◆ SpookStack

O _ I! find it unconstitutional. It would be necessary, Hr. Harris said, to find that one of the categories in my bill represented an unreasonable classification. Mr. Harris did not express the opinion that any of the categories in my bill was unreasonable; he just said it might be possible for a court to decide that one of them was. Mr. Harris gave some examples of what he considered unreasonable categories-such as a provision which might seek to divest the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to try'a case involving a particular named person-and none of the examples he gave was anywhere close to any of the provisions of my bill. Those are all the arguments that have been made about the constitu- tionality of the bill. None of them will hold water. Now we come to the opposition to the bill on its merits. The American Bar Association passed a resolution opposing the bill on two grounds; first, that the bill was contrary to a position previously taken by the American Bar Association at another time and prior to some of a the worst of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. This is of course a self-serving action. It might be well if the Bar Association were reminded of Emersonis warning that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. The other announced basis for the Bar Association's action was that my bill would be "contrary to the maintenance of the balance of powers set up in the Constitution." As I have already pointed out in a public statement, my bill only proposes to implement one of the basic check and balance provisions of the Constitution; and I fail to see how the use of a constitutional provision can be deemed to be contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.