◆ SpookStack

a r= ‘v * - Lat eepe ~~ . _ hE, Sees i - tars» s . aed ” gle a. 1. New § Word Repo bey tz: cr we 7 "ey wih WHAT TWO CRITICS SAY ABOUT COURT'S RULINGS ON REDS ° Views From a State Attorney General and a U., S. Senator New criticism of the U.S. Supreme Court is being voiced in Congress and elsewhere. One critic is Louis C. Wyman, olfemney gen- eral of New Hampshire and presidest ef the National Association of Attorneys General. Mr. Wyman describes the effect of recent Court dacisions on State laws, and declares ' that the Constitution Is being “tortured out of olf rational historical proportion.” Another critic is Senter William E. Jenner, Republican, of indiana, Senater Jenner says that recent decisions weaken national security, are “judge-made law ... subject to no re- vlew." by Louis C. Wyman President of the National Association of Attorneys General ae ‘if No mattér the precise phrase, there is little doubt but what the Constitution—that great instrument through which Ameri- cans have devised perhaps the most satisfactory method of community living under a government of law and not of men—is being tortured owt of all rational historical propor- tien by decision after decision of the United States Sapreme ourt. These decisions, in their cumulative aspect, seek by fiat of five appointed Justices to substitute a philosophy of govern- ment patently contrary to that contemplated by George Wash- ington and the great Agures of our early constitutional period. Such fiat involves certain basic assumptions conceming what ia best for the American way of life and, through these decisions, in eect amends the Constitution .to the point of usurping what has always heretofore been considered as the proper function of the constitutional convention in our pattern of govermment. Such decisions must further confound and confuses our youth who seek and deserve real understanding of the true relationship between state and individual, between Commu- nism and capitalism. In recent years, even months, this country has witnessed the curious phenomenon of a Supreme Cowt decision on one day and a bill in Congress to set it azide on the next. Were such measures and developments peculiarly local in isolated cases they would be readily understandable, but pro- tests and outcry against these decisions have mounted from North to South and from East to West, across the length and breadth of the United States. Most recent is that group of cases decided June 17, 1057, What was originally drawn as a compact between the States to create a Federal Government with certain express aphhtal, sore delewota? n. she eek ned. peweis Wid Wort CIC TL GE LE APY ta & NAR stitution—threatens by decision of the High Coust to become a one-way ticket to a federal bureaucracy in which the posi- tion and authority of the individual States becomes less and less with every passing year. No one questions that the powers expressly granted to the 12 Federal Government in Article 1, section 6, best exercised by federal authority for the common go . But when those powers are extended by the exercise of some sort of civil-liberties preoccupation or underdog complex into the kind of decision that resulted in Griffin v. Hlinots or Pennayi- vonda wv. Nelson, Schware o. New Mexico; Konigeberg 0. Cali- fornia; Jencks: o. United States; Watkins o. United States; Sweezy 0. New Hompshive, and Yates v. United States, we face = common Nem of the highest magnitude. This prob- jem is the State's interest in its own survival. The public record of Communist nibversion, both in this country and im many other countries around the world, is notorious. It is equally notorious that responsible agencies within and without federal and State governments have re- peatedly confirmed that the Communist Party in this coun ia an arm of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, wi the objective of alteration of the form of government of the United States tn a Comraunist date—whether or not through WerShiSr OF Dr Lok an intermediate step of socialism—to be attained by force and violence if necessary. If our United States is to have any semblance of realistic national security—not essentially by guns or even bombs but through awareness of possible ” pubversion and nonfargetful- nous of the absolute enmity to the principles of freedom eyhich has always character: world Communism—the highest court of the United States should not even hint that member- ship in the Communist Party is a mere matter of political association, much Jess hold, as it has in Yates v. United States, that a subjective test is to be applied to advocacy of force and violence to overthrow the Government of this country, and that the Smith Act permits advocacy of forci- ble overthrow, short of incitement of direct action to that anal or A majority of the Supreme Court of the United States has held that, at least as far as good moral character is concerned, membership in the Communist Party is apparently considered a mere matter of political association, privileged under the First Amendment. No matter protestations of words in the UL 5. NEWS & WORLD REFONT, Avg. #. 1957