The Washington times., 1936-12-26
COURT CRITICS
RAP RULING
ON EMBARGO
Support Of President
On Chaco Arms
Draws Attack
BY WILLIAM X. HUTCHINSON
International News Service

International News service
Biting denunciation Of the su.
preme Courts philosophy of Fed
eral sovereignty developed on Cap
itol Hill today as surprising af.
termath to the decision upholding
President Roosevelt in his Chaco
arms embargo.
The Courts latest critics, all
liberals, agreed with the decision
as it applied to embargoes but
sharply denounced the opinion,
which declared the Federal Gov
ernment possessed power in the
field of foreign relations not ex-
presSly vested in it by the Con-
Stitution. One nationally known
constitutional authority called
this portion of the decision
sheer damn rot"
The critics were determined to
carry their protests against this
portion of the decision to the
floors Of the House and Senate
when the new Congress conveneS.
Their views will be aired during
debate on proposed new neutral.
ity legislation.
Courts Ruling
The High Court held, In the
opinion read by Mr.. Justice Suth-
erland, that:
"The broad statement that the
Federal Government can exer.
else no powers except those Spe.
officially enumerated in the
Constitution, and such implied
powers as are necessary and
proper to carry into effect the
enumerated powers, is categOri.
cally true only in respect to our
internal affairs.
"In that field, the primary
purpose of the Constitution was
to carve from the general mass
of legislative powers then pos
SesSed by the States such portions
as it was thought desirable to
vest in the Federal Government,
leaving those not included in
the enumeration still in the
States. That this doctrine ap-
plies only to powers which the
States had is self evident
It may have been "Self evident"
to the court but it is far from that
to lawyers on Capitol Hill.
Again the court said:
"It results that the investment
of the Federal Government with
the powers of external SOW
ereignty did not depend upon
the affirmative grants of the
Constitution"
These proved provocative words
to several of the nations greatest
constitutional authorities. One
of them challenged the courts
declaration in this way:
"The obiter dicta in this de-
cisiOn is astounding. All the
sovereignty of the United States
passed into the hands of the
people the instant the Federal
Government was created. By
their Constitution, the people
gave some specific powers to
the Federal Government and
specifically reserved all other
powers to themselves"
This critic also challenges the
courts contention that the power
to declare war would have vested
in the Executive if the Constitu-
tion had been silent on that point.
He said:
"HOw would war have been
declared? By holding mob con.
ventiOns in the streets? By the
Presidents gestures? If that's
true, where is our republican
form of government"
Then, with increasing excite.
ment, this critic added:
"The assertion that there ex-
lists any power in this Govern
ment, except as provided by the
Constitution, is sheer damn rot.
what powers can the Fed.
eral Government exert in for.
eign affairs not provided for by
the Constitution? War, treaties
and executive agreements are
all provided for in the COnStl-
tuition.
SIS it possible that under this
decision the President might
have power to declare arms en-
bargOeS without any legislation
from COngreSS?" He was asked.
That's just why this decision
Is so untenahIe.H