Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1923-08-31
WHERE DOES j. S.
SUPREME COURT GET
ITS VETO POWER?
By Walter Clark, Chief Justice Of the
Supreme Court Of North Carolina.

Editors Note: Few judges in
American history have kept so close
an understanding of the struggles of
the common people through a long
judicial career as has Justice Clark.
Distinguishing himself at the early
age of II as a Northumberland in
the Civil War, Justice Clark was APP
pointed to the North Carolina Su-
preme Court bench in 1899 and was
elevated to be chief justice in 1903.
His decisions are recognized as
among the most liberal and just Of
any of the judges.l
There is no question that is more
fundamental than the right of the
people through their freely elected
representatives to enact their viii
into law.
The men who made the Federal
Constitution at Philadelphia were
mutually doubtful Of the safety of
property under a government by the
people. Up to that time manhood
suffrage had been entrusted to the
people in none of the states. Suf-
frage pertained to the ownership of
| property and there were other re-
strlctions. Besides at that time the
masses were uneducated, and the ex-
pertinent Of government by the peo-
pie was new and untried. It had not
existed in England, which was q
government by the landlords who sat
in the House Of Lords and dictated
the selection of the members Of the
House of Commons.
The Constitution at Philadelphia
restricted the making of laws to this
extent and no further, that the bill
had to be passed by one house, then
it had to be passed by the other, and
then it had to be approved by the ex-
ecutive, and, falling to receive his APP
proval, it was necessary to be passed
by a two-thirds vote of each house.
This was deemed an ample security
that the law was in accordance with
the Constitution, and should be en-
forced subject to the right of the
people to repeal it by the election of
members of the House and Senate
and President.
Judicial Assumption of Power.
There is not line in the Constitu-
ton which intimates an intention
that a majority of the Supreme
Govt should set aside statute that
had been passed in this manner and
approved by the president. It is con-
tended that to give the judges such
power, and which was four times de-
feated in the convention, was a prop
ositien that the judges and the presi-
dent should have revisionary power
over an act before it passed. Be it
so. This would have been less OBJ
jectionable than the present system,
for it would have given the Congress
an opportunity to conform the stat
ute to the revision, but it is most sin |
gular logic to hold that because such !
power of revision was four times de-
feated that therefore the Constitu-
ton gave to the courts the power to
set aside law after it was enacted.
If the Constitution gave such pow
er all that is necessary is to point it |
out, and this no man has yet done. |
The Constitution knew how to give
the president the veto power, and it |
took care not to make it absolute,
but merely suspensive and the sub
ject to be overruled by a two-thirds
vote. If it intended to give the
judges the veto, it certainly would
not have made it absolute, but sub
ject to review by a prescribed vote
in Congress as it did in regard to the
presidential veto. An irreviewable
veto by five men is as Objectionable
as if exercised by one.
| Congress.
1t is true that there is a provision
that the laws enacted by Congress
shall be supreme over those enacted
by the states. This is necessary in
a federal form Of government, and
it is the function of the Supreme
Court to construe the meaning of
acts Of Congress. But this does not
include the power to repeal them.
Neither do the state constitutions
confer power upon their Supreme
Courts to set aside an act of State
Legislature which has been passed
with the approval or over the veto
of the governor. The state courts