The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1959-09-25
The Constitution Of The United States
And The Supreme Court OAR. Subject

known indeed to anything in the
history of constitutional law. It has
become sort of constitutional con-
venti0n: always in session and eter.
nally busy at making our Consti-
tuition read like those modern
judges want it to be read.
For over century there were
limitations of sort upon the Su
preme Court. For one thing. the
judges looked for the meaning Of
the Constitution in the intent of the
trainers and ratifiers of that docu.
ment. It meant what the Founding
Fathers intended it to mean: moi
what judges thought it ought tt
mean for their own day and time
The tOuchstone Of original intent
was, to some extent, a check or
arbitrary will in constitutional ir
depreciation There was another re-
straint-the rule of common Law
that courts must stand by settled
judicial precedents. Once the mean
ing of provision of the Consti
tuition is fixed by a decision. the
judges are under duty in later
cases to follow the rule previously
established by it.
| Restraints Abandoned
Both in theory and practice these
restraints upon raw judicial power
have been abandoned in our highest
Court.
| The Supreme Court rules by un.
controlled will. So did John and
James and Charles and George III
The Supreme Court has shown, il
hundreds Of decisions. tender so.
licitude for the rights of the crimi
nal, the Communist and the craIk
while the rights of the sovereign
States 60 begging in the same
Court 1t is an old tale. After all
to them, the 10th amendment is but
a scrap of paper!
Judicial absolutism is more awe
some when its expression is legis-
lation, in the guise of court de-
crees. affecting and debating the
pattern of daily life for millions of
Americans 1t is the more frighten-
ing in the hands of men elected by
nobody: responsible to none but
themselves and appointed for life
by politicians. Despotism is the
more artful when it parades as JUS
tice and law. It is the more abso-
lutte when people are cajoled into
believing that court decisions are
the law of the land.
Our Constitution has become but
the gloss Of decisions of the Su-
preme Court. That tribunal has now
cast aside the restraints by which
courts ordinarily police themselves.
The high prerogative which it exer-
cises is practically unlimited Jul
dicial independence has become jul
dicial arrogance.
Brown v. Board of Education. de-
cided by the Supreme Court Of the
United States on May II, 1854. has
caused me to do great deal Of
thinking on the subject of our basic
law. the Constitution Of these United
States.
Supreme Law of the Land i: :?
Frequent fere nc has been
made to this decision as being the
supreme law Of the land Those re-
sponsible for this are, to say the
very least. guilty of fuzzy thinking
The Constitution could not be
palmer on the subject Article vi,
paragraph Q, Of that great docu-
ment uses these bold words:
This Constitution. and the laws
of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof: and all
treaties made, or which shall be
made. under the authority Of the
United States. shall be the supreme
law Of the land :"
The above-quoted language makes
no provision, or provides any ex-
cuse. for any decision of any court
ever becoming the supreme law Of
the land. Assuming that the Court
acted within the scope Of its con-
stitutional authority, its decision
can never be more than the law Of
that particular case.
But did the Court have a consti-
tutional right to reach the con-
clusion that was reached on May
II. 1854? That is the question that
this discussion proposes to answer.
The best place to start answering
this question is to look at the first
paragraph Of the body Of the Con-
stitution. that Of article I, section |.
which is as follows:
All legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Con-
gress of the United States, which
shall consist Of a Senate and House
of Representatives"
Nowhere in the Constitution can
we find authority for the Supreme
Court. or the Chief Executive to
exercise legislative powers. Those
powers remain within the Congress
alone. The two words. herein
granted" are most important. They
are key words, meaning powers
granted to the Federal Government
by the original Is sovereign States.
A clear understanding Of these two
words reveals the sort Of checkrein
the people determined should be
held over the General Government.
Many great powers were reserved
for and retained by the States and