Milford chronicle., 1937-06-25

II II Is tnC AuiA anu COulplclc IOTf
r of his proposals, the precipitat
4 haste of their presentation, the sui
= tie nature of their coercion on tn
: elder judges and the political saga
s city of his request for immediat
8 congressional enactment withou
Y referendum to the people, that Civ
: substance to the fear of an ulterio
: and sinister purpose. to mold al
emasculated judiciary to his will
: preparatory to and as the one essen
, tial of executive mastery under th'
! shadow of constitutional forms.
The power that makes the court,
can unmake American representa-
tive democracy. II the President car
persuade or coerce the present Con.
gress to accept as truth his unwar-
ranted assumptions and to enact into
law his revolutionary proposals, he
will have usurped the peoples pre-
rogative to change the Constitution
and can make himself the supreme
power in the Nation. Thus the Pres
ident may make use Of a constitu-
tional remedy aimed against judicial
usurpation and a safety valve
against violent revolution to destroy
the ultimate sovereignty of the peo-
pie.
! 1t is submitted that the proposals
of the President imperil our repre-
sentative democracy because in de-
! nial of the peoples fundamental pre-
rUgative. They are founded upon the
error of a dangerous, because false
in fact and of revolutionary effect,
assumption that the people have CIV
en- him a mandate against the judi
cial usurpation of upright judges
whose only offense is that in good
conscience they could not declare
the Constitution as understood by
the President or apply it as he de-
siIed.
1t is suggested that an indepen-
dent judiciary as an essential organ
of representative democracy under
the Constitution can yet be saved by
the President and by the Congress.
tt ere are sufficient liberals in this
Congress forthwith to authorize the
submission to the people of carefully
worded constitutional amendments
remedial of what by them and the
President is conceived as erroneous
constitutional Interpretation and
meanwhile to stay congressional ac-
tion on the proposal to change the
personnel of the Supreme Court un-
til after the next congressional elec-
tions. If this is done then will go |
to the people under constitutional
referendum the issues vital to repre-
sentative democracy and to the su-
premacy of the people under the
Constitution.
One-third of the States have now
permanent statutes which permit |
action Immediately upon submission
of the amendments and the required
number to adopt can act on the
before such elections.
Whether the amendments are adopt
ed or not, if the elected representa-
tives of the people so will, Congress
and the President by statute may
then change the personnel of the
Supreme Court without offending the
letter of the Constitution, whatever
the violence to its spirit, and this
because after referendum the stat
ute is in accord with and gives ef-
feet to the will of the people and un-
der the American system of juris-
prudence their mandate cannot be
wrong either legally or morally or
as the policy of the Nation.
In final analysis then the issue in
volved in this controversy is factual,
and as that fact is found, the statu-
tory change in the personnel of the
Supreme Court by this Congress
may be enacted with or without
u each of the fundamental law. The
President does not avow an explicit
landate from the people to increase
he number of judges of that court.
Is he warranted in basing his as
of the peoples implied
to do this revolutionary
hing on his vague and tenuous
to use every legal method
q correct the alleged errors of the
j. preme Court? Has this assumption
,y implication the justification of
,ood faith when in truth the Presi-
lent expressly characterized as "un-
his disavowal of a pur-
,ose to pack the Supreme Court, and
lis supporters then condemned as
the suggestion to in
rease its members?
In the recollection that he stated
n the language of his party platform
he alleged wrongful Interpretation
hould be cured by formal amend
nent to the Constitution, may the
be permitted now to as
ume that he has the real and true
mandate of the people to make a vi
al change in their Constitution;
ave the people indeed, after free
and in full understanding
the exercise of their sovereign
over, deliberately decreed that the
him or want of a Safeguarding
congressional majority henceforth
hall be the only determinant of
hat is constitutional and shall 1t
e the sole judge of the rights and
berties which a people originally
ad ordained as inalienable and for
Ter within guardian keeping of the
upreme Court?
The question now for the decision
Congress is the most momentous
lat can confront a people for 1t in
Dives not only the constitutional
brio Of nation but in deeper sig
ficance the usurpation of the pow
; which gives life. energy and pur-
,se to the sovereign will of the
,ople. The present Congress may
crease the number of judges of the