Evening star., 1937-09-27
The Presidents Speech
On the Constitution
TO the Editor Of The Star:


To the Editor Of The Star:
In the Presidents speech on the Con-
stitution, IS In all his others, he seemed
confident that he was addressing an
audience largely uncritical and unin-
formed and that he could safely 60 the
limit in irresponsible statements and
Illogical conclusions.
In that speech he made the amazing
assertion that the Federal Constitution
Is q layman's, not lawyers document.
What are the facts? Three plans of
federation were submitted to the con-
vention: one by Edmund Randolph of
Virginia, eminent lawyer and One-time
attorney general of his State; another
plan by William Patterson, lawyer Of New
Jersey, and third plan by Charles
Pinckrey, lawyer, of South Carolina.
The President stated definitely that
James Madison Of Virginia was not a
lawyer. He was, and of sufficient emil
nence to have been intrusted with the
task OF codifying the laws of Virginia.
Washington, presiding over the conven-
ton, appointed committee to study all
plans submitted and report a digest to
the convention and named as the COM
mittee chairman Gouverneur Morris of
Pennsylvania, one of the most distin-
guished lawyers of Colonial days, and the
final draft OF the document was penned
by Gouverneur Morris. More than half
OF the delegates to the convention were
lawyers and of the 40 who signed the
Constitution % were lawyers. The docu-
ment contains some legal phraseology
that causes disagreements among the
great lawyers on the Supreme Court
bench and which is Greek to the layman,
The President said that not many
persons know that the Constitution
makes no provision for the Supreme
Court to declare laws of Congress uncon-
stitutional. He was right; not many
know 1t. Nor does he know it, for 1t is
not true. There is no necessity to spin
out long arguments, going around Robin
Hoods barn. to show that the judiciary.
by implication, has that power. 1t can
be cited definitely and briefly. The
Supreme Court decides pro or con on the
constitutionality of q law OF Congress
only when appealed to from a decision
OF lower court, as definitely provided
In the Constitution. Would President
Roosevelt say that on appeal to it the
court has power to declare a law consti-
tutional but not to declare it unconsti-
tutional?
Again. the President said the Consti-
tutlonal Convention repeatedly voted
down resolutions to empower the Judi
clary to annul, because unconstitutional.
laws OF Congress. 1t did, but 1t was
because the resolution required the court
justices to collaborate with the Execu-
tive IN such finding, causing the judi
clary to cooperate in legislation, the
very thing the President complains the
present Supreme Court has done when
1nvalidating New Deal laws and the very
thing he insists 1t shall do by co-operat-
ing with him in legislation.
Again: THE resources of the Nation
can be made to produce a far higher
standard OF living for the masses II only
Government Is intelligent and energetic
IN giving the right direction to economic
me-. Here We have the old, manv-
tlmes-discarded theory of economic Sc
curlty by law instead OF by individual
1rugaltty, industry and thrift. Economic
security does, indeed come by law to-
the bureaucrats. Washington CITY fs
lush with them. They spill over into
maryland and Virginia. In 4 hundred
additions homes are being built for
them, which they buy as fast as COM
pleted at prices ranging from So. 900 10
$lo,UOO each. That is more than eco
nomlc security produced by law; it is
luxury. Ihe situation reveals the bone
OF contention between the President and
the judiciary reduced to the least COM
mon denominatOr. The former wants
Government paternalism with its at
tenoant reorganization of the people in
al tnelr activities under wide spreading.
cosby bureaucracy, whereas the Consti-
tution makes no provision for any such
development. II the people want pater-
nansm with inevitable decay of Anglo
saxon self reliance, with the number of
government wards subsisting wholly or
III part on the labor of others increasing
with every generation, they have a per-
Iect right TO obtain 1t by constitutional
amendment. But no President has the
Hgnt 10 1oist it upon the people.
again, the President had much to saw
ABOUT 1mperfections in the Federal char
Ter having required 20 years or longer
70 remove. He called them the "2O-year
la6S and voiced his determination tn
put stop to them. Certainly none will
say thAt the document was or is immac-
uia.e. some OF its defects were innate
Others introduced by fallible human ius-
tices The "2o-year lags," however, were
never produced by the people refusing
70 amend. except the one referring to
child labor. but by amendments not
being submitted for ratification. All but
one amendment has been ratified in as
Reasonable time rs expected bv the
trainers Of the Constitution. who pro-
vloed carefully against precipitate
amendments under the hysteria OF a
passing 1unacy such as now intoxicates
American voters. We would better suh-
NIT to two or seven "20-year lagsu before
oestroy1ng constitutional republican
Government. E. O. JACOBSON.