Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
File 038
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 038. 1956-06. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 26, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/107.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1956-06). Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 038. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/107

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 038, 1956-06, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 26, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/107.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Publisher Facts Forum
Date June 1956
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 5 1956; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States: This item is in the public domain in the United States and may be used freely in the United States. The item may not be in the public domain under the copyright laws of other countries.
Item Description
Title File 038
Transcript Four of the nineteen Southern senators who helped draft a segregation manifesto, presented in both houses of Congress on March 12, include (left to right): John Stennis ID-Miss.), Richard Russell 'D-Ga.i, Walter F. George (D-Ga.), who presented the manifesto in the Senate, and Som Ervin iD-et.C.I. Rep. Howard Smith ID-Va.i presented the joint resolution in the House. One hundred one members of Congress from eleven states signed a statement pledging use of "all lawful means" to reverse the Supreme Court's 1954 decision outlawing segregation in public schools. eign. . . . Sovereignty is retained by the people of the separate states, since all the people on whom the compact is operative, having never formed a sovereign entity, cannot retain that which they never possessed, i.e., sovereignty."0 Dr. Wells challenges this concept of state sovereignty, stating that the delegates did not and could not settle the question as to the nature of the union in such a decisive manner. "Rather," he says, "they compromised and left a part of the question open for the wisdom of the future. But they sought above all to provide a national government adequate to 'the exigencies of the union.' The Articles of Confederation in which the states explicitly retained sovereignty had created a political situation to which, one may suppose, no present-day American would desire to return. "The compact theory xvas, indeed, discussed eet the Constitutional Convention. We are informed by Madison's note that L. Martin (Maryland) 'contended at great length and with great eagerness that the general government was meant merely to preserve state' governments: not to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be kept within narrow limits.' But others had different ideas. King, for example, 'conceived that the import of the term "state sovereignty" had often been used inaccurately and delusively.' The states were hardly sover- eign in the accepted sense of the term. They already had relinquished all power to act in foreign affairs and the "Robert M. Ranllolph, "Legal Basis for Inter- I-..MI1MU," editorial page, The Dallas Morning News, XIarch 1, 1956. Page 36 union of the United States now contemplated 'is a union of the men composing them, from xvhence a national character results to the whole.' "Which view was enacted by the delegates — the compact theory or the national theory? The most objective answer is that neither view was accepted in its entirety. The famous Connecticut compromise contemplated the states in both capacities, as parts of the whole and as separate political entities. As Madison remarked in Federal 39, 'The proposed Constitution is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution, but a composition of both.' Is this not, indeed, the common sense of the matter? The union is something more than a mere compact but something less than a consolidated system."7 Closely connected xvith the answer to the states' rights or state sovereignty question is another, which carries with it tremendous political importance: Who is to decide when an act of the federal government is unconstitutional? The desegregation decision was an interpretation by the Supreme Court of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that segregation is a violation of the portion that reads: All persons horn or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the- United States and eif the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall ahridge the- privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with- l.loyii vi. WeDs, "An Answer to Interposition," editorial page, The bulla. Morning News, Xiareh 3, out due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Based on psychological and sociological premises, the Court decreed that Negroes subjected to forced separw tion in public schools are being discriminated against, and are therefore not receiving eeiual opportunities i» education. Proponents eif segregation, on the other hand, say that tlie "separate but equal" laws are adequate and nondiscriminatory, and that they have been so honored by many years of precedent ancl interpretation by the Supreme Court itself; therefore, the Court committed an unconstitutional act in attempting to abolish these state laws. Senator Strom Thurmond (D-S.C.) points eiut the apparent inconsistency of the Supreme Court when he seiys: Historical evidence positively refutes the decision of the Supreme Court in the school-segregation cases. The 39th Congress, which in I860 framed the Fourteenth Amendment tei the Constitution — the amendment which contains the- equal protection clause — ar# provided feir the operation of segregated se-hniils iii the- District of Columbia. ih'j is positive evidence that the Congress uio not intend to prohihit segregation hy the Fourteenth Amendment. . , . Between the decision in Plessy again** Ferguson in 189fi and the- reversal "f th»' opinion on May 17, 1954, 157 case's wore decided on the heisis of the "separate- h"1 e-eieeal" doctrine. The United States Supreme Court rendered 11 opinions on ny hasis; the United States court of appe»3 13; Unite-el State-s district courts, 27: an" state supreme courts, including the U'*' trict of Columbia, 106. Such disregard for established doctrjfl could be justified only if additional e*T ilenee were presente-d which was not ava'^ able when the earlier decisions were retr eleTed. j No additional evidence was present*! to the Court to show the- e-arlie-r elee is'(1Ir to he wrong. Therefore, the decision han ed derwn on May 17, 1954, was contrOT to the Constitution and to legal Prt'c dent." RIGHT TO INTERPOSE In the words of Senator James i Eastland, a champion of tin: theory ^ interposition, "The people and t-1 states did not create an agency son rior to themselves, and they are •> powerless to contest their own struction at the hands of their et tion. The right of state inte-rp<isj''1,t exists because it has to exist. \\ i'" ii such a right the Constitution "-v° mean nothing."9 , g Mr. Randolph maintains, in his . planation of steite sovereignty. J declaring an act to be unconstitutl%, is the exercise of a sovereign P"\(1v one not delegated to the federal Si ernment nor denied to the states- -^ therefore retained bv them uneh'r Tenth Amendment. Thus a state ,.'•' iV^ "Sen. Strom Thurmond, C-mj-rrs.viimiv' March 12, p. .'1949. ,/• "Sen. Jamea O. EwtUnd, "The Coinm*"1 ('<mviiiiit.<m Press, No. 20, p. 4. Facts Forum News, June, fcrsi *e v, whi, "ulel 11, •"'ni-el „ feor t 'H'l'-ihi L ' Sow fa*" C,;"Kl' P. meet Pis CyIu' ■• e>i\l cre P™>ss, I, Effect '■<- Dal
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n006_038.jpg