◆ SpookStack

= mere allacinuna tein vate Cluzen “who owes Sutgiauto ~- to-the United States” has the duty to obey the constitution as ia interpreted by the supreme court. The specific clause of the con- ; stitution to which this unimpeach-. 7 prive any person of life, Mberty or able generality supposedly refers, reads: , “No atate shall make or enforce any law which shali abridge the Prive jleges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state de- property without due process of lew, . deny to any within tts “nor person wi jaredjtion the equal protection of the L) This fe fm the constitution by virtue of force. Yet with all the powers that existed to put this, or anything else, therein; and with ell the fanaticism, hate and venge- 4 fulness that then raged, this amendment, was NOT made to m readf. 0: poet 2 a “No state shail make or enforce , Jaw for segregation by color in * public schools or elsewhere, or which Pall abridge the privileges or immu . nities of citizens... nor deny to any - person within its diction the equal protection of laws, OF Te, Hef trom any sense of encinioeical ae - we ici ma sense MH Sono ck Paychologte d inferiority asserted by ; Many segregationista, perhaps : g (we sup- | all, feel they are o pose Mr. Rogers ly meang “honoring” y the constitution as. . was, and still stands written; and manyewhoware not segregationists * ate: us ix “e or 0 If they do not honor a clause of the constitution as written by the | court (what amounts, in their eyes, . to a “Twenty-Third Amendment”), — it is not in disrespect to the United States, the constitution, or the su- preme court as an institution and © as a symbol of the judicial branch. . When Mr. Rogers speaks of the | founding fathers, he should recall J _ how they expressed themselves (in, - the constitutional convention) on - the subject of the supreme court ; ae “judges of policy of publie m reas } ures,” as distinguished from duties and rights relative to “exposition — of laws, which involves the power. of deciding on constitutionality.” Theceonstitution as interpreted by theSupreme court, with eppli- cation to a state law; and the con- stitution as rewritten by the ¢ourt to express a public policy, or sup- posed policy, or to initiate one, can be quite different things, The dis-. tinction sometimes can be found in the e nature, language, premises and « logic of ‘a controversial decision — either internally, or against the backgrounds of intent, past dec ete. Many © able lawyers, 9 whose “allegiance to the United 3 _States” ig unquestionable, and wil ‘yemain have found this ‘would say the same.on their he-~iy the segregation decision, »: er D9 0CT Ve Mr, Tclson Mr. Belnetut. eu, Mr. Metro. Mr. Nese oe Mr. Fauseous Mr. bo Fer ee . Mr. Tamm 2 ow Mr. Trviter 7 | Mr, Wo sultie "an Tele. Room Mr. Hetlercan__ Miss Gandy i i¥ ya NER 72 PICAYUR ¥ 3, Lite 9-21-58 GEORGE W. HEALY J Editer re ~ tay ¥ v 2.9570 %7-A Ca“ oy Fm 1QNOCTROCCRDED 1st ocT 9 1958 =~ _eeeeee