Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1923-06-08
NEWARK. OHIO. FRIDAY. JUNE 8, lo2
Has the Supreme Court Usurped
the Peoples Power?
By u. S. SENATOR LADD
Senior Senator from North Dakota

Union," they delegated a portion of
it to the Federal Government clearly
specifying that which they delegated
and Withholding all the rest. The Fed
eral Constitution confers upon the
Federal Government certain powers
expressly enumerated; the constitu-
grant of powers not excepted or pro-
hibited. The Federal Constitution is
grant of powers; the state constitu
tions are limitations of powers.
In the face of these well-established
rules Of Interpretation it is pretty
hard to understand how the Supreme
Court Of the United States could take
to itself the right to exercise a power
not expressly conferred by the Fed
eral Constitution. 1t strikes me as
being somewhat pertinent, that the
power to declare an Act fo Congress
void and null by reason of its repug-
nancy to the Federal Constitution was
not exercised during the 16 years that
the Federalsts had control of the
government and that it was not until
the Republicans assumed control of
the government that the Federal
JutSC0 NCHIuICb w PiONictiiii VIZ
power and exercise it.
No doubt, the first impulse of the
judicial mind would be to spring to
the defense of any questioned power
of the judiciary. The argument might
even be adduced that regardless of
what the fathers Of the Constitution
may have had in mind, and regardless
of whether or not the Constitution
gave the express right to the Supreme
Court to declare an Act of Congress
to be unconstitutional, such a power
was implied and, if not implied, that
such power has been exercised for so
long that the people of the land have
accepted it as the law and, therefore,
it is the law.
Of course am fully aware of the
fact that great legal minds may arise
and say that the Senator from North
Dakota is rehashing an old argument,
and that the question has been settled
against him, and that he shows his
ignorance of the situation by adduc-
ing such argument. But | maintain
that it is not an absolute requisite
| that a man be a lawyer to understand
some of the simple language in the
Constitution. 1t matters not if the
Supreme Court has usurped this
power and if they have exercised it
for a long period of years, that fact
does not mean that they now have
the power. They can only have it by
the sufferance of Congress 1t was
never inteded they should have.
1t was intended that the Congress
| rLo,,ll he +bo ,,,pro,,oo h,.opcb Of Uou-
ernment, and that the Congress would
have to go back to the people and re-
port every two years. Under the Con-
stitution, Congress alone should de-
termine whether or not a proposed
J Act was constitutional. AS the mem
Der of the House or the Senate de-
cides on any such question that might
arise, just so will his record go back
to the people as his report, and they
will decide whether or not they ap-
prove of his course In this way the
people can give expression every two
years.
This was in my humble opinion, the
real intent of the trainers of the Con-
stitution. What chance does the
citizen have to rebuke the Sunreme
Court of the United States? The fact
that Congress has been asleep on its
duty and has not zealously guarded
this great power, and has not insisted
that the Supreme Court function only
in its intended sphere, does not mean
that the people have lost that right
and that a growing despotism shall
be enthroned. If this Congress will
pass a new judiciary act, defining the
powers and rights of the Supreme
Court, and decare in that act that
it shall not hereafter have the power
to declare an Act of Congress uncon-
stitutional, the people of this great
land will arise and support them ir
such a measure, and the Supreme
Court of the United States will moi
dare challenge that right. Should il
attempt to do so, then it would be the
solemn duty of Congress to proceed
under the Constitution to dissolve the
court that attempted it and constitute
another one to take its place.