◆ SpookStack

ul. S. News § World Report . @ @ ep ; . «+ Congress shows ‘‘some stirrings of disbelief in the Court” vention of the federal courts under the Federal Constitu- tion.” In 1938, Chief Justice Hughes stated the opinion ef the its position by reference to sociology as a basis for law instead of established precedent. Similarly, the same duty, as announced by the Court, ap- tion by furnishing equal facilities in’ separate schools, a method the validity of which has been sustained by our de- cisions’ —Missouri v. Canacla Accordingly, when the Justices who now sit en the Su- preme Court took their solemn oaths of office, they made a other_co-ordinate branches of the Federal Government Mr. Eisenhower seems ta aceept the proposition that, as President, he is an humble acolyte who must bow and buock his head on the floor in the presence of the Supreme Court. Such was not intended by the constitutional Fathers, whe dis- ee ee ce ee oer solemn compact, in the presence of Gad, to uphold the Con- stitution as it had been interpreted by the Supreme Court at that time “without any mental reservations whatsoever.” Can we not, therefore, apply the Court's own logical reason- ing as follows: The Justices solemnly swore to uphold the Constitution trostedhilhmenin office and expressly provided that each of the co-ordinate branches should be courageous deferlers of the Constitution against each of the other branches. Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson and both Roosevelty had the courage to oppose the Court when it usurped power. Evsenhower took a solemn oath to support and defend the as it had been interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time they took office. Such Justices have not upheld the Constitution as thus interpreted. Therefore, the Justices have violated their oaths of Constitution, as it existed: and was interpreted when he took oath in 1953. He has not done so. On each occasion when the Court has destroyed some part of the Constitution—in favor of some vociferous minority bloc: in favor of Communists; in favor of the destruction of the sovereignty and republican If the Court's logic is valid, the only proper rule is that, when the Court has once interpreted the Constitution, such interpretation becomes the supreme law of the land and that no man thereafter is justified in amending that supreme law unless the change is made by the people—from whom, alone, head and acquiesced. When the history of the Eisenhower Administration is written, perhaps the dasting conclusion will be that it was during his Administration that the: State governments were destroyed as federated States and all the power of government 2 authority ofthe Constitution flows. Ofcourse, the historical basis for such a rule is the fact that, when a decision has been rendered interpreting the Constitution, the people have had the power to accept the interpretation or to over- rule it by amendment. became concentrated im Washington. When it becomes thus centralized, the inevitable “man on horseback” will find it a simple matter to take over aud rule as a despot. Many Romans were satisfied when the popular soldier Julius Caesar tock complete control, but it was orly a few decades before Nero was wielding the absolute power that How the Court Was Overruled If they acquiesced a long time, the conclusion became clear that the people approved the interpretation. On the other hand, there have been outstanding instances when in- Caesar had erected. In Congress there have been some stirrings of disbelief in the Messianic beliefs of the Court. The House voted to re- strict the jurisdiction of the Court in limiting the powers of the States, but the Senate, forgetting their solemn oaths to the people and they did something about it. In its first leading case, Chisholm v, Georgia, the Court in- terpreted the Constitution to mean that a private citizen could sue a sovercign State in the Supreme Court, The Eleventh Amendment was promptly passed to overrule the Court's in- they took office, voled by a single vote to do nothing. Roosevelt on Risk of Oligarchy Franklin Roosevelt, in one of his greatest speeches, said: erpretation. Again, e Dred Scott case, the Court held that the validity of slavery continued even though the slave was taken into free territory. After a bloody civil war, the Court was overruled and the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. In 1896 the Court held that an income tax was unconsti- tutional; the people overruled that interpretation, adopting “Now, to bring about government by oligarchy mas- querading as democracy, it is fundamentally essential that practically all authority and contro! be centralized in our National Government. The individual sovereignty of our States must first be destroyed, except in mere minor matters of legislation. We are safe from the danger the Sixteenth Amendment. No such objection was raised by the people to the interpre- tation of the Fourteenth Amendment established in the civil-rights cases and the slaughterhouse cases shortly after -the War Between the States, nor was any serious attempt of any such departure from the principles on which this country was founded just so long as the individual home rule of the States is scrupulously preserved and fought for whenever it seems in danger.” Apparently, the executive and legislative branches are so stood firm for over 60 years. The supreme jaw of the land which most of the Justices swore to uphold was to the effect that “equal” schools were “equal” under the Fourteenth Amendment, that powers not clearly vested in the National Government remained in the have overlooked the positive duty that rests on their shoul- ders to oppose any unwarranted extension of power by the third branch. They would do well to remember the solemn words of George Washington in his Farewell Addr&s: “H, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or States. Their constitutional duty was to defend the Consti- tution, as thus interpreted, against all enemies “foreign and domestic.” Is not a-person who violates his oath of office and seeks to amend the Constitution by illegal means an enemy of that Constitution? Apparently, the Court's venture into modification of the constitutional powers be in any partic- ular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, it one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weap- logic is no better informed than its previous attempt to justify U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dac. 19, 1958 on by which free governments are destroyed." {END} 109