Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1912-03-09
J. B. and J. L. OAKLEAF

But the main argument used to sus-
tain such a popular review of judicial
decisions is that the people are
competent to interpret 1t and that this
recall of decisions is nothing but the
exercise of the power Of interpreta-
ton. This is clearly a fallacious ar
gument. The approval of general prin-
ciples in a constitution on the one
hand and the Interpretation of stat
ute and consideration OF its probable
operation in a particular case and its
possible infringement of general
principle on the other hand are very
different things. The one is simple,
the latter complex, and the latter,
when submitted to popular vote, as
already pointed out, is much more
likely to be turned into an issue Of
general approval or disapproval of the
action, its merits for the special pur-
pose of its enactment than upon its
violation of the constitution. More
over, a popular majority does not
adopt a constitution or any principle
of it or amend its terms until after 1t
has chen adopted by a constitutional
convention or q legislature, and the
final adoption is and ought to be sur
rounded with such checks and delays
as to secure elaboration. In other
words, the course of procedure in the
adoption of a constitution or amend
ment Is very different from what the
proposed vote of a majority on con-
| stitutional Interpretation would be.
Protection of Constitution.
/ Constitutions ought to be protected
/ by such requirements as to their
| amendment as to insure great deliber-
/ alton by the people in making them,
much greater than one vote of mere
/ Temporarily majority This method
! Of amending the constitution would
! give it no more permanence than
/ that of an ordinary legislative act and
would give to the inalienable rights OF
liberty, private property and the pur-
suit of happiness no more sanction
than that of an annual appropriation
bill. Can it be that the power of a
temporary majority of the electorate
by a single popular vote to do away
with rights secured to individuals
which have been inviolable for 70t
years since the days of Magma Charta
approves itself to those who love lib
erty and who hold dear it's sacred
guarantees? Would we not in giving
such powerful effect to the momentary
impulse of a majority of an electorate
prepare the way for the possible
exercise of. the grossest tyranny?
Il Finally, l ask what is the necessity
for such a crude, revolutionary, fitfu
and unstable way of reversing judicia
construction of the constitution? Why
If the construction is wrong. can
. not be righted by constitutions
: amendment? The securing of that, /
. is true, is usually hedged about b,
checks and balances devised to secur
delay, elaboration, discussion befor
? change of the fundamental law
But such amendments can be made
and if so the effect of the decision cal
be reversed in respect to a new Lar
: by an amendment with express term
: of authority to enact such a Law
An answer made TO this is that IN
, same judges will copstrue the amend
ment and defeat the popular win. a
: in the first instance. This assume
I dishonesty and a gross violation c
/. their oaths of duty on the part c
, judges, hypothesis utterly untenablt
. If the meaning Of the amendment
; made plain, as IT readily can be {
!. course. the court will follow t.
! have examined this propose
!. method OF reversing judicial decision
. on constitutional questions with car
/, do not hesitate to say that II lay
!. the Ak at the foot OF the tree OF We
| ordered freedom and subjects ii
guarantees of life. liberty and prope
ty without remedy 10 the ftfui in
pulse Of temporary majority of q
. electorate.
Mr. Justice Miller Of Iowa, was OF