The Skyland post. [volume] (West Jefferson, N.C.) 193?-1988, 1937-03-04

Stripped to the bone, President
Roosevelt's proposal for reorganiza-
ton of the judiciary, including an
increase from nine to fifteen in the
membership of the Supreme Court,
unless Justices seventy years or over
retire, is just another major skirm-
ish in the age-old battle over human
right and property began their la
bors at the Constitutional Conven-
ton in Philadelphia, just $50 years
ago.
1t SENS evident that the constitu-
ton as finally drafted was designed
to place major emphasis on human
rights-the rights of man. No better
evidence can be found than that the
Congress was created, despite all
compromise, to represent the legis-
lative will of the people. Provision
was made for the President to exer-
else veto over the acts of Congress
"a veto that can be overridden by
great majorities. And courts were
created to see that no rights guar
anteed under the Constitution were
infringed upon. 1t is doubtful wheth-
er it was intended for the courts to
nullify legislative acts of Congress
the legislative will of the people.
Nevertheless, the great Chief JUS
tice Marshall quietly laid down such
a principle in the famous case of
M2rbury '. Madison. In delivering
that historic opinion, the Chef JUS
tice held III effect that a law re-
pugnant to the Constitution is void.
From that day to this there has
been question as to what extent
the Congress can carry out the leg
islative will of citizens. The power
tial veto is definite, but the judicial
veto Of a majority of nine judges
appointed for life seemingly ends
the power Of Congress to solve ma
tional ills, economic or social.
The Supreme Courts verdict of
unconstitutional" under that the
Dry, is truly supreme, whether such
authority over the destinies of $780,
100000 people was intended or not.
In any event, since Chief Justice
Marshall's day, the Supreme Court
has steadily taken unto itself broad
er powers of legislative review.
There is ample reason for the state
ment that in case after case the
courts have been building mass of
decisions based on the strictest con-
struction Of the rights of property.
AS a result, important questions
are raised. Does Congress represent
the will of the people? If so, shall
the Supreme Court nullify that will
through legislative review? Is it the
national desire that President be
voted out of office because he was
not in tune with the times-as was
the case with Hoover-and his sue
cessor, twice elected by unprece-
dented majorities-aS was the case
with Roosevelt-be powerless to cor
rect the conditions our citizens con-
demned?
Let me hasten to say that these
questions do not involve personali-
ties. They involve issues. The most
ardent supporters of the Presidents
proposal nor its critics, question the
personal integrity or character of
any distinguished member of the
Supreme Court. It is the viewpoints
Of some members that is questioned
whether they regard the Constitu-
ton elastic enough to meet the leg
islative will based on human rights.
Proponents Of the Presidents pro-
posal for judiciary reorganization
say they cannot. Critics of the pro-
posal say they can and do interpret
the Constitution. And the battle over
human rights and property rights
continues.
Unfortunately, the issues are not
being decided by individuals. Too
much propaganda and hysteria is
evident. To accuse the President of
trying to "pack the Supreme Court"
is to question his sincerity in carry
ing forward a program that some
27,OOO,OOO of our citizens approved
last November. And whatever else
may be said of the Presidents pro-
gram, few can question his honest
desire to make our nation sounder
and more wholesome than he found
it when he took over the reigns of
government.