Evening star., 1935-10-09
The Hoffman Amendment.

Gov. Harold G. Hoffman of New Jer-
sey in burst of anxiety to preserve the
liberties Of the American people under
the Constitution from legislative en-
croachment proposes that all laws OF
Congress be given clean bill OF health
by the Supreme Court before they become
operative. Gov. Hoffman's desire to pro-
tect the people and their constitutional
liberties is admirable. But preserving the
Constitution is one thing and placing
unusual powers in the hands of any one
of three branches of the Federal Gov
ernment is another. To do what the
New Jersey Governor asks would be to
make the Supreme Court second and
dominating legislative body, with
power Of veto before law becomes
effective.
For nearly q century and half the
Supreme Court has guarded the Ameri-
can people from infringement Of their
constitutional rights. 1t has done and
is doing a service Of immense value to
the people. 1t has earned and deserved
the faith and respect OF the people with
its record Of answering loyalty to the
Constitution. There seems no good and
suficient reason for amending the Con-
stitution so as to compel the Supreme
Court to pass upon laws before they
become effective. Nor is there any rea-
son, except selfish one, for amending
the Constitution so as to take away from
the court authority to declare a law OF
Congress unconstitutional, as has been
proposed in other and more radical
quarters.
A constitutional amendment of the
nature sought by Gov. Hoffman would
be an invitation to the members OF Con-
eress to lay aside duty now imposed
upon them in their oath of office. 1t
would be an invitation to pass laws OF
doubtful constitutionality, leaving the
final determination with the Supreme
Court-after the measure had been
signed by the President Of the United
States. It would be no more nor less
than the invitation extended by Presi-
dent Roosevelt to Congress at its last
session, when he urged that it put
through the Guffey coal control act even
though it had reasonable" doubts OF
the laws constitutionality. The Presi-
dent in a letter to Representative Hill of
Washington suggested that the matter
should be put up to the Supreme Court
for final adjudication, despite such
doubts.
With the legislative functions implied
In the Hoffman amendment to the Con-
stitution handed to the court, how long
could that tribunal remain aloof from
partisan politics? How long could 1t
retain the respect of the people? The
proposal is not new historically. In one
form or another it came before the
trainers of the Constitution and was
discarded
There is another criticism of the Hoff-
man proposal. Once the Supreme Court
had passed upon a law, allowing it to
become effective, what chance would
citizen who found the measure oppres-
sive have Of obtaining judicial relief?
The court would take on the dual role Of
legislator and judge. Under the present
practice. which has maintained for so
many years, citizens appeal from oppres-
sive laws to the court. In each case the
court is in a position to pass upon the
law and the merits. 1t would be an ON
niscient tribunal indeed which. could
foresee every case that might arise under
q law Of Congress, and 50 pass upon it
In advance.
The Hoffman proposal is an example
Of the lengths to which extreme parti-
sans may 60. Doubtless it has been
fostered by a desire to Offset the demands
OF radicals that the power Of the court
10 pass upon the constitutionality of
laws of Congress be curtailed or abol-
ished altogether. And if the laws of
Congress are to be submitted to the
court for approval before becoming ef-
fective, why should not the laws of the
individual States follow the same course?
Calm estimation must admit that the