The Washington times., 1937-01-15

One of the reasons why Con-
greSS has lost so heavily in popu-
lar esteem is to be found IN
the abysmal ignorance which so
many of it's members display
about the fundamentals OF Amer1-
can government.
OF the 435 members Of the
present House probably less than
a hundred would be able to pass
a rigid test in constitutional law.
And the vast majority are wholly
dependent upon the advice and
counsel Of a small minority con-
cerning the probable constitu-
tionality Of many of the fatuous
legislative proposals with which
they clutter up the record.
TAKE OATH LIGHTLY
Yet every member of both
Houses Of Congress takes a sol.
emn oath at the beginning OF
his term of office Ito support
and defend the Constitution of
the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic" "
They swear also to "bear true
faith and allegiance to the same, !"
and they publicly affirm that
they "take this obligation freely,
without any mental reservation
or purpose Of evasion" And they
pledge themselves further to live
up to this obligation with the
help of God"
This oath was taken by every
member of the House of Represent
ativeS and by the newly-elected
members Of the Senate when the
present session opened fortnight
ago. Nevertheless proposals have
already been introduced to curb
the power of the Supreme Court
Of the United States that can be
explained on only one of two
grounds: The authors of these pro-
poSals are either too ignorant to
understand the Constitution when
they read it or take altogether too
lightly the solemn obligations Of
the congressional oath Of office.
Turn to the Constitution itself
and you will find that Article III
reads as follows:
"The judicial power Of the
United States shall be vested in
one Supreme Court and in such
inferior courts as the Congress
NAV from time to time Ordain
and establish "
There is a very real difference
between this article and Article I,
quoted by the President in his
Annual Message, which reads as
follows:
Cali legislative power herein
granted shall be vested in a Con-
greSS Of the United States"
You will note the difference be-
tween Article I and Article III.
The latter does not say that "all
judicial powers herein grGnted''
shall be vested in the Supreme
Court and inferior courts. The diff
ference is explained by Mr.. Charles
Warren in his authoritative
volume on Congress, the Consti-
tuition and the Supreme Court,
which every member of Congress
might well be compelled to read
before he is allowed to take his
seat. Says Mr.. Warren:
Gas to Congress, the legislar
tive mower is restricted to the
specific grants Of power con-
tanned in the Constitution. AS
to the courts, the judicial power
is not restricted, but includes all
power which courts at common
law in the States had heretofore
possessed and exercised as
courts.
"If the argument is raised
that the Supreme Court did not
possess the power of judicial re-
view because it is not granted in
specific term IS by the COnstitu-
tion, then the same argument
can be raised against its pos
session Of any judicial power,
for the Constitution does not
grant to the court power to enter
Judgment, to issue execution, to
enjOin, to commit for contempt,
or to do any of the other things
which the court performs as a
judicial body"
The truth is. as Mr.. Warren
points out, this function Of the
Court is "a judicial duty rather
than a pow eEI" The duty Of the