Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956
File 039
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 1956 - File 039. 1956-06. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. January 20, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/108.

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 039. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/108

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 039, 1956-06, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed January 20, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/139/show/108.

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 039
Transcript i the ,ii«;s are wo"1 his. decide that an act is unconstitutional and declare it null ancl void within that state. But, if three-fourths of the other states amend the Constitution to give the federal government the specific power which the interposing stete held it did not have, that state Would have te) yield. Without such Intendment, according to Mr. Randolph, the act would remain void Wthin its borders. "Some may say that this would lead to chaos, but what could be more chaotic than rule by a court which has reversed itself thirty- sw times in eighteen years?"10 AUTHORITY OF COURT DEFENDED Dr. Wells' rejoinder to this view is 'hut the power of the Supreme Court '° make- an authoritative determina- h°n of the meaning of the Constitutor! has long been accepted by the Overwhelming majority of Americans. Fortunately or unfortunately, how- v.'r' Judicial review is a weapon Which cuts several ways. Need we 'etnind ourselves of the last occa- fl0« upon which the Supreme Court *oame the center of national contro- verSy? At that time it was the 'liberals' Ijho wanted 'a Supreme Court under ."' ((institution and not over it,' and , xviis the 'conservatives' who flocked 0 the defense of the 'nine old men.' It *'" neit do to lose sight of historical respective. Nor will it do to urge rj*yely that the old court was absol- tely wrong. A substantial number of .■[■erica,is could be lined up on both *** of that issue-. Basic issues of a different order are stake in the interposition theory," retinues Dr. Wells. "The viability of t|l'r Political system i.s challenged and ! e very rules of the political society a ^hich we live are involved. We | °"'el not require the writings of arned men to see that, in the long » n; the Supreme Court is a safer ex- Fj'tor of the- Constitution than are xV-eight separate- state legislatures. j' • How do we know that while we t debating here another company of , '' and vet another and another will Nt "net and decide to 'interpose' in 'jus ways? And would not the re- |,"' "e utter confusion? Would it not '"liirc'liv J"M Vj " disagreeing with this point of ill w- Mr. Randolph says there i.s a tv,.. 1,lc'tion between judicial interpre- I,,!"" and judicial supremacy. The bet ?n "' a eourt is indeed to inter- \ i 'aw- ""u^ judicial supremacy iif ."' create a nationwide oligarchy li(.| ',""' men. The people would be i(| ss- for their amendments seeking Jirrect the situation could be mis- lolph. '-I.c-u.il Basis for Interposition," . .!■ ' '-, The Dallas Morning News, March 2, iW^Vell . *fc, -j, • An Answer to Interposition," editorial 'e Drill,i, Morning Netoe, March -1. 1956. K I'eim-xi News, June, 1956 interpreted by the Supreme Court in order to perpetuate its power. "In xvhose hands are our liberties safer, those of nine judges or those of the people of the separate states? Over a long period of time, how is the power of the federal government to be restrained in opposition to the inherent tendency of government to increase its own power at the expense of the governed, if it may decide, through its judiciary, the extent of its own power?"12 He points out also that interposition must be the true will of the sovereign people of a steite. To this end, the process of interposing must resemble that of ratification itself, i.e., the people must speak through a convention called for the purpose. The state government has no more authority in this respect than does the federal. References have been made to interposing or challenging the Supreme Court by constitutional processes. How do the objecting states plan to do this? History has made use of several different methods of objecting to or nullifying acts of the federal government, but the plan in the present case is to present an amendment under Article V of the Constitution, the adoption or rejection of which we 111 lei determine whether or not the Supreme Court acted within its constitutional rights in ruling against seg- regation in public schools. Such an amendment could be pre- se'iiteel by Congress on its own initiative, followed by ratification or rejec- "Randolph. "Legal Basis lor Interposition, editorial page, The Dallas Morning News, April 2. 19S8. tion by three-fourths of the states. Or, if Congress refused to submit an amendment, an alternative method provided for in Article V is for two- thirds of the states to petition Congress for such an amendment. Congress would then have to comply, with the subsequent requirement also of ratification by three-fourths of the steites. What would happen if such an amendment, toward which several of the Southern states are already committed to work, fails to be adopted? Are there still ways by which some states could retain segregation, other than by open defiance? Several plans have been projected, and even measures taken for their implementation. Georgia voters have already ratified a "private school" amendment, and the General Assembly heis taken the necessary steps to put it into force if and when such a process is deemed necessary. This would provide for the closing of all public schools when "the public interest shall so require" and provide for the payment of yearly educational grants to be used as tuition by children attending private schools. School buildings ancl properties would be leased to private groups which are "bona fide engaged in the operation eif ;i private school in a manner which they (boards of education) think will best serve the interest of children of school age within their respective school districts."13 In Alabama, xvhere strife and feeling has perhaps been the most bitter. "Attorney General Eugene Cook, "The Southern View of Segregation," Vital Speeches, January 15. Iflifi, p. 212. Three Northern senators who have spoken out against a segregation manifesto signed by 101 members of Congress are Heft to righti; Paul Douglas ID-Ill.), Herbert Lehman ID-N. Y.I, and Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.l. Rep. Douglas told the Senate he fears the Southerners' statement "will encourage those who will not be so meticulous about law and order." Page 37
File Name uhlib_1352973_v005_n006_039.jpg