◆ SpookStack

, ineamiten. be, sou age noms hava Fevived public in- ound knowledge af its coun- ee tun ons is another fatter entirety, he Bee PRL, o The principal ‘reason “why, ‘this mist -yemain « question ‘without a quick answer are these;.1. The lxxues n the equal rights bill avet which senators are contending are rooted are exceedingly difficult to report in terms nondlawyers will understand. 2. The American people have been scribes for itself and cannot’ be ref duced without viplating ee Con- stitution, A 3 ~ i very @oubtful whether there js gen- | a eral ynderstanding of the legal te objections that were an important cause of the rejection of Part TIt‘in the equal rights bill. Though these objections were exhaustively stated in the Senate debate, and reported | “Top cu aay Ot a te FROM -o_,, MARKED ae tA] AND INTIAL Pe “ are hard going for the lay chroni- cler and the lay reader. Part III cent’ @uprenie’ Court Aas z ae ‘gubject. ag how fuck the in judicial Process, end therefore conditioned to ef. that the! jurisdiction of 1 Hextends to whatever ts it pre- onty where ‘acts of Congress had conferred it. The precedent was _ established in Wisoart v, Daschy,| at great length in the press, they j tution, either in letter or in spirit, as some ‘who have criticized it Appear peieae “the “Supreme ‘Court ftnelf “since 1767 has accepted the broad power | of Congress to fix the area of its appellate jurisdiction. The authority js - specifically’ given im Section 2, Article ITY, of the Constitution, and the traditional procedure ‘of the court wes to exercise its function | where the court held that in the ab-f sence of « specific statis it lacked | etion.. Even the dissenter, ; Justice Wilson, who generally con-| tended that the court's appellate area, derived from the Constitution, } cha therefore ‘could be exercised |: ‘a specific act of. Congress, agreed that this exercise would be invalid if Congress excluded the area in which it was made... | The Later Record. 24 gave the Attorney General author-§ Later Chiet Justice’ Mandan ‘tall (- ity: to Yavoke, in the name ‘of the Durotieseaw: v, the United States;|' | |i United Statés for any citizen, the agreeing with Justice Wilson on the} judtelat process of Injunctioti in ra- celal desegregation matters whether or’not the citizen sought this serv- ce. “Also it empowered him to apply f for junction before the fact of v-F olation on the ground -that it was “intended.” And it made the Federal courts thé enforcement arm of their own injunctioris in, theaa cases, These legal innovations, 2 after their : effects had been déscribed at feng to the Senate by opponents, were ] rejected by a large majority: But most Senators are lawyers, and all | hed ari “opportunity to be educated ga the insues at first hand.” Both of inet ee were denied tp most (Ga BIERE Gk NOT RECORDED. | a ‘at ) ception. ‘And in the Yamous key] source of the court's. appellate jur-} isdictional powers, ruled, however, [ that Section. 2,..Article Ty, granted Congress control of this witheut ex: |) aan . at a J case—ex parte McCardly (1860}— after the Supreme Court had taken a habeas corpus writ under advise-, ment _ Congress ‘withdrew ite juris- ik diction over that particuler type of habeas corpus proceedings, and the}} court then dismissed the case me ‘Inck of authority to‘review.- ais? °: He and when the study of Ameri-f- ¢ai Jistory in the achools and calf]. leges_ia mufficlently stressed ang] well “enough taught to. product #4 Bon ee et ar tating average odteated Briton fe