◆ SpookStack

a a are 0-19 (Rev. 10-20-57} e & plo4 step aii conremamnd eewtioees The SupremenBowrt ” Le ; — shall have appellate jurisdic- | tion both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and ; under such regulations as the » Congress shall make.” & The word “exceptions” fs em- urisdiction aist it 1s clear, under the Con- arereaas that ¢C - ; ongress = can Trotter ” . ' ; make exceptions to the Supreme Clayton .: Congress Debate} Cours Juriegition, ong ot Tele. Room —— . “the bill. ane Holloman Is Under Way = Opponents’ View" Gandy WASHINGTON, May 117 (i — ‘The opponents, however, take A great constitutional debate is developing in Congress be- use two men were barred by thelr states from becoming | lawyers, ‘Their names aré not im- \, pbrtant. The’ constitutional ‘dior they stirred up is. 4 ine case arose in California. An applicant for the bar was ite: whether he had ever been Just as any other, can't stand by itself, The Constitution must be considered in the whole, and how one section “apples to - another. : % And they “question what would happen if a state tried ‘ ; to impose a rule for those seek- ing admission to the bar which i ‘clearly violated another section i of the Constitution. Would the > Supreme Court then be banned * from even hearing the case? f For example: Suppose a , state imposed a rule disbar~ ‘ a Communist. He refused to answer. The California board set up to rule on the qualifica- $ tions of applicants for the legal profession refused to edmit * . He appealed. The state upreme Court upheld thei? ring a lawyer without even a ( i hearing. That would violate ‘ i. the due process clause of . the Constitution, Would the * proposed law mean that a 1 the could could not uphold Kea :. the defendant's constitutional . | Fights? Or suppose a state ; had a qualification which waz k .° ¢learly discriminatory, in vio- Supreme Court reversed it, . New Mexico Case The second case developed in New Mexico. There, an ap- plicant for an, attorney's Heense|’ acknowledged he had been a member :of the Communist if arty for six or seven years in the 19308. The New T Mexico F » lation of the Federal Consti- board said that was enough to|? tution? Would the Supreme disqualify him; The state courts |z Court be barred there, toot held the same way. But the Opponents of the bill argue! “4 i , Supreme . Court again ruled otherwise. - The two cases és started a chain reaction in Congress. A series of bills was introduced to upset the Supreme Court rulings. Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee, by a 10 to 5 vote, approved a measure which | among other things would say that, hereafter, the Supreme _ Court should keep hands off of all cases involving the admis- sion of lawyers to practice before state courts, . Can Congress do this? Can Congress tell the Supreme Court it can’t even hear a par- ticular kind of case being ap- pealed to it? Thav’s where the great con- stitutional argument comes in, The lawyers will debate this with great heat.. i There’s no question that Con- |. gress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals cases. The Constitution in very “lear languere=grres Congress} | | dea Perst. Section 2, Article 3, that the measure heads in a dangerous direction which could make the Supreme Court a court in name only, with no cases at all to consider. Congressional leaders are giv- ing the bill acant hope fer Gprsteg. - jae Oy - Wash. Post and Times Herald Wash, News WWW Wash, Star N.Y. Herald 1 Tribune N.Y. Journal-.___. American N. Y. Mirror — 62, 21s LEA. N. Y. Daily News NOT RECORDED N. Y. Times - vay oe) 423 Daily Worker Wy way © The Worker ___- . —_ New Leader Date MAY 18 1958 STynstitution a9 25" O58 5 U MAY