Evening star., 1937-07-31
Another Court Attack.

senator Logan OF henIuCky an
nounced in the Senate, following an
agreement between administration
leaders and the opponents of the Presi-
dents court bill, that the Supreme
Court was "out" so far as the new ju-
dicial procedure bill was concerned.
Senator Hiram johnson of California
replied with GLORY be to God" which
was echoed by millions of Americans.
Since that day, when the court bill was
sent back to the Senate Judiciary Com
mittee, there has been a recrudescence
of the demand that something be done
about the Supreme Court on the part of
those who stood with the President in
his effort to subordinate the tribunal to
the executive and legislative branches.
Senator Minton of Indiana was one OF
the most ardent defenders of the Presi-
dents program for the court. He has
announced that he will seek to amend
the new judicial procedure bill by add
ing provision that the Supreme Court
can hold an act of Congress unconstitu-
tional only by vote of two-thirds or
more. Representative Dies Of Texas,
after conference with the President
at the White House, said that he pro-
posed to offer an amendment to the new
judiciary bill when 1t reached the House
also requiring a two-thirds vote to in
validate an act of Congress on consti-
tutional grounds.
Mr.. Minton maintains that his pro-
posal does not violate the agreement
entered into between the administration
leaders and the opposition. In any
event, he was not a member Of the
Judiciary Committee where the agree
ment was made. His amendment, he
adds, does not propose to change the
personnel OF the court, by either addition
or subtraction, but merely has to do with
procedure.
Opponents of the Presidents plan to
change the status of the Supreme Court
take an opposite view. Senator Wheeler
of Montana, for example, insists that If
the administration leaders undertake to
posed by Minton and Dies in the new
court bill 1t will be bad faith
Irrespective of the question whether
the proposal to have the Senate include
the Minton amendment in the new bill
constitutes a violation of agreement, it
is quite clear that If the amendment is
pressed and receives considerable sup
port there will be another battle royal
in the Senate. So far as the Supreme
Court is concerned, the opponents Of the
Presidents original court bill feel that
no legislation should be attempted at the
present session. It does not seem credible
that administration leaders will lend
themselves to movement now to insert
In the new bill any amendment dealing
with the highest tribunal.
In itself the Minton-Dies proposal is
wrong. 1t would In effect give minority
of the court the right to say that law
is constitutional. Is this better than
having majority decide whether or
not law is constitutional? 1t would
not at all change the situation in which
a single justice of the court, by swing
ing his vote one way or the other, could
uphold or invalidate an act of Congress.
What the amendment proposes is to
give Congress and the President domi-
mating position, so far as the court is
concerned A majority Of the court
would be unable to declare unconstitu-
tional a law passed by both houses of
Congress and signed by the President.
This is no new proposal. Even If en-
acted into law, 1t probably would itself
be held unconstitutional. 1t should be
so held II enacted.