◆ SpookStack

Tue Constaution versus Tuk Courr ral ope A L in 1882, the Supreme Court of the United States reafhrmed this fact when it said: This court... has no legista- tive powers. It cannot amend or modity any legislative acts. It can- not cxamine questions as expedient or inexpedient, as politic or impols- tic. Considerations of that sort must, in general, be addressed to the leg- islature. Questions of policy deter- mined there are conchailed here.” “For protection against unjust or unwise lepislation, within the himits of recognized leyislative power, the people must look to the polls and not to the courts. Louisiana Bar Journal, October, A J. Y. Sanders, Jr, asks in the 1956 Has the Supreme Court the right to change the Consutuuion by interpretauion? Has the Supreme Court the right to cule by edict where it con- siders the Congress in error in fail- ing to legislate? ‘Have we exchanged the ‘divine right of kings’ for ‘divine right of the Supreme Court’? Have we substituted for the government of checks and balances instituted by the Founding Fathers a supreme, omnipotent and infallible Supreme Court as the final arbiter of our destinies? On Page 30 of a pamphlet, copy- righted in 1946, known as “The Road to Freedom,” I made the fol- lowing statement: Parts of the present 13th and 14th Amendments having to do with slavery and citizenship, are in cluded in the suggested amend. ments at the conclusion of this pamphlet for the reason conveyed by Abraham Lincoin when he said that in his opinion those amend- ments would not be valid unless approved by the Southern States. Inasmuch as they were approved by Carpetbagger and Scalawag leg- islature, who mo more represented the people of the Southern States than did the Quisling and Laval governments represent the people of Norway and France, these amend- ments along with the 15th are not a valid part of the Constitution. This theme was independently . proved by Walter J. Suthon, Jr. in an enlightening brief entitled: “The Dubious Origin of the 14th Amend- ment.” (Tulane Law Review, De- cember, 1953) As Mr, Suthon points out, Article V (not the Fifth Amendment) out- lines the specific methods to be followed by which the States, if they see fit, shall have power to amend the Constitution. When the so-called 14th and 15th Amendments were submitted, the requirements of Article V were not adhered to, and therefore the 14th and 15th Amendments do not exist. The fact that the Southern States were forced to ratify these Amendments at the point of a bayonet has no bearing here. If the Amendments were not submitted in pursuance of Article V of the Constitution, that is that. Any per- son who maintains that the 14th and 15th Amendments are valid is