Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-02-22
Changing of Rules of
SUPREME Court Debated

court changed" as one writer calls
Senator Borah's proposal, editorial opinion is
lined up apparently in equal strength on each
side of the question, with the entire width
of the field between them. Practically the
only point on which there is any shade of
agreement is that if any change is to be made
IN the present practice the Borah idea of re-
quiring a seven to two decision before law
can be declared unconstitutional is a conserv-
ative one.
"To some minds" the Christian Science
Monitor suggests, "the essence of the power
and the dignity of the supreme court lies in
it's being exempt from amendment, correction
or improvement. 1t must be looked upon as
something above criticism and above faults,
but the paper is mot sure that this limitation
would not in the end enhance, rather than de-
tract from, the dignity of the court in the
eyes of the public" Certainly fve-to-four de-
cfsions "have been all too frequent" the Du-
luth Herald holds, and sit is the part of wis
dom to do away with them" for, the Buffalo
News agrees, dissatisfaction is bound to re-
suit when vital legislation is held invalid by
bare majority of the court.
Nowhere else in the world, declares the
Boston Globe sis there tribunal with such
authority We Americans go through all the
forms of deciding for ourselves what laws we
want. We elect Congress. A bill is passed
and taken to the White House The Presi-
dent signs Is it to be a law or not? That
depends upon the nine jurists on the supreme
bench. If as many as five of them say No.
nothing short of a constitutional amendment
or civil war can override their veto" And,
adds the Pittsburg Press, this power "was not
conferred by either Congress or the Constitu
ton. The supreme court judges admittedly
arrogated it to themselves"
''No act of Congress-" the Raleigh News and
Observer maintains, fought to be lightly set
aside or annulled easily. The presumption is
that it is constitutional and should stand. If
it is clearly unconstitutional the court would
not divide so evenly because there is GER
tainly strong presumption in favor Of the
constitutionality of a law that four justices
have declared to be constitutional" and lit
may be very strong presumption when the
weight of the brain power, though not of
numbers, is on the side of constitutionality.
Admitting, however, that claws are some
times invalidated by mere majority of one,
the Columbus Dispatch contends that cit does
not follow that such decisions are wrong"
and it points out that "many laws are passed
by a vote that is only majority of the quo
rum present, and far less than half the entire
And, the Charleston Mail asks,
declare law of Congress unconstitutional, is
it not equally dangerous to permit Congress-
which represents in many respects the whim-
sicalities of tickle and ephemeral maiorities
to put a law on the statute books by bare
majority" Particularly, the Green Bay Press
Gazette suggests, when much of the work of
legislation which is enacted for political pur-
poses" without regard to constitutionality.
"a law interpreting power" says the Pc
oria Transcript lis quite as necessary as
power We can conceive of moth
ing more mischevous than a system which
would enable Congress to make and interpret
it's laws under the federal constitution" With
such a power the Boston Herald suggests
that Congress could amend the constitution
feet legislative body of unlimited compe-
tence."
But eff one comedies for the sake of the
argument the desirability of the novel limita-
ton proposed the Chicago News raises the
serious question as to whether that limitation
could be imposed by statute. "It is more
than probable indeed it is morally certain,
that the Borah bill would itself be pronounced
by the supreme court as con-
shutting an interference by the legislative de-
partment with the coequal judicial depart
ment"
The Newark News suggests a method by
which the Senate, by failing to confirm ap-
pointees to the supreme court bench, could
give acts of Congress, however repugnant to
the Constitution, all the force of the organic
law" and when the court was felt to be
strongly against the constitutionality of
measure that was coming up, to confirm the
appointments only of justices known to be