Evening star., 1937-03-08

constituted, for this would obviously
not be a free reconciliation OF law
and politics, but q delivery OF all the
key positions into the hands OF one
Of the contending elements. And 1t
may be added that this remedy OF
maintaining the judicial supremacy
altogether untouched in any respect
has in fact been tried during the last
four or five years without real sue
cess, for the gravity Of the present
crisis indicates the degree to which
this conservative solution Of the con-
fiict has proved unsatisfactory.
The Second Standpoint.
The second standpoint from which
the main problem may be approached
is that of the constitutional reformer
who urges that the special powers
which the judiciary have acquired in
the United States with reference to
determining with final authority the
constitutionalty of legislation. should
be wholly abrogated. 1t has often been
pointed out that our American system
Is really unique in this respect. 1t Is
urged that 1t is not necessary. to Judge
from English experience. for example.
to maintain the judiciary with powers
that involve a complete check upon
the action of even the coordinate ma
tional legislature. The conclusion
suggested is that private legal inter-
ests could and would be adequately
protected without according to the
judiciary such great powers OF an
essentially political nature.
The answer to this line of argument
is that the legal power Of the judiciary
to review constitutional issues and to
exercise an independent Judgment
thereon has become fully established
in this country, and is a fundamental
part of our American system of Gov
ernment. The solution of the current
conflict between law and politics can
not be found in the complete aban-
donment of law in favor of politics.
any more than it can be found in the
complete abandonment OF politics in
favor of law What we are seeking
is a practical reconciliation between
law and politics. Such reconciliation
cannot be found in the complete sur
render of one of these great forces in
our national life to the other. Both
must be permanently maintained. and,
by some stroke of statecraft. harmony
must be established between them.
The third standpoint is that Of those
who hold that nothing can be done to
solve the present crisis except through
explicit constitutional amendments 1t
is true that, if the time factor we're
of no Importance, it would be possible
to attempt to meet each important
reactionary judicial decision with re-
lation to modern social legislation by
an appropriate constitutional amend
ment that would change the formal
text of the Constitution and hence
perhaps bring about the ultimate ac-
ceptance of advanced social policies.
OF course. the objections from the
practical viewpoint to this procedure
are obvious The special majoritleS
requisite for constitutional amend
ments, and the necessity of submitting
complicated issues to numerous. rather
discordant, State Legislatures or State
conventions. place heavy handicap
on the development of social legisla-
ton. The case of the child labor
amendment, which was submitted to
! the States in 1924. and which has not
| yet been ratified. is an illustration OF
/ the way in which meritorious con-
! stitutional change may be shipwrecked
| through misunderstanding and the
dispersion of constructive social opin-
ion on the subject.
Some Ratified Quickly.
/ 1t is true that several amendments
submitted during the last 80 years
| have been ratified fairly rapidly
But with the possible exception OF
the sixteenth amendment. which
authorized an unapportioned Federal
income tax these earlier amendments
/ involved matters as to which there
! was a fairly complete consensus oi