Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1934-03-15
CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHTS
Editor Askov American:

CONSTITUTIONAL THOUGHTS
Editor Askov American:
didn't know that one should be
a constitutional lawyer for to under
stand the U. S. Constitution; and it
looks like that the chief justice of the
Minnesota Supreme Court don't know
it either, when he says that it should
be the business of the newspapers,
school teachers, and lawyers to edu-
cate citizens as to their rights under
the Constitution. He knows that they
are not all constitutional lawyers,
and he knows that they don't need to
be that for to educate people about the
Constitution.
am only a layman but have read
| it many times as l have been justice
Of the peace and held some other Of
fees where had to take official oath
and swear to support the Constitution
of the United States. In order to do
that | was bound to know it. So |
had to get hold of it and read it; and
| read it over and over.
| read the amendments first, so
after that when | came to what had
been amended, l could know it. All
there is needed for to learn what the
Constitution is, is to have enough edu-
cation and common sense for to read
and understand.
| know you can do it fully as well.
but it may be that you can not inter-
pref it so as to get something out Of
it that is not in it. 1t may be that
one has to be a lawyer for to do that.
The two parts, as l stated in my
article, are so plain so no interpreted
ton can make it to be the opposite
of what we read right there, but If
some other parts could be interpreted
so as to mean the opposite thing, it
is only common sense to use the plain
parts. If it is interpreted so as to
make a contradiction it would by that
make a confusion of it. In such
case a plain statement is preferable,
as the interpreter is apt to be influ
enced by his own will and desire. So
it is plain in the Constitution, as /
have shown before, that neither Leg
islature or Congress can pass law
that interfereS with or alters a con-
tract agreed to and signed before the
enactment of such law.
1t seems strange to me, that if the
five judges found such part in the
Constitution that could overthrow that
so plainly set forth parts in article
one. section nine, part three; and sec
ton 10, part one, then they could
show it to the other four so they
could get them to vote the same way.
But the four have apparently been of
same opinion as l am; and l am not
ashamed of sharing opinion with four
supreme judges.
Sure, the moratorium Law is to ben
eft for some people, but in proportion,
a loss to others. and they should be
Unidentified as there are, many people,
ness people, holding many of the
mortgages, depending on that for
living in their old age; and then the
people giving the mortgage neglected
to pay taxes and interest already for
years; now coming to conclusion that
they can not save it, but the mort
gage will take it in the end and then
will not pay any of it, keep it insured,
or keep it in repair, but use it as long
as they will be allowed to- Then if
the holders of the mortgages ever get
the right to foreclose, they may not
have the money for to pay the cost
Of the foreclosure and by that have
lost all they had and be paupers.
| am with the poor people and l
am one of them, but stick to honest,
lawful constitutional rights, as by
such the poor people can be helped
when the only trouble is that there
is too much of everything they need.
stroy it. You say: IF the Constitu-
ton is so plain and easy to under
stand layman should understand
all of it," | say yes, but the trouble
is the most of them don't care for
to learn only when there is money or
sport in it. And you say: "Why then
a U. S. Supreme Court?"-Just like if
IudI hllOW IL, WouHu ODcy II. hHu
you say: Even the wisest in the land
await their decision. Why? Be
cause questions are involved that can
be interpreted more than one way"
So that is not for to find out the
meaning of the Constitution, but the
meaning of the judges, and probably
for pecuniary reasons.
The Supreme Court is not only for
to tell the meaning of the Constitu-
ton. l remember many years ago
Standard Oil Company was by the
Federal Court found guilty of so many
violations of the Sherman law so the
company was fined $29,000,OOO, but
then appealed to the U. S. Supreme
Court. The defending attorney first
argued that there were no violations.
but for to be sure, If the court should
find violations, he argued that a cor
poration could not be- punished, as a
corporation has no heart. q read that
in Minneapolis paper), and that
worked. Standard Oil Company should
not pay that fine.
Later the railroads had so little in
come on account Of too much watered
stock to pay dividends on, and they