A recent newspaper editorial stated
that the constitutional question before
the American people, since Earl Warren became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was whether the Court
was a third house of Congress that is
legislating on its own.'"'
The Tenth Amendment states that
powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to
the people. According to critics, the
Supreme Court has ignored this
amendment, for in case after case the
Court has whittled away the basic-
rights of the states.7 The Bill of Rights
notwithstanding, it has come to pass
that if Congress legislates even on the
fringe of anv field, the conclusion by
the Court has been that such field
will be occupied by federal law. This
would allow the Supreme Court to
divine the intent of Congress.8
Suppose, then, that Congress passed
an aid-to-education bill - might not
the Court maintain that Congress intended to preempt the field of education, even to the selection of textbooks? The same holds true for the
field of labor.
H. R. 3, introduced by Congressman
Howard W. Smith (D-Va.), would restore some measure of independence
to the states. Briefly, this bill states
that no act of Congress shall be construed as indicating an intent on the
part of Congress to occupy the field
in which the act operates, to the exclusion of state laws on the subject,
unless such act contains express provision to that effect.'1
Man Has Struggled
Throughout history man has struggled for freedom. And. in reality,
there can be no freedom unless there
is freedom from government. When
the government acquires power, no
matter what the pretext, it is always
at the expense of individual freedom.
When governmental power goes up,
the power of the people goes the other
way."' In view of this a great many-
persons are saying that the "nine-man-
theme" being "played" by the Supreme
Court is in reality a dirge for states'
Former President Franklin D.
Roosevelt on March 9, 1937. commenting on a decision of the Supreme
THE SUPREME COURT UNDER FIRE-
wini: wonr.D photo
Chief Justice Earl Warren, an Eisenhower appointee, had no previous experience as a judge.
The Court, in addition to the proper use
of its judicial functions, has improperly
set itself up aS a third House of the Congress — a super-legislature, as one of the
Justices has called it — reading into the
Constitution words and implications which
are not there. . . .
Our difficulty with the Court today rises
not from thc Court as an institution but
from human beings within it.11
Not only have former Presidents
taken exception to Supreme Court
usurpation, but there are any number
of men high in governmental circles
who are worried by the way that the
Court has disregarded precedent and
sallied forth upon the "uncharted seas
of pseudosociology and neo-Freudian
Senator James O. Eastland, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated in a speech before the Senate that the only time when the high
appellate court of any Western nation resorted to textbooks and the
works of agitators to sustain its decision was when the high court of
Germany sustained Hitler's racist laws.
Senator Eastland went on to say,
regarding the school segregation case,
that the United States Supreme Court
cited "modern" authorities as its authority to change the constitutional
guarantees of the reserved natural
right of the people to freedom of
choice and of the states to regulate
their public schools. One such authority on psychology to override the
Constitution was Theodore Brameld.
He is cited as having been a member
of no less than ten organizations declared to be communistic, Communist-
front, or Communist-dominated.
Eastland stated that one E. Franklin Frazier was another authority cited
by the Court. The files of the Committee on Un-American Activities reflect
eighteen citations of Frazier's connection with Communist causes.
Another authority cited by the
Court, according to Eastland, was one
K. B. Clark, a Negro so-called social
science expert employed by the principal plaintiff in the segregation cases,
the NAACP. Eastland said it was "unusual" procedure for any court to
accept a litigant's paid employee as a"
authority on anything, let alone as a"
authority to be put above the Consul
Additionally, the Supreme Court, to
support its findings, referred to M>'r'
dal's An American Dilemma, 19*"]
Myrdal wrote that the Constitution ol
the United States is impractical and
unsuited to modern conditions. And-
additionally, that its adoption was ll''
most a plot against the comnw
It is a matter of record that so""'
of Myrdal's associates are members "
organizations which have been cite*
by the Department of Justice as stfl
versive. In fact, sixteen names are ;li'.
sociated with Myrdal in the writing °!
An American Dilemma, 1944 — *".
"social experts." The Communist afl'
Communist-front organizations vvlfl
which the Myrdal advisers were affijj'
ated are numbered in the dozens,
would seem, then, that the Court ha*
reversed the law of the land upon *''
authority of men whose loyalty to u1
United States is subject to grave qi'eS'
Representative Henderson Lanhai*1
(D-Ga.), speaking before the 11""1!''
on May 22. stated that the troubjj
with the Court is not political corrw
tion; rather, it is corruption of i('';''
(Continued on page ™
*Los Angeles Herald-Express, Vlay 15, 1956.
tlbid., p. 8373.
""Fniiik Chodorov, "Supreme Court Against
of Rights," Human IWi-nts I Vlay 28. 1958),
"84 Congressional Record (1956), p. 7887.
Ibid., pp. 7887-8. v,-
""What's the Story Behind the SeyreKation Cj,
thorities," Facts Forum News I September, 1°
"James F. Byrnes, "Thc Supreme Court
Curbed," U. S. Win and World Report (May
1956), p. 54.
Facts Forum News, September,