Evening star., 1922-07-03
Oppose Congressional Veto fl
Supreme Couit Decisions.

"a constitutional anne endment to
abolish the Constitution" is the edi-
toria1 estimate of Senator La Fol-
lette's proposal to take away from
the Supreme Court the power to de-
clare laws unconstitutional by per-
mitting Congress to re-enact a law
thrown out by the court 1t generally
is agreed that the Wisconsin senator
was playing politics" when he at
tackled the Supreme Court in an adj
dress before the convention Of the
American Federation Of Labor. But
the very fact that he reiterated and
amplifed his original sentiments on
the floor of the Senate after more
added to their significance in view of
the fact that he essays to succeed
himself in next autumn's elections. In
consequence the newspapers seem
convinced that the reception which
his doctrine received from union rep
resentatives shows . radical trend
that must be combated.
la Follette's attack on the power
of the Supreme Court must ba con-
sidered in the light Of the present day
tendency toward radicAlism." says the
South Bend Tribune. for neither L.
min nor Trotsky, the Cincinnati En-
ouirer asserts, could have devised a
moro perfect engine Of destruction"
1t is not, to be sure, the Chicago 1r1-
bune adds, "a revolution OF violence
or bloodshed. but it is none the less
the most radical suggestion yet Of
fered by the notoriously radical SEN
ator from Wisconsin,.
Against this cry for ''sovietism."
how ever, the Baltimore Sun inter
poses bit of history. La Toilette
and the American Federation of Labor
are not guilty of latter-dAy radical
isn." it says, "or presenting new Is
sue when they demand that the fed
eral courts shall have z bit put pc
restraining bride be put in the hands
Of Congress. They are simply re-
newtng one Of the battle cries Of
Thomas JEFFERSON.
There can be absolutely no doubt"
tuition a. we know it was made by
the supreme Court" and given q, sufn-
cien.ly strong opposition to judicial
! legislation" La Follettess proposal,
which, the Baltimore paper believes,
was also suggested in Jenerson's
time, ''fs not to be stamped As utterly
improbable Of acceptance.
Certainly there is nothing ex-
tremely radical about the proposal to
submit q constitutional amendment
to the people," the Raleigh IN. CD
Times comedies, and II the people OF
stttution to provide for q. congress
sionaI veto Of Supreme Court de-
cisions," the Indianapolis Star agrees
that 'sthey are at liberty to do So"
But before this country embarks
on what the Appleton Post-Crescent
responsible governmentr its editors
want to analyze very minutely Just
what it would mean. To tho Wheel
ing Intelligencer "it would mean that
the Constitution could he-ehanSeo by
mere majority vote OF Consresa
simple. LEGISLATION in direct CONTRA
diction to the Constitution could be
ma ssed sent to the Supreme Court. de-
nounced as unconstitutional. come
back to Congress and De naoe con-
stitutional BY the mere act q 70.
Rapids Herald. "a more compiete ae-,
sertion Of the theory upon which the
American government ID founded
scarcely could occur even unoer q
system Of sovtets," because the Con-
stitution would become transient; the
tisan Justice, would become subordi-
nate to the Legislative branch. es.
sentiaily political, and the century-old
independence OF the three orancnes
Of American government "ouio
cease
II such an amendment were ADOPT
ed. the Hartford Times declares. II
would relieve Congress from the ne
cessfty of ever considering; the con-
stitutionality of any enactment
condition which. the Philadeip9h 6ui-
letin says. 'would be eQnivalent TO
the abolition Of the Constitution.
and would EXPOSE tho nations future
to the caprfco Of any chance majority
in an omnipotent Congress"
Neyerthaiess,. "the veto power. OF
the United St4tea supreme CSurE y
an assumed power mot autnoeo rr,e
by tho Constitution ITSELF. the MN
nesota Star points ont. ana IN NO
other country would Q court dare GO
set anide q law which had been pas9ed
by the, supreme Legislative Dooy OF
the land" Because these onaf6eS are
ito q degree accur1te. the k1lama-
zoo Gasette observes. ponf1cAI sta.
dents have given the subject OF
abridRing tha powers OF the supreme
Court their SERIOUS attention. Tney
have not. howevers been abba, 70 mt
upon pasn Of cuftaiinenf thAe
would be adyisables" and In the optn-
ion OF the paper tho La, Follette plan
is wholly unacceptable.
"6uch unre8troaned cftfctAm OF the
hiRheSt judicial tribunal has not pre-
yioualy come from any source save
the most radical antf-American quar-
tsrs.' the Harrisburg TeiesrRph re-