◆ SpookStack

: re jm (Rev. 9-7-56) a 3 ; xander amiltes, who wrote: ag nv been mentioned as of the advantages to be expects P oN Aeciee “a 3 from the reo coterie of the simon EEA . a ey oe = Senate n the business of a Belmont Sup preniie” eC urt Ju usti¢es intment, that would eon. Mat amen f VY: Administration. The consent of ab’ COR ‘By DAVID “LAWRENCE 7 7 hat body y would be necessary to Ro aan) te 4 ah ae en anlare a= wall as ts anoéint.’’ T - P) WASHINGTON, July 1— What can be done about & Supreme E “Tt seems logical to conclude—- Trotter son ia we age Oy. and, 2 effect, nullifies _ various provistons ot the Constitution This question has " gtiaeia in iatety because of the extreme vse their dissent in the Myers case he TT "Court that ignores the rights of Congress and the Executive as Justiees Brandeis, Holmes and —_—___— McReynolds plainly asserted iv Tele, Room A —that the power resides Holloman Congress to control removals Gandy of some of the decisions of the hizh court | 4, . which substantially impair the investigative : operations of Congress and the Prosecution | sueb emis in a Jay law the basis for ; < of eriminais and traitoré. — --. remoy. . : 1 It may come as. surprise to many ‘people “Congress Power a to find that justices of the Supreme Court Hence, if Congress chose to " of the United States are not assured of life! (define “good behavior” and pro- ' Ffienure and that nowhere in the Constitution! [vided by law that the President : : are the words “fe tenure sed. Actually; stee Wit Stnate could jomtly de- - § Constitution simply says that justices of{ [§cide on the removal of any or all ‘ex he he high court shall hold ames only “during of the Supreme Court justices ood behavior.” ~ Me and then other justices were ; ” ‘The Constitution provides for “impeack- nominated and confirmed to re-, ; ment” of judges, but solely for “treasoh,|; RP!ace them, there is enough leg- : bribery and other high crimes and misde-| Melative power vested in Congress any attempt by the courts to interfere. For Congress also has the right, specifically given by the Constitution, to determine the “appellate jurisdiction” of the Supreme Court. Through a F of this kind, Congress could justices do ‘not commit any sich crimes but Lawrence go beyond thelr proper judicial functions and ctually destroy the right of the nation to protect itself against subversion, can anything be done about it Strangély enough, in the entire history of the Supreme Cour there never has been a case involving a definition of the word “good behavior” in cotinection with any Supreme Court justice" Nor has there been any case a which the power of removal o high court - justices has been ruled upon. ™ ae Opinion Quoted Refers to 1824 Case” tis plain from o reading bt| Bcourt ‘can be oudted whenever! - This co ndent the other + £ are case thet most of rrespondent ]e Myers case that most of Se a and a President jointly|. mw meanors.” In the event, however, ‘that the ; make the action stick despite prevent any review of lig own statutory definition of the phrase ‘g00d behavior.” . So justices of the Supreme! : eT nema _ day recalled the stir made by ussions in the early days ; the famous Myers case in Oc- tile republic and since then heve| decide to take that action to. ; tober, 1926, and took occasion rated primarily to whether the grrotect the country from erratic:, “ t reread the decision because Senate has to be consulted about Mo" irresponsible decisions by a $ y most, exhaustive discussion of: tablished fact that for fmany tenure "Is 8 custom—nof. an ab-|* (the removal powers of Congress years the Con ess asserted its ‘PCS See sute G1 Lenure for]. Lever presented by the Supreme right to participate in the re- eaeme court justices, and cus-|/ * Court, moval power. Describing this) 14 on as been overturned in Wash. Post and } * But this-case and the decision; ‘early history, the Supreme Court! |2¢cistons in. more instances in| ,i the Humphrey case in 1935—| in an opinion in 1839 said: the te ona years jfince the fo Times Herald sree] ver the ji Tepudiating the President's re No one denied the power of 'Supreme Court than in ail the| Wash. News ‘moval of a member of the Fed-[ the President and the Sensts, Wash. § eral Trade Commisston—are! jointiy to remove, where the t48 Rrignxegrs of judicial his. ash. Star ‘confined largely to the question tenure ‘of the office was no Vo . _ N. ¥. Herald —}"] ef how far Congress may by law ‘fixed by the Constitution, which 987, N.Y. Herald Tribune Ine. Tribune iTestriet the, removal powers of .was a full’ recognition of the Chief Executive with respect ‘principle that the power of re- N.Y. Journal- ie executive and _qiasi-judicial mopal was incident to the power! American \posts, Ii is clear that the Presi- of appointment." es rerican dent can remove an official for ditanquoted in these decisiong: N. Y. Mirror the causes specified by Congress and rebutted is an argument| N. Y. Daily News _.___ when fixing the ‘term, of offi N.Y.T and also’ for other eauses - i, dimes mentioned by Congress wher Daily Worker the post ‘is purely a The Worker tive, The decisions are vegua and contradictory where no Js specified ,by Congress—as, ‘i the case of. 62 2k ATS SGA New Leader _._. NoT RECORDED 44 JUL 19 1957 Date JUL 2 1957 64s 5]