Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-10-19
NIP 1T IN THE u

! ) progress d ldlIly well developed
movement for the incorporation in the federal con-
%stitution of an amendment declaring that the SUI
preme court is without power to hold unconstitu-
tional any act of congress-, The effect of such an
amendment would be to make congress the sole
Judge of the constitutionality of it's own acts, and
thereby to render nugatory the very Constitution
which fixes limits to the powers of congress.
1t those who are in favor of such legislation
would take their stand frankly on the proposition
that a written constitution is an unnecessary en-
cu1nbrance, and that the country would be better
without one, there would be some logic in their po-
sition. That a written constitution is not essential
to good government is demonstrated by the fact
that some countries are quite well governed with
out such an instrument. Most Americans believe
that our plan is, on the whole, the better one. Never
theless, there is possible an interesting discussion on
the relative merits of the two systems.
But when it is proposed to make congress the
Judge of its own powers and at the same time to
retain the constitution, the advocates of such. a plan
have not a leg to stand on. The very essence of the
constitution is its distribution of the various powers
of government. According to the terms of the con-
|stitution the private citizen has rights which neither
state nor nation may violate the states have rights
which the federal government must not invade;
there are certain fields in which the federal govern
n1ent is supreme; and each department. of govern
|ment has its powers defined and limited.
There are scores of cases involving acts of con-
Igress in which the jurisdiction of congress is in
doubt. An individual may be convinced that a
federal statute violates his rights of person or prop
|erty. Congress believes that it has jurisdiction, 9TH
lerwise it would not have enacted the statute. To
whom shall the individual appeal? To the body
against whose act he complains? Or congress and
Ia state legislature enact statutes which are in direct
conflict. Which shall govern? Congress will nat.
|urally approve its own acts, and if there is no body
(which has the power of review, the effect is that
state government will exist only by virtue of the
pleasure of congress. -
If the proposed amendment should be adopted
our entire system of government must be recast.
If that is to be done the fact should be understood,
and the work Of recasting should be begun III an
orderly manner, and not through the process Of
|pieceneal destruction. Ia Z.
The way to prevent the adoption of the amend
lment, is to head off its submission by congress.
There is in congress an element which is aggressive
~ IN favor OF such an amendment. There is also
another element, unfortunately quite large, whose
latitude toward amendments is that of affability
and complaisance. The position of the men in this
group is that the submission of a proposed amend
lnent by congress is a mere formality for the pur-
pose of giving the people-or the state legislatures
AN opportunityto declare themselves. These men
undertake to evade responsibility by explaining that
their vote in favor of the submission Of a proposed
amendment does not imply approval of the amend
ment itself, but merely indicates an accommodate
ing disposition on the part of congress-, a willing
ness the the country should express itself.
This attitude is wrong. The country under
stands. that when congress submits an amendment
for its consideration it does so because it is con-
WINGED that the amendment is meritorious, and as
soon as congress has acted favorably its action is
used in the states as an argument for the ratification
of the amendment. Let it be understood that the
congressman who votes for the submission of an
amendment will be expected to justify his action by
demonstrating the wisdom of the amendment. If
that is done VIZ shall have less tearing down of the
constitution bit by bit.