is plainly called for. The balance is, I think correct, or at least represents a rationai approach. There is a lot of law indicating that the clear and present danger doctrine should not block efforts to protect our national security. Certainly, the Vinson Court in the Dennis case had no difficulty. No human being can say that it is plainly unconstitutional, even though some might argue that the judicial engrafting of the rule on the First Amendment makes it a part of the Constitution in fields other than national secur- ity. I don't believe. 1t does, even in those fields. But to me it is utterly silly to argue for the subtle distinction, which the Judges themselves say is almost impossible to grasp in ef- fect, between advocating and inciting. It would be utterly un- reasonable to say that we are in what Justice Jackson calls such a judicial strait jacket, or a judge-made verbal trap, that the Government can't protect itself against advocacy of its violent overthrow on any theory that a little revolution or a slight pregnancy is all right and constitutionally protected. 5 Thie leaves Konigsbere alone to be discussed On . Sa Sa a ee we ee ee ee ee this I submit, first, there is ample precedent for the assertion of a power in Congress to alter appeilate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court bec&use - (a) The literal language of the Constitution clearly, in Article II, §22, vests the Supreme Court with orig- inal jurisdiction only in certain cases involving international matters. Since Marbury v. Madison expressly so held, original jurisdiction means the right to file in the Supreme Court orig- inally. The appellate jurisdiction under the saving clause is entirely a matter for Congress, and there is no excuse for read- ing into the clause "with such exceptions | and under such regula- ‘tions as the Congress shail make" except "where constitutional questions are involved" or words to that effect, merely because some people think that the jurisdiction should be frozen, (After