Evening star., 1947-10-05
Possible
In Court Term
Bill of Rights Philosophy
Undergoing Changes
in Past Years
By Clarke Beech

! With the rumble OF history IN the
background, the justices of the Su-
preme Court file on to the bench
Monday to open their new term.
Although nothing spectacular is
on their docket, you never know
what momentous developments in
American law will come out of q
Supreme Court session. Sometimes
for decades the court develops its
constitutional theories with glacial
slowness, then suddenly hands down
series of laundering reversals.
Probably the greatest constitu-
tional issue on the Supreme Courts
firing line today although it is not
involved in any pending case-is
whether the States are bound by
the Federal Bill of Rights, the first
10 amendments to the Constitution.
An increasing minority of the
justices have recently begun to
teach the doctrine that the 14th
amendment was intended to apply
the Bill Of Rights to the States.
Due Process of Law
The 14th amendment, one of
those adopted after the Civil War,
when the Government wished to as
sure freed slaves the full rights of
citizens, provided that no State
shall deprive any persons of life,
liberty or property, without due
process OF law"
Most States have their own bills
of rights, and the court has never
ruled that they are bound by the
Federal Bill of Rights.
But a reversal of this principle
was narrowly avoided last June,
when four of the nine justices said
in dissenting opinion that the
Congressional discussion previous to
the adoption of the 14th amend
ment proved that Congress intended
it to bind the States by the whole
F'ederal Bill, OF Rights.
The dissenters in this case
(Adamson VS.. California; were JUS
tees Black, Murphy, Douglas and
Rutledge. Although they are often
referred to as the courts liberal
bloc, such noted liberal" justices as
Holmes, Cardozo, Hughes and
Brandeis have held the opposite
view to theirs on this issue. JUS
tice Black himself once concurred
in a decision (Palko VS.. Connecticut)
which ruled contrary to the opinion
he now holds.
Margin of One Vote
If the majority of the court-one
more justice-ever adopts the new
viewpoint, a large number of State
laws and court rulings will immedi-
ately become unconstitutional.
In the Adamson case last June,
for instance, man on trial for
murder complained that the Judge
and prosecuting counsel in the Cali
fornia court where he was tried
had pointed out to the jury that
the defendant had declined to take
the stand.
He contended that the jury could
interpret that to mean he was
afraid of discriminating himself and
had the effect of making him a
witness against himself, regardless
of his silence, and violated the fifth
amendment.
California law, nevertheless, per-
mits this practice in State courts,
although it would be unconstitu-
tional in Federal courts.
Many of the courts most historic
decisions have concerned the legal
troubles of such little people
In the case of Marbury VS.. Madi-
son. Chief Justice Marshall in 1903
first ruled an act of Congress in
valid and established the court
as the constitutional censor Of the
legislative branch. It involved mere
ly the question of nondelivery of
a commission as justice of the peace
to small-time politician here.
In the Dred Scott decision the
court ruled the Missouri Com
promise unconstitutional and made
itself the subject Of the most vio-
lent political attack in Its career.
distributed By the Associated Press.A