◆ SpookStack

social changes are less dear to the people than the ques- tion of whether we may lawfully purchase liquor? Or, perchance, should we wonder whether tha impatience of the President with the customary courses of law has grown out of all democratic bounds in the last four years? Consider that possibility ! To express ideas, our chief medium is words. Our ideas of iberty were expressed in words in the Consti- tution, Somebody must construe those words; we can- nflictine interoretations af thea same or connicty a0G, See et pra wee Wk hae ae words by Presidents, Congress, Governors, State Legis- latures. Words can hardly be used which do not require interpretation, From time immemorial, construction of written words, statutes, and constitutions has been the work of courts—of no one else, except that you can bear in mind the time when it used to be the privilege of kings and autocrats. The task, therefore, of interpretation under democratic rule, was for the Supreme Court alone. There it has rested for 150 years. What other task could belong to the Court if not to say what the people meant when they adopted the Constitution, and what Congress means when it passes statutes? ot have a score of c not ary. ae he hee Not All Congressional Acts Valid As you know, if a law does violate the Constitution, it is, in no sense, a law. It has no effect whatever. It is a declaration by Congress or the states which they had no right to make; the people had willed it otherwise, But you yourselves may amend the Constitution. It is so pro- vided, Today an altern native tw amendment i is offered you. It is proposed that men, ready and willing to construe the Constitution as they are directed, -b¢é appointed to the Supreme Court; with the utter certainty, known in advance, that they will construe the Constitution in that elastic fashion which will mean that every law is valid. The Constitution by this method will have been changed just as exactly as if you had had a chance to express your opinions as to the wisdom of the change. Make no mia- take about that. Let us review what has happened since 1933—four years ago. Please remember the average time forthe. adoption of the last three amendments—less than a year. Much extreme legislation has been passed in those four years. It proposed extraordinary changes in the rela- tionship between man and man, and between the states and the federal government, Some -ef. those laws the: Supreme Court has declared invalid. Why? Because the laws destroyed fundamental rights. Many more unusual statutes are now being considered by the Court, Others will soon be there. With the declaration by the Supreme Court of the inv validity of these laws, the President has been utterly dissatisfied. He has been angry that his will has been thwarted. Law followed law, forced by the Executive. Some men said that the plan was to so load the statute books with invalid laws, each, please note, pleasing to certain large groups of voters, that the Supreme Court would be so harassed that its sound judgment would be influenced. That hope has not been realized. But the determination to have all their laws approved has not lessened with the Administration. If you have any doubt that the President is aware that the Supreme Court changes now proposed by him will alter the Constitution, please recall his message. His words were: “If these measures achieve their aim, we may be relieved of the necessity of considering any funda- mental changes in the powers of the courts or the Constitution of our government.” Who asked that you and I be relieved of having changes made in the Constitution in the way provided? It has always been anticipated that there might be changes in the Constitu- tion with changed times, The manner of such change was set forth in the Constitution. General Hugh Johnson, who was ever ready, as you know, to crack down on citizens even when they believed their liberties threatened by the new laws, has confirmed the President's statement. In his army way, he said: “The fear is that he (the President) will appoint judges who would probably believe in what the country has just voted for overwhelmingly, All that is unques- tionably true. He will do exactly that.” I know that already you haven't the slightest uncertainty but that it is intended, by the personal selection of new judges, to amend the Constitution by a re-interpretation of that document; that the views of the new judges will be known when they are chosen. Let’s see, in an everyday way, what you think of such a proposal. You have been in court; you perhaps have been a juror. Do you remember some questions invariably asked jurors about to be chosen to deter- mine facts? A few of the common questions will refresh your recollections. A lawyer asks a possible juror: “Have you talked with anyone about this litigation?” Or, “Have you formed any opinion on this case?” Or, “Have you read about this trouble, or this crime, in the newspapers?” Or, “Are you wholly free from any bias or prejudice in such a matter as the one before us? You know what always happens; unless the answer is unequivocally “No,” the juror cannot sit. And you will agree that it would be wrong for him to serve. What de you say, then? Have you theught, im this crisis, that no man appointed to the Supreme Court, if this legislation passes, could qualify if those simple jury questions were asked him? And that judge is to pass upon laws and the Constitution! Will you allow that to happen without your vigorous protest? Is that what any court—most of all your Supreme Court—means to you? Right Method Clear You know the manner in which the Constitution ought to be changed. Article V deciares the method. is it fair or candid, to use no stronger words, that the change be made by indirection? Why should the Constitution be amended in an atitocratic fashion? The way provided has been used 22 times; what is wrong with it? We are used to it; we know ~how it works. We prefer going at an amendment directly, We want to know exactly what the result will be. The people of this country may want changes in the Constitution. You may prefer to give up rights which have been reserved to you, But some of us want you, yourselves, to tell us that, rather than to have Congress and a hand-nicked Supreme Court make the changes. The word of Congress about what you might think, if you were asked, doesn’t satisfy us. Why aren’t you consulted? Is it because you may say, “No”; that you believe that government is powerful enough already? Or is the spirit of autocracy in the land already so great as to irresistibly require autocratic action? Piease bear in mind, still, that amendment has been accomplished three times recently in fess than a year. Are you willing that Congress, without consulting you or your atate, and by a mere majority, bring about the same result that would happen if the Constitution were changed in the regular way? Do you want any man to talk for you on a matter that is your own personal business, perhaps involving your very liberty? You can, if you will, and whenever you will, change the Constitution so that hereafter Congress can speak for you in everything, absolutely everything. But if you are to do that, you ought to say so, not somebody for