Evening star., 1936-05-20

o III III Z IL 1ioS
been that no
where in the Con-
DaVid Lawrence stitution Is there
any explicit authority for declara-
ton by the Supreme Court about the
constitutionality Of an act OF Con-
gress. But says Justice Sutherland In
the Guffey opinion:
THE Constitution speaks for It
self in terms so plain that to mis-
understand their import is not ra-
tionally possible. We the people OF
the United States it says. do ordain
and establish this Constitution
Ordain and establish. These are def
mite words of enactment and with
out more would stamp what follows
with the dignity and character OF
law. The trainers Of the Constitu-
ton, however, were not content TO
let the matter rest here. but provided
explicitly: This Constitution, and
the laws of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance Thereon
.. shall be the supreme law OF the
land
1.-THE supremacy of the Constitu-
ton as law is thus declared without
qualification. That supremacy Is ap-
solute; the supremacy OF a statute
enacted by Congress is not absolute,
but conditioned upon its being made
in pursuance of the Constitution.
And a judicial tribunal, clothed by
that instrument with complete jul
dicial power, and, therefore, by the
very nature of the power, required to
ascertain and apply the law to the
facts in every case or proceeding
properly brought for adjudication,
must apply the supreme law and re-
ject the inferior statute whenever the
two conflict"
Subject to Interpretation.
The foregoing paragraphs probably
will be quoted again and again as a
reafirmation of the principle laid
down by Chief Justice John Marshall
in 1903 and rarely questioned except
when groups disliked the opinions OF
the court.
Now, of course, the Constitution as
the supreme law" has to be inter-
preted, and the long line of rulings
and precedents covered in the ma
jority opinions Of the Supreme Court
afford a guide for what has become
known as the American constitutional
system.
It may well be asked why it is that
Congress doesn't know the supreme
law" as well as the Supreme Court.
For many generations Congress has
known the constitutional precedents
and has accepted them. Out Of up
ward Of $4,000 statutes passed by
Congress since the beginning of the
Republic, less than rs have been de-
clared unconstitutional.
But in the last three years the Con-
gress has chosen to disregard prece-
dents of the court in writing new leg
islation. Certainly Congress cannot
be blamed for exploring new ground,
but this alone has not been the case
with most of the statutes. The new
ground has been so interviewer with
plainly invalid actions covering old
ground that the laws have fallen in
their entirety before the judgment OF
the Supreme Court.
Since under the American system
advisory opinions are not rendered in
advance by the Supreme Court, the
delay incident to getting a decision
may bring economic loss. There is,
for instance, no measure today of the
loss. direct and indirect, occasioned by
the Guffey law. On top of this the
decision comes as Congress is about
to adjourn and when substitute
statute can hardly be drawn.
If Congress, on the other hand,
had endeavored to respect constitu-
tional precedents in the first place,
bill for the regulation of interstate
sales in the coal industry might have
been declared valid so that the indi-
rect benefits of such forward step
might have led to stabiliZation of
natural-resource industry which has
been for many years in distress. Good
wages, as Justice Cardozo pointed
out, come from soundly organized
or stabilized industry.
Written by Engine Group.
The layman may ask why Congress
doesn't pay attention to precedents,
The answer frankly given is that
legislation like the Guffey act is not
written by members of Congress at all,
but by the lawyers for a group, in this
case the United Mine Workers. Like
wise when President Roosevelt asks
Congress to ignore constitutional doubts
and go ahead, he exposes himself to
the comment that the measure is a
temporary sop to the demands of the
coal miners and that the Supreme
Court and not the Congress or the
Executive is expected to rescue the
country from unsound proposals. In
this way the blame Is placed on the
court while both Congress and the
President IN the electoral campaigns
can contend that they did what they
could for the coal mining group, but
the court intervened against them.
When legislation Is written by mem
befs Of Congress without regard to the
pressure Of minority groups, repre-
senting either big business or organ
lied labor, but in the public interest
with an eye to the consumer and the
taxpayer, the chances are the legisla-
ton will come well within the Consti-
tuition because the Supreme Court de-
cisions clearly point the way-if Con-
gress were only disposed to heed the
directions and scope of constitutional
power clearly granted to it and ap-
proved by the Supreme Court in many
thousands of cases decided by it and
by opinions of the lower courts which
usually conform to Supreme Court
rulings.
~ Copyright. 1850