◆ SpookStack

606—SEPARATE 6 ILLINOIS v. ALLEN moval of a defendant from the courtroom during a trial because he was insisting on his constitutional rights, albeit vociferously, no matter how obuoxious his philos- ophy might have been to the bench that tried him? Would we uphold contempt in that situation? Problems of political indictments and of political judges raise profound questions going to the heart of the social compact. For that compact is two-sided: majorities undertake to press their grievances within a limits of the Constitution and in accord with its proce- ‘i dures; minorities agree to abide by constitutional pro- cedures in resisting those claims. Does the answer to that problein involve defining the procedure for conducting political trials or does it involve i the designing of constitutional methods for putting an poi ae end to them? This record is singularly inadequate to answer those questions. It will be time enough to re- solve those weighty problems when a political trial reaches this Court for review. Second are trials used by minorities to destroy the existing constitutional system and bring on repressive measures. Radicals on the left historically have used those tactics to incite the extreme right with the ealeu- lated design of fostering a regime of repression from which the radieale on the left hone to emerge as the WEAMAWEk MER BEANE Urea ea A SS Ue ake By weal ultimate victor.* The left in that role is the provocateur. The Constitution was not designed as an instrument for that form of rough-and-tumble contest. The social compact has room for tolerance, patience, and restraint, but not for sabotage and violence. Trials involving that spectacle strike at the very heart of constitutional ' government. ee es sill ee *As respects the strategy of German Communists vis-d-2vis the Nazis in the 1930's, see Heiden, Der Fuehrer, pp. 461, 462, 525, eae 651-552 (1944). ib aoe co ta ei