The midland journal. (Rising Sun, Md.) 1885-1947, 1937-04-30
The
SUPREME
COURT
AND HOW
i. IT WORKS
The Will of the People
By ROBERT MERRILL

AA1C4 ~ Gu tl1C WILL VI Wiz HSO
pie as expressed in their basic
law-the Constitution.
But the task is not always an
easy one. Sometimes the members
of the court themselves are not in
accord. Sometimes critics outside
the court disagree with its findings.
That is only natural.
Consider, for example, three of our
outstanding constitutional rights:
Trial by jury, immunity from I'M
reasonable search, and prohibition
upon the taking of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
The language of the Constitution
as to the first of these is very clear;
as to the second it is less clear, and
in the case of the third it is still
more vague.
Defining Our Rights.
Since the function of the Supreme
court is to protect the individual
citizen against the invasion of his
constitutional rights, the task of
the court is easiest when, in the
Constitution, the will of the people
has been clearly expressed. Thus a
federal statute authorizing judge
to dismiss the jury in criminal
case and himself pronounce the de-
PENDANT guilty would be fairly
clear violation of the provision that
the trial of all crimes shall be by
jury.
In case of warrant to search
citizens house, there might be plen-
ty of room for difference of opinion
whether the attempted search was
or was not unreasonable"
Finally, when the citizen COM
plains merely that the congress is
proposing to deprive him of liberty
or property without giving him a
square deal, the court has the diff
cult task of determining, upon the
facts of his case, whether or not
his complaint is well founded.
In all three cases, however, it is
important to remember that the Ian
guage of the Constitution is not the
courts language, but the peoples.
AS is stated in its Preamble, 1--WE,
the people" wrote the Constitution.
AS was also provided in the original
draft, we, the people, can change
its language or provisions. We have,
in fact, done so many times, through
the process of amendment. And
when we make such changes the
Supreme court has no choice but to
apply, to any case, the rules which
the people have written.
The Case of Mrs. Minor.
The Equal Suffrage Amendment
offers an interesting illustration of
this.
Let's go back into a bit of general
ly forgotten history for an illustra-
ton:
In 1872 Mrs. Virginia Minor, of
Missouri, was denied the privilege of
registering as a voter in that state.
She insisted that she had the right
to vote, and brought suit against the
officer who would not let her
register.
He held that the constitution and
laws of Missouri provided that "Ev-
cry male citizen of the United States
shall be entitled to vote" Mrs. Mi
nor replied that denying her the
vote was violation of her rights of
citizenship under the United States
Constitution, and therefore the pro-
visions of the constitution and laws
of Missouri were in this case void.
The appeal went to the United
States Supreme court.
After hearing both sides it de-
cided unanimously that while wom-
en- had always been considered cit
liens, nevertheless the right to vote
had not been made one of the priv
ileges of citizen by the United
States Constitution, and that the
14th Amendment to the Constitution
did not add the right of suffrage to
the privileges and immunities of
citizenship as they existed at the
time of its adoption.
Amendment Clears Situation.
eff the law is wrong" held the
court, 'it ought to be changed; but
the power for that is not with u.s."
1t held further that under the Unit
ed States Constitution, "the consti-
tutions and laws of the several
states which commit that important
trust to men alone are not neces-
sarily void"
Today that situation is changed
because the people decided that
women should have the right to vote
and said so clearly in the 10Th
Amendment, adopted in 1920.
Emphatically they asserted: "The
right of citizens of the United States
to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by
any state on account of SEX"
Since 1920 any law which deprived
a woman of the right to vote would
clearly be unconstitutional, and the
Supreme court would so declare.
What had formerly not existed as
a right was made right by the peo-
pie, by changing the rules.
a