Evening star., 1936-02-13
Stirring the Court Issue.

said during pre-New Deal days, What
the country needs is another Roosevelt"
Yesterday in the Senate Mr.. Norris i'm
piled that the country needed a new
Supreme Court, new Supreme Court
which would sustain the A. A. A. as
Deal. That was the implication of his
address in the Senate, if not his exact
words. The Nebraska Senator, however,
went further than this. He said that
the country needs a new system, curb
ing the power of the court. He would
make it impossible for bare ma ajority of
the Supreme Court to hold an act OF
Congress unconstitutional. He would
require that at least six of the nine
members of the court concur in an
opinion invalidating a law.
Senator Norris is a champion of
President Roosevelt and his New Deal.
He has announced that he will campaign
for the reelection of the President next
Fall What is President Roosevelt going
to do about the recommendations of
Senator Norris with regard to the Su
preme Court? Will he make the pro-
posal to curb the powers of the court
part of his own program; part of his
campaign platform?
Since the celebrated press confer
ence in the White House, at which Mr..
Roosevelt referred to the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court holding
the N. r. A. unconstitutional as a relic
of the horse and buggy days" the
President has made no more public
criticism of the court and its decisions.
The reaction of the country to his
structures at that time was distinctly
not encouraging.
More recently the Supreme Court has
held the A. A. A. unconstitutional. In
this case, however, the court divided
six to three. Now here was a break"
for the administration. Since then the
President has graphically referred once
or twice in his addresses to the minority
opinion of the court, which was in line
with his own theory Of the Constitution.
Since Senator Norris has gone to the eX-
tent of denouncing the system by which
the Supreme Court holds law of Con-
greSs unconstitutional, perhaps the Chief
Executive will call for action by Congress
to take from the court the power to hold
q law unconstitutional by a majority
vote
Ever since the Supreme Court stepped
across the path of the Roosevelt New
Deal it has appeared that the constitu-
tional issue, which involves also the
right of the Supreme Court to pass upon
the constitutionality of laws of Con-
greSs, would become an issue in the
presidential campaign. 1t has not
seemed possible to keep it out of the
campaign. The outspoken attack of Nor
ris, who is to help lead the Republican
progressives of the West again into the
Roosevelt camp, may be a signal, sign
OF what is to happen.
Senator Norris urged that laws of
Congress should not be declared uncon-
stitutional by the Supreme Court as long
as there was reasonable doubt as to
their validity. 1t is inconceivable that
member Of the Supreme Court has a
reasonable doubt" when he passes upon
a law. Who, then, is to have the "rea-
sonable doubt" and get away with it?
Why, Congress, to be sure. Not long
ago President Roosevelt wrote a letter
urging members of Congress to pass a
law even though they had reasonable
doubts as to its constitutionality. His
argument then was that it should be put
up to the Supreme Court for adjudica-
ton. But Senator Norris would 20 fur
ther than that.
majority of Congress, under the pro-
poSal OF Senator Norris, could pass upon
the constitutionaity of law, but a mere
majority Of the Supreme Court could
not. If law impinging upon the Con-
stitution can be held unconstitutional
only by two-thirds decision of the
Supreme Court, should it not be re-
qu1red to have at least two-thirds vote
OF the Congress? The Norris plan pro-
poses that minority of the Supreme
Court should uphold as constitutional a
law passed by Congress by mere ma
jority vote.