Evening star., 1936-01-09
THE POLITICAL
MILL
By G.. Could Lincoln.


presidential campaign? Opinions differ
The issue could be drawn squarely If
the Roosevelt Democrats put forward in
their platform definite pledge to bring
about an amendment Of the Constitu-
ton to validate the New Deal. But are
they willing to 60 that far, even If the
Supreme Court throws out five or six
more Of the laws they have put on the
statute books?
This Is q decision that President Roose-
welt, seeking reelection, and his sup
porters will have to make. Some of them
are ready now to go forward with the
fight for a constitutional amendment,
among them Senator Costigan Of Colo
RADIO, who prepared resolution submit
ting such an amendment year ago. If
the Supreme Court, in its decisions on
other measures, including the social Sc
curity act, the T. v. A., the Wagner labor
disputes act, the Guffey coal act, the
Bankhead cotton control act, etc, pulls
down the whole fabric Of the New Deal,
what's to be done about it?
Monkeying with the Constitution, and
with States rights, as in this case, has
its dangers for any political party. And
yet what will be the situation II the
New Deal measures almost all 60 over
board? 1t seems incredible that the
issue will not be joined in the campaign.
The President and his followers may
figure that the action of the court will
so arouse the people that they will them
selves demand a constitutional amend
ment, and will signify their willingness
by re-electing the President and Demo-
cratic, New Deal, Congress. There is some
reason, 1t is said, to believe that the
administration intends to let the pot
simmer for the time being, at least.
Should the administration decide to
get back of an amendment, say the Cos
tigan amendment, which would give the
Federal Government power to control
production, hours of wages and labor,
or back up some proposition to take away
from the Supreme Court the authority
to pass upon the constitutionality of laws
of Congress, could the administration
get it through the present Congress? The
Democrats have more than three -to-one
party membership in both Senate and
House. 1t requires two-thirds vote of
both Houses to adopt a resolution SUBJ
mitting a constitutional amendment to
the States for ratification. 1t is no
secret that many of the Democratic
members OF Congress have been lukewarm
to, if not wholly out OF sympathy with,
some Of the New Deal measures and the
concentration of governmental power in
Washington. What would be the atti-
tude OF the members from the Southern
States toward an amendment to the
Constitution giving the Federal Govern
ment these unusual and, up to the pres
ent, unconstitutional powers in the
States? Might not such Federal author
ity be extended to policing the States.
The Southerners have not forgotten the
old force bill" nor the more recent Fed
eral anti-lynching bill.
~
So far as the Republicans are con-
cerned they will welcome the constitu-
tional issue Indeed, they have already
raised it from one end of the land to the
other. Former President Hoover has
been preaching it vigorously in his attack
on the New Deal. Only the other day
Senator Borah of Idaho. one of the
foremost candidates for the Republican
presidential nomination, seized on this
issue. He has published an article in
Court" in which Borah charges that the
doctrine expounded by some of the New
Dealers OF the doctrine of fascism, CEN
tralization of leadership in the hands of
the President. If it comes to a fight
between the President and the Supreme
Court, what Mr.. Borah's attitude will be
seems clear from a paragraph in his
article, which says:
iS ynv fooIi,1o hat v,bax, ba -,
ers Of the Constitution lodged the power
to amend the Constitution in the people
and conferred upon the Supreme Court
the power to annul acts found to be in
violation of the Constitution they made
this a government of law rather a gov
ernment of men, And only by preserving
both the Constitution and the power of
the court can we be certain that it will
remain a government of law"
President Roosevelt in his address to the
Jackson day dinner last night made 20
comment upon the decision of the Su-
preme Court outlawing the A. A. A. other
than to say that he could not render
ofhand judgment without studying
two of the most momentuous opinions
ever rendered in a case before the Su-
preme Court Of the United States" He
closed his address, however, with the
statement: I'VE will not retreat" what
ever that may mean.
It was a 6-to-3 decision, with three
members of the court dissenting from
the decision of the court. Naturally the
President prefers the opinion of the dis
senterS. He did not have the opportun-
| ity to divide his affections among men,
bers of the Supreme Court when that
tribunal declared the N. r. A. uncon-
stitutional. Associate Justice Stone, in
| giving the opinion of the diSSenters, used
| the phrase that members of the court
must use "self f-reStraint" in passing, pre-
sumably, upon laws of Congress. 1t
looks very much as though he might
have been accusing the six members who
rendered the opinion of the court of lack
| of self-restraint. If so, would the same
| charge lie against the three justices who
diSsented in the A. A. A. case but who
went with the rest of the court in hold
| ing the N. r. A. unconstitutional? 1t Is
| to be presumed that the majority of
| the members of the court were as con-
scientious in constituting the law and
| the Constitution in the A. A. A. case as
| they were in the N. r. A. case, and as
| conscientious as were the three dissent
| ers in the latter case. Is there any more
| reason to hold that the majority were
| playing politics than the minority?
| Would a decision unfolding the A, A. A,