◆ SpookStack

a ee nn QO a, determined in the state court by an order or judgment subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States on writ of certiorari. The bill would also limit review of an order denying an applicetion for a writ of habeas corpus to a petition for a writ of certlorari in the Supreme Court which must be filed within thirty deys sfter the entry of such order. This bill has been supported by the Department of Justice which has joined with the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Association of State Attorneys General in urging its enactments. Although the department supports thesé four measures there is one which it earnestly opposes 4H. R, which, although not reported by the Judiciary Committee, will probably be offered as an amendment tres, 337 which hes been reported. H. R. 3 is designed to revive certain state laws previously held unconstitutional because cof their conflict with federal statutes. It proposes to change the effect of these federal statutes, not by openly amending them but by passing a retrcactive rule of interpretation to change the meaning the courts have given to the words now contained in thease etatuteas utthané shaw ete a ee er > ee ee att de an GVOGSS SUACULeS Wa VOOUR VLitlip, tiie, the WelDUus LOUGIBCLVES. The Didt 125 oOo broadly drawn that its effect can not be foretold and if it is effective, it must change the meaning of statutes conclusively interpreted many years ago, basic statutes under which millions of dollars have been invested and under which important huran relationships heve become fixed. Section 1 reads as follows: "No Act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to occupy the field in which such Act operates, to the exclusion of all State laws on the same subject matter, unless such Act cohtains an express provision to that effect, or uniess there is a direct and “positive conflict between such Act and a State law so that the two cansot be reconciled or consistently stand together." This section would attempt to apply a new rule for determining. the PSrkent of not only the present Congress or of a future Congress, but also previous Congresses whose intent is a long concluded fact not subject to change by legislative Fiat. It would provide thet there was no intent to anenry a Fiala +a ¢ha satan nf Ohad. Taeem see laad faaers li rete hae cOnteins an "express erovision’ to that effect or unless there is a “direct and positive conflict" ao that they cannot consistently stand together. There are relatively few federal statutes containing express provisions preempting the field. Major lavs relating to interstate enterprises, And others in fields of heretofore undoubted federal pre-eminence, such as pankruptcy and immigration, contain no such provisions. In these fieids there is serious question as to the effect of Section 1 upon heretofore existing court rules of interpretation - whether there is any difference ~3-