Evening star., 1944-06-13
Minority Rights Held
Ignored by High Court
Commerce Clause Rewriting
Arouses Indignation of Many
By David Laurence

ArOuSeS lnQl2natlon Oh Nihhy
By David Laurence
Wendell Wilkes plea for nation
al viewpoint on the regulation OF COM
merce comedies with the decisions oil
the Supreme Court in recent months
that virtually all business activity
comes within the power of Congress.
While Mr.. willkie argues that the
4s States cannot regulate the commerce
of the country, he points out that
faulty administration Of Federal law
by bureaucrats who are influenced by
whim or caprice Is really the root OF
present-day dissatisfaction with central
lied government
But the dissatisfaction goes still FUR
ther. Unquestionably many people are
indignant over the manner in which
the so-called commerce clause OF the
Constitution has been rewritten by
Supreme Court consisting of appointees
of the present administration. When
ever any fundamental change In the
rights of the minority in any democ-
racy Is to be made, such change Is
accepted with better grace when the
method chosen is in keeping with ira
dition and constitutionality.
In this instance, the commerce
clause was rewritten by judicial in
depreciation. In fact, since 1888 not
single proposal to amend the Con-
stitution has been submitted by the
present administration or Congress.
which has been controlled in both
houses by the Democratic party. Also.
President Roosevelt in public address
to the Nation early in 1887 openly
repudiated the very method prescribed
in the Constitution for amending that
document He said that the method
of amendment was too cumbersome
and unwieldly. So he proposed, In ef-
feet, that the judges amend the Con-
stitution by rewriting judicial deci-
sions.
Official Family.
Mr.. Roosevelt wanted to enlarge the
Court so as to get rid Of justices he
didn't like. He was baked in that at
tempt, but in the natural course, as
vacancies arose, he filled them with
persons from his official family who
were in sympathy with his viewpoint
of what the judicial interpretations
ought to be.
This very month, moreover, the Su-
preme Court of the United States, in its
decision that insurance is interstate COM
years standing by four r-to-three vote.
But it is only fair to point out that
the justices felt themselves bound by
decisions rendered since 1887 to the
effect that almost every kind of busi-
ness transaction is covered by the
term Interstate commerce" In other
words, the Supreme Court is now reap
ing what it sowed Ever since the
broadening of the commerce clause in
depreciation in 1897, after pressure ex-
erted through the Presidents public
campaign against the Court, the deci-
sions gradually have granted Congress
more and more power. The Supreme
Court has in effect legislated-some-
thing that the President himself con-
demned the earlier Court for allegedly
doing in previous decisions
MIR. Roosevelt likewise cried out in
1887 against split decisions of the Court
where one man cast the deciding vote,
and yet the number of split decisions
on important cases under the New
Deal Court has not diminished.
Check Becomes Essential.
There are many good arguments in
favor Of naturalization of commerce.
Unquestionably there cannot be 48
separate economic units but If this
trend is inevitable because of the growth
of the Nations economic life, then
representative government requires a
better check than the Constitution tt
self devised against centralized gov
ernment
If, for instance, no further amend
ments to the Constitution are to be
submitted to the people on the spe-
clfic powers of Congress and an attempt
is to be made to obtain more and more
legislative authority through decisions
by the Supreme Court, then check
against centralized government and ad-
ministrative bureaucracy becomes es-
sential. Justice Frankfurter. In a
| recent opinion, said that both Australia
and Canada have also had trouble
adjusting conflicts in state and federal
authority, but he overlooked the fact
! that in both Canada and Australia the
central government can be removed
overnight by the will of the people II
the people wish to alter their sta
tutes. If centralized government Is to
continue, then system of what has
been called responsible government" !"
such as prevails in both Canada and
Australia, is necessary corollary to
the growth of federal regulation. It
should, of course, be instituted by con-
stitutional amendment.
Reproduction Rights Reserved)