The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-09-17
EAVORLNG ExtenSiUe ReviSiOn

T,HOSE who believe extensive
 l or fundamental changes i'm the Constitution must be made in view of today's conditions argue somewhat as follows:
 The Constitution was literally the product of "horse-and-bug- gy" age, when the country had 100000 people instead of 125,- 100000, when communication was difiicult, and life and business re- lations were simple.
 It was . charter of political lib- erty in days when economic liberty more or less took care of itself Today, political liberty is assumed in America, and the battle for eco homie liberty is just beginning.
 The forefathers could not fore. see or provide for the rise of great corporations and financial struc- lures, the network of communica- tions between states, or industrial ization which utterly changed the relations between 8 working man and his job.
 Therefore, in their zeal to pro- tect state and individual rights, they denied to the federal govern mant powers which are necessary today for control of industrial, communication, and financial con- ditions which may be handled suc- cessfully only on a national scale by the federal government.
  DRoF. HOWARD LEE McBAIN 4 of Columbia has concluded that "No Fundamental change in our economic system, no far-reaching alteration in the relations of gov- ernment to business can be brought about without changing the Con- stitution.
 I've should not rush or drift in- to such important changes upon the high tide of an emergency. The common man hould under tand what Is up."
 This point of view sympathizcs with the supreme courts decisions against recent social legislation such as MIRA and railroad pen sions.
 The thing to do is change the Constitution, so that the court must follow the new guide-posts.
 This fight for new economic lib- erty can be a victorious one with out sacrificing any of the hard-won political or personal liberties which the Constitution was main- ly designed to preserve. Though most of the proponents of giving the federal government these new powers are somewhat vague on just what powers ought to be given and must what terms they should be defined, they are clear that the right to enact wage laws, provide for pension and unemployment systems, and various means of controlling business practices are vital to nations of today.
 MATTERS such as the power of uA the supreme court to invali- dh.e laws of congress which are not clearly defined in the Consti. tption, but have built themselves up, should be defined by amend inents, they say, and the whoia process of changing the Constitu- tion, today an unwieldly, tiresome and long -drawn-out process, should be simplified.
 This winters supreme court de- cisions on such laws as the Guffey cpal control act. the Wagner labor relations act, the social security act, the banking act, and the Hold. ing Company act, will amply show this view contends, that the Con. stit"tion at present does not give congress power to enact such lave a C.
 WHEREFORE, it Is not too soon 4 even today to begin to plan very carefully what changes in the Constitution will give congress powers adequate and appropriate to modern industrial and collectiv. list civilization.