Evening star., 1947-02-04
New Liberalism Seen
In Court Tenure Bill
Method Suggested to Ask People
How to Change Constitution

| America through the Republican COM
| gress. -,
Instead of sitting by and letting ju-
dicial Interpretation" take away fun
| damental rights which were reserved to
the people under the Constitution, the
| new Congress is going to let the people
| decide how and when they want to
change the Constitution.
At least two important constitutional
| amendments have been introduced-one
| limiting presidential tenure to two terms
of four years each and the other pre-
| scribing that all Federal justices shall
hold office for ten years and be subject
to reappointment by the President and
confirmation by the Senate.
The new proposal for change in the
life tenure Of justices has just been in
troduced by Representative Lawrence H.
Smith, Republican, Of Wisconsin, who
has served several years in the House
and is one Of its able members.
It Is proposed that the justices, in
cluding those of the Supreme Court,
shall be checked periodically by the
people after ten years of service and
that present justices shall not serve be-
yond ten years after they took the oath
of office or not after December 81, 1948,
whichever is earlier, but that they may
be eligible for reappointment.
Packed" With New Dealers.
Representative Smith points out that
the Federal courts have been packed"
with New Dealers and that the Supreme
Court, particularly in the portal to
portal case, has been usurping legisla-
tive functions.
It has been said, enormously by some
| observers that the new plan proposes to
do what was condemned generally when
in 1887 the late President Roosevelt
indignant over the decisions of the jus
tices then sitting because they refused
to hold valid his New Deal laws-tried
to enlarge and pack" the court.
But what Mr.. Smith proposes Is the
exact opposite. The Roosevelt scheme
was to try to do by statute what the
| Constitution forbade. The method sug-
gested by Mr. Smith is to ask the people
| to change the Constitution. The idea Of
protesting against Supreme Court de-
cisions Is not novel. Abraham Lincoln
once said Supreme Court decisions were
not "irrevocable" and that the people
had the final say. They do-that Is, they
can have the final say by utilizing the
machinery prescribed in the Constitu-
ton ITSELF
Thus, when the Supreme Court many
years ago held that an income tax could
not be levied by the Federal Treasury,
the matter was submitted to the people
and by constitutional amendment they
bestowed on the Federal Government
that taxing power.
Despite the fact that centralized gov
ernment in Washington has since 1888
taken over many powers which for
decades were rights never before dele
gated to the Federal Government by the
people-as, for instance, control over
wages and hours-not a single constitu-
tional amendment has been submitted
to the people since 1888. This is be-
cause appointees who believe in restrict
ing the power of the people and taking
away their rights have been sitting on
the Supreme Court bench. And the
Congress has, in effect. been in COL
lusion with the court because reaction
ary majorities have declined to submit
vital issues of constitutional power to
the people for their decision.
Roosevelt's Words Recalled.
The late President Roosevelt ridiculed
the idea of amending the Constitution
in the way prescribed therein. In radio
address on March 8. 1887, speaking in
support to his court packing" plan, Mr.
Roosevelt said:
'I have thus explained to you the
reasons that lie behind our efforts to
secure results by legislation within the
Constitution I hope that thereby the
difficult process of constitutional amend
ment may be rendered unnecessary. But
let us examine that process.
There are many types of amendment
proposed. Each one is radically differ
ent from the other. There Is no sub
stantial group within the Congress or
outside it who are agreed on any single
amendment.
1T would take months or years to get
substantial agreement upon the type
and language Of an amendment. It
would take months and years there
after to get two-thirds majority In
favor of that amendment in both Houses
Of Congress.
Then would come the long course Of
ratification by three-fourths Of all the
States. No amendment which any pow
| erful economic interests or the leaders
of any powerful political party have had
reason to oppose has ever been ratified
! within anything like reasonable time.
| And 13 States which contain only
per cent of the voting population can
block ratification even though the IS
| States with 95 per cent Of the popula-
ton are In favor of It,"
Mr.. Roosevelt forgot to tell the people
that the eighteenth amendment was
eliminated from the Constitution less
than two years after it had been sub
mitted to the people by two-thirds vote
Of both Houses Of Congress. II there is
serious division on any fundamental
subject, Of course, it is right that the
matter should be delayed. but 1t is H.
! liberal and reactionary to refuse to give
the people chance to amend their own
Constitution and to argue that all that
Is needed is to change the judges.
Reproduction RIGHTS Reserved)
knowledge ct a Price
From the Houston Post
It's worth thinking about: Somebody
is hoif,o r,oid roa1 yooy,ev Iry,oxvi,,y fy,a