The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1935-06-01
Liberal Viewpoint
BY DR.. HARRY ELMER BARNES.

THE unanimous reputation of the code
4 making authority of the NRA by the
supreme Court creates a practical issue of the
highest immediate import for those Americans
who hope to get somewhere without scrapping
The whole system of capitalism and democracy.
The Supreme Court has blocked progress in
me past But to do so now is more precarious
and disastrous than ever before Only desperate
and extended patching-up can save the day
even for generation. For the court to block
President Roosevelts efforts from the right is
only to make FaSciSm, and then revolution
inevitable. The reactionary justices may we'll
read up little on constitutional history of
a broad and fundamental character
The Constitution of the United States is not
merely collection of printed prescriptions as
to governmental procedure. There is such a
thing as the spirit of the Constitution as we'll
as the letter. Those who most perSstently
clamor about the observance of the letter of
the Constitution are the very ones who, con-
sciously not, most f1agranty violate its spirit.
In its spirit, the Constitution was nothing
Uimid or conservative. 1t was the bold and
daring product Of a group of men who had
recently carried through one of the major
revolutions of early modern times One Of the
most conservative of them had even declared
that the best test Of the fitness of a people
for self -government is their ability to execute
| a successful revolution. Such the genera
| ton which made the Constitution. 1t was not
group of eighteenth century James Montgomery
Becks, Mark Sullivans or Harry Atwoods
TINE Constitution was an effort to bring
i order out of chaos. At that time it was
political as we'll as economic chaos. The Con-
Stitution which confronted the trainers was not
markedly different in principle from that which
has challenged the ingenuity of Franklin D.
Roosevelt since 1888. We certainly war
ranted in believing that if the makers of the
Constitution we're alive today they would warmly
5ympathize with the efforts of the President to
adapt political institutions to the needs
imposed by a desperate crisis.
They were not themselves too sensitive on
matters of constitutionality for the conStitu-
tiona convention grossly exceeded its own con-
stitutional powers. 1t was only authorized to
revise the Articles of Confederation. 1t ended
up by making Constitution.
The fathers approached the Constitution in
purely experimental way. There was nothing
reverental about their attitude. Even Hamilton,
its chief apologiSt and protagoniSt would go no
further than to say that it was the best COM
promise which could be secured at the time,
and that it was better than the system which
existed before the convention.
He and the other trainers expected and
wished it to be thoroughly overhauled in the
light of more governmental experience and in
the face of changed social conditions.
Therefore, the reactionary Constitution
mongerS Of our day are those who really repudi-
ate the spirit of the Constitution, while President
Roosevelt and his Brain Trust respect its spirit
and operate in accordance with it.
There is, moreover, no proof that the New
Deal is contrary even to the letter Of the ConSti
tuition. The Supreme Court in the past has not
hesitated to interpret the literal text very
broadly and to stretch it to meet the courts
| theories Of government.
MARSHALL went the limit 10 make the
WI Constitution justify nationalism Tawney
stretched it to vindicate slavery Chase adapted
it to the needs of the Republican reconstruction
policies. Waite brought business corporations
under its projections Fuller made it the bull
wark in such fashion as to make lawful great
economic convulsions Taft harmonized it with
/ Harding normally"
There is no good reason why Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes and his associates could
not adapt it to the requirements Of social justice
Indeed there is every reason why they should
do so, since only thereby can they save the
economic system to which they are committed.
Even if the New Deal were unconstitutional,
it need worry nobody. Our mode of electing
the Presidents of the United States since the
days Of John Adams has been clearly in de-
fance of the prescriptions of the Constitution.
The Electoral College has been not more than
an empty sham. Likewise, the failure to penalZe
the South for dsfranchisement of the Negro
violates the Reconstruction amendments. The
heavens have not fallen in.
If the Constitution has in the past been
freely modified and adapted to suit the whims
of special economic or political interests there
is no good reason why it can not be so inter
preted today in the interest of the whole people
of the United States. And. in any reasonable
view. it is better 10 save the country than the
Constitution.
The latter is bound to collapse anyway if
the depression continues long enough to wreck
capitalism and democracy. Fsscism will have
little patience with delicate points Of conStitu-
tionalty.