◆ SpookStack

\ U.S. News & World m\) DID SUPREME COURT JUSTICES VIOLATE THEIR OATHS? In the kitest school case {the Little Rock opinion given by Hygh C. Bickford Washington, D.C., attorney The Supreme Court has the duty of interpreting the Sept. 26, 1958], the Justices of the Supreme Court have rationalized their stand by logical analysis. At the outset of this revealing opinion the judges engaged in a bit of byplay which indicates that they are developing an inferiority complex concerning their own position. In the Taw. Therefore, the Constitution, as interpreted by the Su- preme Court, is the supreme law of the land. So far, many students of logic may well say that the reason- ing of the Justices is valid. been the custom for one af the Justices to write the majority apinion. [E this is not deemed necessary, the Court has simply stated “per curiam” [by the Court as a whole] and then set forth the ruling of the Court. In the latest decision the judges adopted the peculiar serving under the Constitution. First, it is pointed out that all State officers are required by Article VI to take a solemn oath to support the Constitution. From this premise, the Court moves to the stated premise that the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution is supreme, Thereupon the Court erects of the opinion as if they sought to convey the idea that all nine men had jointly held the pencil that wrote the opinion. Thea, in many places. the joint opinion emphasizes that all nine are unanimous. it almost seems that the Court was trying to say: “The All State officers, under the Constitution, take a solemn oath to support the Constitution. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. Therefore, all State officers are bound to support and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme chief justices of the State supreme courts disagree with us: a growing number of lawyers disagree with us; a majority of the House of Representatives has expressed disapproval of our usurpation of power and the Senate let things stand by a margin of only one vote, but we—all nine of us—agree, and that alone makes it right.” Court. Again, assuming the premises to be valid, many students will say that the conclusion is valid. But if this logic applies to State officers, does it not also apply to the Justices of the Supreme Court and all federal officers, each of whom is required by the Constitution te*tak But the most interesting part of the opinion is the attempt to support with logic the proposition that any decision of the Supreme Court must be supreme. In such logical analysis there is an inherent demonstration that the Court is wrong. Let us review this logic and apply the logic to its ob- vious_end an oath to support and defend the Constitution? When each of these Justices took their solemn oath prior to 1954, the Constitution contained the same words as it does today, Also, when they took their solemn oaths, the Constitu- tion had been interpreted by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, First. the Court stated that Article V1 of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme law of the land.” From this the Court moves to Chief Justice Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice Marshall held that the Supreme Court was powerless to expand its own in-accordance with the Gourt's own logic, each judge sol- emnly swore to uphold the Constitution as it had been inter- preted by the Court on the day he took his solemn oath. When each of these Justices took their solemn oath, the Fourteenth Amendment had been interpreted on many occa- & sions in a long line of decisions. Shortly after the Civil War, jorisdiction. Ignoring that portion of Marshall's opinion, the Court quoted only a portion of the decision which held that the judiciary was the branch of Government charged with “the duty of saying what the law is.” From these premises the Court then arrived at the conclusion that “the interpretation - + énunciated by this Court... is the supreme law of the in the civil-rights cases and the slaughterhouse cases, the Four- teenth Amendment was held not to apply to individuals in civil raatters but only to State governments in political matters. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Court had first held that the word “equal” meant “equal,” nothing more. land.” Thus, the Court erected the following logical s¥l- logism: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 108 Court, held as to Mississippi schools that “it is the same ques- tion which has been many times decided to be within the constitutional powers of the State legislature without inter- U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 19, F958