Evening star., 1936-01-07
Unconstitutional.

lie n. n. "a IIdo SOAiS bAAS WY ~ 0->
N. r. A. The highest tribunal in the
land has held the agricultural ADJUST
ment act unconstitutional. 1t should not
come as a surprise to the Nation, par
ticularly in the light of the courts prior
decision invalidating the national recov-
ery act last Spring. Indeed, the surpris-
ing thing would have been for the court
to uphold the A. A. A. When the N. H. A.
decision was handed down, unanimously
nv the court, President Roosevelt himself
admitted that under the conception ana
INTERPRETATION of the Constitution by the
court other New Deal acts, lncluolng
the A. A. A.. were in Jeopardy.
The decision of the court demolshes
the act entirely. The Federal Govern
roent the court holds cannot undertake
to control production-which is just Wnat
the A. A. A. has sought to do-within the
States. There seems, therefore, no way
IN which this end may be sought oy
legislation and remain within the Con-
stitution.
The so-called general-welfare clause
ef the Constitution, the court hoios' Is
not an unlimited grant OF power 10 the
Federal Government. Its dellntations
ore defined If they were not, the Fed
eral Government might, under the gulSe
of general welfare" undertake activl-
ties and actions which would wipe OUT
the States entirely. Associate justice
Roberts handing down the decision OF
the court and speaking of the trainers
of the Constitution and those who nave
commented upon it, says, to the point:
"It seems never to have occurred 10
them, or to those who have agreed with
them. that the general welfare OF the
limited States (which has aptly oeen
termed an indestructible Union, COM
posed of indestructible States) mign1
he served by obliterating the constltu-
ent members of the Union"
The court correctly points out that the
.o-cslled voluntary agreements entered
into by the farmers under the A. A. a.
program are in reality purchased tnTousil
benefit payments by the Government
with Government funds.
The decision is concurred IN oy t"o-
thirds of the members of the court WIN
one-third dissenting. These dissenters'
Associate Justices Stone, Brandeis ana
Cardozo, uphold the A. A. A. ana tne
right of the Federal Government to con-
duct its operations under the general
welfare clause of the Constitution. In
their dissenting opinion, these justices
issue a strange warning. The power
thev say, "of courts to declare statute
unconstitutional is subject to two gulo-
ing principles of decision which ought
never to be absent from judicial con-
seriousness. One is that courts are con-
cerned only with the power to enact
statutes, not with their wisdom. The
other is that while unconstitutional ex-
ercise of power by the executive and leg
islative branches of the Government is
subject to judicial restraint, the only
check upon our own exercise OF power
is our OWL StLlSS VI SSlA A-ACocA oAAAS' = W
the removal of unwise laws from the
statute book appeal lies not to the courts
but to the ballot and to the processes
OF democratic government"
The decision of the court throwing the
A. A. A. out of the window presages the
ultimate invalidating of many more New
Deal laws, among them the Guffey coal
bill, the Bankhead cotton control act,
the Kerr tobacco control act, the potato
control act, the T. v. A. act and perhaps
the social security act and the labor
disputes act. Certainly this seems to be
q probability unless the majority of the
court, in accordance with the warning Of
the minority, is to be more "self-re-
strained" in these future decisions.
If the New Deal is to be held uncon-
stitutional generally, there seems to re-
main for President Roosevelt and his
followers only choice of surrendering
the concept of the New Deal or of pro-
posing an amendment to the Constitu-
ton which would make legal all these
New Deal acts. The President once gave
an impression that he might make a
fight for a constitutional amendment,
but he went no further.