| Transcript |
THE SUPREME COURT UNDER FIRE-
Presented below are the arguments of those who maintain that
the Supreme Court is substituting psychology for law and sociology for the Constitution. These disturbed critics hold that federal preemption has sounded the death knell for states' rights.
JUSTICES of the United States Supreme Court have been accused
of amending the Constitution
rather than interpreting it, substantiat-
"ig their decisions by citing sociologists and psychologists.
Irate citizens, seeing what little re-
Wains of states' sovereignty and cognizant of the rapidity with which the
remaining mite is being dissipated, are
saying that the judicial line is forming
to the left.
Much of the present widespread
criticism of the .Supreme Court comes
"Om high places. The National Asso-
eiation of Attorneys General, by a vote
°f 28 to 12, adopted a resolution favor-
lrig limitation of the power of the
United States Supreme Court to determine whether federal laws supercede
'fate laws.
Governors Rap Court
Also, the forty-eighth conference of
governors at Atlantic City in June
ended with a rap at the Supreme
P)urt. The governors adopted a resolution saying that conference members
"'ere concerned by decisions of the
~ourt, which have held that congressional enactments supercede state
laws and thus preempt those fields.
"embers called on Congress to frame
aws that cannot be construed to pre-
e,T|pt any field against state action
""'ess such an intent is stated.
Senators James O. Eastland (D-
g«s.) and Joseph McCarthy (R-
, *s-), before a Senate Internal Seeu-
r'fv Subcommittee hearing on June 26,
stated that although thev did not ae-
£"se Chief Justice Earl Warren of
.)e"ig a Communist, his expressed
judicial opinions have certainly been
following the Communist Party line."
j, McCarthy said at the beginning of
^-s testimony that the Court was
"■anned for the most part by "incompetent, irresponsible, left-wing Judges
™ho regard themselves as a super Confess." He added he thought that the
Jjecision in the Commonwealth of
'■nnsylvania v. Steve Nelson case
showed a "rock-bottom low in judicial
Responsibility."
A disturbed public has begun to
t»
r-VCTs Forum News, September. 1956
view the Court as an uncommon denominator, and feels that the newly-
minted laws of aforesaid Court are
contributing to a Disunited States of
America.
Representative E. L. Forrester (D-
Ga.), speaking before the House of
Representatives, quoted George Washington in his "Farewell Address":
If, in thc opinion of the people, the
distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be, in any particular
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, in one instance, may he the instrument of good, it
is the customary weapon by which free
governments are destroyed.1
Our revered first President was
warning the people against the very
thing which many persons say exists
today. Critics maintain that the Supreme Court is usurping functions
which belong exclusively to the states
and to Congress.
The time was when the Court justified the confidence of the people; it
was a veritable roadblock in the pathway of any group seeking to weaken
the American government. However,
time changed things, say present-day
critics. Vacancies occurred, and court-
packing became the vogue. Then came
an era of usurpation, an era which saw
a rewriting of the Constitution. The
Court decided that changed conditions called for changed laws, and
began to read into the Constitution
meanings which many people say
were not intended by those who wrote
the Constitution.
Members Dissent
Dissenting members of the Court
have themselves cried out against the
Court's seemingly irresponsible actions
in reversing not only long-standing
decisions, but even in reversing its
own previous decisions. Justice Roberts, in the case of Smith v. Allwright
(321 U. S. 649), stated:
The reason for my concern i.s that the
instant decision overruling one announced
about nine years ago tends to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class
as a restricted railroad ticket, "good for
this day and train only."3
Supreme Court Justice Reed, in a
publication entitled Current Biography, is quoted as follows:
If by interpretation based on moderation, social and economic experiments, we
cm advance steadily toward our objective,
we can avoid dangerous experiments of
fundamental constitutional change.3
In view of the foregoing it has been
claimed by many that there is an intention to change the Constitution, not
by amendment, but by interpretation
predicated on economic and social
experiments. William O. Douglas has
stated that instead of being bound by
the Constitution, the Supreme Court
may change its meaning to something
more in line with the Court's ideas of
modern needs. In his recent book be
stated that the charter of government
must be kept current with the times,
and that it should not be allowed to
become archaic or out of tune with
the needs of today. Douglas mentioned, further, that it takes a new
generation to catch a broader vision,
and that this might require the undoing of the work of predecessors.4
Question fs Raised
The question is then raised by critics whether, under such a system, the
Constitution would come to have no
meaning.
In the past there has been a hesitancy to take the Supreme Court to
task. Being "supreme," it was thought
that its members could do no wrong,
that the Justices were worthy of respect and above criticism.
Now. however, some people are
saying that the Justices have gradually arrogated unto themselves executive and legislative powers. It is
charged that they are attempting to
run the government in accordance
with their own philosophies. Representative Francis E. Walter ( D-
Penn.), chairman of the Un-American
Activities Committee, has said that
sometimes Supreme Court Justices
seem to live in ivory towers, with the
blinds drawn.5
'84 Congressional Record (1956), pp. 8507-8.
■Ibid., p. 8508.
'Ibid., p. 8509.
'/bid., pp. 8509-10.
'Ibid., p. A4332.
Page 21
|
