Evening star., 1935-06-13
IGNORING Of COURT
MAY Be Sc ISSUE.
Members of Congress Seen
Violating Oath in Passing
+ Conflicting Laws.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

A new issue Will make lLS appear
ance In the 1886 congressional cam
paign, both in the primaries and in
the final elections. 1t is whether
member OF Congress who has taken
en- oath to support and defend the
Constitution is guilty of violating 1t
when he casts his vote in favor of
legislation that is plainly unconSti-
tutional
There is no doubt that a member
could defend himself prior to May 81,
when the Supreme Court unanimously
held the national industrial recovery
act to be unconstitutional. He might
argue that it was a matter OF grave
doubt as to what was or was not con-
etitutional. But what will the member
say in answer to his critics if he con-
fanues to vote in favor of legislation
which clearly conflicts with the unani-
NOUS opinion of the Supreme Court
of the United States in the historic
Echechter case?
= Congress has not yet acted finally
on any major legislation since the
Schechter case was handed down. But
the Senate on Tuesday passed the bill
prohibiting utility holding companies
and there are pending two other i'm
portant measures-the Wagner labor
Bill and the social security bill-which
contain clauses that are not in con-
formity with Supreme Court decisions.
Utility Bill Declared Illegal.
Take the utility bill, for instance.
1t would delegate to a governmental
commission authority to decide
whether a company is economically
tntegrated" with other companies.
This means that Congress, instead of
prescribing rules as to what is meant
by economic integration, leaves it to
n commission to determine. Obviously
There is no power in the first instance
TO make laws governing economic
Soundness or unsoundneSs with refer
ence to the ownership of shares in a
company engaged wholly in producing
and distributing electricity within
State lines. This being the case, there
is no authority to delegate the power
60 any Federal commission to decide
It either
= Then there is the Wagner Connery
bill, which was passed by the Senate
before the Schechter decision was
rendered. but which has been reported
10 the House of Representatives since
that event. The bill ignores entirely
what the Supreme Court said about
The lack of power of the Federal Gov
ernment to regulate wages and hours
or conditions of employment. Hark-
ing back to cases which were cited
and rejected by the court in deciding
the Schechter case. the House COM
rnittee report boldly reasserts the same
principles, thus flouting the decision
Of the highest court.
Members of the House of Repre-
sentatives will be called upon soon to
vote on the Wagner -Connery bill.
There are rumors that the Department
of Justice feels the Wagner-Connery
bill even as now drawn conflicts with
the Supreme Court opinions, but be-
cause these matters are so entirely
political 1t Is unlikely that the depart
ment will express itself publicly on
the issue.
Quick Court Test Due.
IF the Congress should adopt these
tinconstitutional laws. 1t is likely that
the courts will declare them invalid
before the next election is held, be-
cause it is apparent that opponents
intend to test the statutes at once
and expedite case TO the highest
court. The opportunity then to ques-
ton the sincerity of those who have
taken an oath to support the Consti-
tuition may arise in the 1886 cam
paign in many districts.
The issue is q novel one, of course,
in the sense that opponents will need
only to read the oath of a member
and point to the unanimous decison
Of the court and subsequent decisions
to make the point that moral integrity
is lacking in any person who swears
to defend the Constitution and then
plainly violates it.
There are signs that the same is
sue may be developed against the
President. with the argument center
ing largely on the Frazier-Lemke bill,
which was recently held unconstitu-
tional by unanimous vote of the Su-
preme Court and which, it is reported,
was known to the President to be I'M
constitutional when the measure was
signed, especially since some opinions
Of the Department of Justice are said
TO have been secretly filed pointing
out that the Frazier -Lemke bill was
q violation of the Constitution.
Tt may be that the oath of office
Will be rewritten 50 that members Of
Congress taking it hereafter will say
that they swear to support and up
hold the Constitution as they and
their political brethren interpret 1t
and not as the Supreme Court has
decided in its long line of historic
precedents This concept OF the oath
is really what the politically minded
have harbored for some time anyway