Evening star., 1946-07-01
Letters to The Star
MIR. Mellett Not Misleading
About Court Veto

About Court Veto
To the Editor of The Star:
Charles l.. Frailey remarked in a let
ter which you printed on June % that
Lowell Mellett had made some state
ments in his column of June l8 which
seemed to him very misleading"
1t is quite likely that Mr.. Mellett's
suggestion that there is no provision
in the Federal Constitution which war
rants the Supreme Court to veto or
declare acts of Congress unconstitu-
tional did strike many readers with
surprise, and to hold that there would
appear to be power in that instrument
to enable the Congress to regulate the
Supreme Court was equally, if not more
surprising.
Based on facts which he supported
by logical processes and the citation
of high authority, MI Mellett's posi-
ton. however, cannot be regarded as
misleading" 1t was both informative
and ught-provoking.
In light of the excitement caused
by the unjustifiable explosion of JUS
tice jackson against Justice Black,
discussion of which branch of the
Government should regulate the other"
is most apropos. No better time to
bring forth so important an issue, in
the expansion of the principles of
democracy, could be had than now
During the controversy over whether
-IIlSfinp no iy,
Jewell Ridge case in which precedents
predominated in favor of his action,
the publics attention was called to the
opinions held by some members of the
Supreme Court questioning the author
.ized constitutional power of the court
to veto acts of Congress-
That some of The Stars readers
could not have been too surprised by
the direct reference to this power by
Mr.. Mellett, it will be recalled that he
quoted Justice Holmes as follows: Il
do not think that the United States
would come to an end if We lost our
power to declare an act of Congress
void.' OF course, in the opinion of
some, it would have been more to
the point if that eminent jurist had
said: Il think that the United States
would not come to an end, If the
Supreme Court ceased to assume the
power to declare an act of Congress
void" In this connection Mr.. Mellett
said: The members of the Supreme
Court won't be greatly surprised should
Congress look into this devastating
court power and set up some whole
some restraint on it,"
Mr.. Frailey thinks Mr. Mellett made
a grieVous error in his use of the word
veto" The correct use OF the term,
he implies, is applicable only to the
act OF the President when he dis
approves of an act of Congress Hence
he AYERS: The Supreme Court has no
veto power and has never attempted
to exercise such power" Just what
action ensues when the Supreme Court
declares an act OF Congress void? Is
not such action IAN authoritative pro-
hibition' of the power of Congress to
have passed such an act? Well, the
meaning of the word veto" according
to Websters Collegiate Dictionary is
AN authoritative prohibition an in
terdiction; prohibitory decree"
Is it not possible that Mr.. Frailey
is making the same mistake in holding
to the conventional use of the word
veto" that he does in contending for
the constitutional right of the Supreme
Court to declare an act of Congress
void? He opines that his citation of
the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall
IN the case of Marbury VS. Madison
is sufficient to deny Mr.. Mellett's po-
sition in the premises. Yes, it was
Marshall who led off in the usurped
power of the Supreme Court to veto
acts of Congress on the alleged grounds
of their unconstitutionality.
The late William Macon Coleman,
the profoundest scholar, publicist and
student of the law I ever knew init
mately, declared that the Supreme
Court had no power within the Con-
stitution, implied or expressed. to hold
an act of Congress void. In a face
tious vein, he occasionally said in
his lectures. when speaking of Mar
shalls position with respect to the
veto power of the Supreme Court, that
it was quite fitting that the Liberty
Bell should have cracked when tolling
the funeral dirge of the otherwise
great American jurist.
ELMER E. ROGERS