Henderson daily dispatch. (Henderson, N.C.) 1914-1995, 1937-04-01
OTHERS VIEWS
THE SUPREME COURT
CONTROVERSY.
To the Editor

l. " l1lC GOltO1
A group of my farmer friends have
asked me to state in expositOry
fashion without coloring, as they put
it), this controversy between the Pre-
sident and the United States Supreme
Court. This 1 shall try to do, though
it is not going to be especially easy,
as 1 am confirmed in my belief that
the controversy is not warranted, that
the President is wrong. However,
check me closely and if I get into any
argument or show any partisanship,
call me down.
In the outset, we should get a de-
finite conception of the nature of our
government, for that is necessary to
an understanding of the controversy.
We have here a Federal, or dual, sys-
tenn of government-someth uni
que among governments. The people
are the sovereigns, or source of pow
er, and they operate through this
dual, or Federal system. The original
states were the first governments
that we possessed as people in our
own right. This we inherited from
the colonies, which derived their pow
er from the English king, or parlia-
ment, or both, as result of the Re-
volution. These original governments
were and are possessed of all author
ity excepted in so far as the same is
limited by the State constitutions and
such as has been granted to the ma
tional government. In short, the State
government is one of limitation and
the national government one of grant.
That is, the State can do all that is
not prohibited, while the national gov
eminent can do only that which is
authorized, specifically or by implica-
ton. Hence the necessity for finding
a power in the Constitution upon
which to base legislation. If the power
is not contained in the Constitution,
the legislation is invalid, and the
court should SO hold; otherwise, there
is a usurpation of power.
Another matter that should be of
interest to the average man is the at
titude that has been manifested to-
ward the court. For the first 70 years
of our history as a republic, the court
was subjected to criticism because it
upheld the enactments of the Con-
gress it invalidating only two dur
ing this period, as I recall, the case
of Marbury v. Madison and the bred
Scott decision, one involving the pow
er OF the court and the other that of
slavery. Or, to- state it differently,
Jefferson, Jackson and their political
associates found fault with the court
for upholding enactments of the ma
tional government, while the COM
plant today is just the reverse. It is
I'M fro fndoxy h00o11c0 II inv OF
acts of the Congress. Since the Civil
War the court has invalidated Is en-
actments or more than one per year.
However, only H. invalidations have
been by a to 4 decision of the court !
Furthermore, this bit of informa-
ton should be of, interest: The court |
has invalidated 10 of the New Deal |
enactments, while the President has
vetoed some 200 enactments. So the |
Congress has Jared much Better at the |
hands of the court than at the hands |
of the President. But it should be re-
membered that the President can veto |
an act for any reason he may choose
to assign, whether on the grounds of
Necessity, policy, propriety or judg-
ment, while the court can invalidate |
the acts of Congress only upon the |
absence of power in the Constitution.
The necessity, propriety, policy or wis
dom underlying enactments are of no
concern to the court.
With these preliminary matters out |
of the way, I shall in the next article |
the legislative enactment |
of the New Deal administration into |
their logical groups and give you the
treatment accorded each group, leav-
ing you to determine whether any,