Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-09-04
VARIED VIEWS
OF Court Rulings on Integrotion

hostile acts Of injustice, seems
at present unpredictable. 1t
appears, however, that at
this late period, pregnant with
extremely vital issues ina
tional and internationally ag-
gravated and intensified by
unrest, marked anxiety and
possibly the presence of war
neurosis, it would be folly to
permit Wanted arrogance and
the desire for showmanship-
whether for political or pc
cuniary purpoSes-to displace
common sense.
The Supreme Court has
written its opinion. That body
of the worlds nine best
judges will write again. AS
to the decision it will make,
we feel confident that it will
be prompted by the highest
ideals os Justice.
John Sinclair Perry, MD.
y = **
A recent letter to The Star
says, The Supreme Court
must insist that now Is
the time to begin earnestly
widening and uplifting our
dimensions of growth and
understanding" Now there's
a "murky" point if I ever
heard one.
Maybe / was sick the day
teacher taught that one.
Come to think of it I was
q right puny kid. / must
have missed out on q lot of
learnin' cause folks are
saying things / never heard
tell of. Gosh, I always
thought upliftin' sort OF be-
longed to little old you
and me.
! guess I'm just mixed up.
Things is gettin' better; you
can't even tell a politician
from a preacher nos more.
Amt that progress?
J. E. Street
4 + 4
All of this talk about the
Supreme Court of the United
States being the law of the
land is phony. One only has
to read Article /, Section ! Of
the Constitution Of the United
States to learn that the Fed
eral legislative lawmaking
power is vested solely in the
Congress of the United
States. The judicial power is
limited to the application Of
the provisions Of the Consti-
tuition and the law enacted
hereunder.
When the Supreme Court,
which is at the top Of the
judicial system, renders a
Judgment which extends be-
yond the scope Of the judicial
power, that judgment is a
spurious edict, null and void,
and without legal effect I'M
der the Constitution.
The Supreme Court deci-
sion of May II, 1854, on de-
segregation Of public schools
plainly shows the court went
beyond the scope of its con-
stitutional authority, which
makes that ruling unconsti-
tutional and illegal.
Nish Showers.
=
David Lawrence, in his
August 90 column on inte-
grafton, seems only interest
ed in tanning the flames Of
controversy.
Aside from the fact that
the argument he quotes
makes an inexplicable jump
from equality before the law
to a discussion Of social
equality, Lawrence falls into
the trap of the typical segre-
gationist in piously urging
the righting of a wrong by
volition instead Of by coer-
cion.
For in every pious Segrega-
zionist plea for the right Of
free association without vio-
lence, it is always forgotten
that the first violence comes
from the segrega Zionist.
Those who fan the flames of
controversy with such lop-
sided arguments only add
fuel to the hate-mongers who
prefer to fan the flames Of
insurrection and violence.
The pious segregationist
also forgetS that what he
points out as a speck in the
integrationist's eye is really q
log in his own, as he denies
the rights of Negroes and
whites to intermix even II
they so desire.
Finally. the pious segrega-
zionist forgets that it is al
most impossible to have q
working of free will if State
laws specifically and cate
gorically deny freedom OF in
dividual choice in situations
involving racial mixture. Re-
cent arrests in Arlington
bear this out.
Lawrence unfortun Q tell