The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1960-08-05

social and economic fields. 1t is not sub
ject to the restraints to which leg
islative body is subject.
There are points at which it is diff
ficult to delineate precisely the line
which should circumscribe the judicial
function and separate it from that Of
policymaking. Thus, usually within mar
row limits, court may be called upon
in the ordinary course of it's duties to
make what is actually policy decision
by choosing between two rules, either
of which might be deemed applicable
to the situation presented in a pending
case.
We believe that strong state and
local governments are essential to the
effective functioning of the American
system Of federal government; that
they should not be sacrificed needlessly
to leveling and sometimes deadening
uniformity; and that in the interest of
active citizen participation in self-gov-
eminent the foundation Of our de-
mocracy = they should be sustained
and strengthened.
AS long as this country continues to
be developing country and as long as
the conditions under which We live con-
tinue to change, there will always be
problems of the ALLEGATION of power de-
pending upon whether certain matters
should be regarded as primarily of
National rpi1xy If
local concern. These adjustments can
hardly be effected without some fric-
ton.
We are now concerned specifically
with the effect of judicial decision upon
the relations between the federal govern
ment and the state governments. Here
we think that the overall tendency of
decisions of the Supreme Court over the
last Is years or more has been to press
the extension Of federal power and press
it rapidly. There have been, Of course,
and still are, very considerable differ
ences within the court on these matters,
and there has been quite recently
growing recognition of the fact that our
government is still a federal govern
ment apd the historic line which ex-
perience seems to justify between mat
tiers primarily of national concern and
matters primarily Of local concern
should not be hastily or lightly obliter-
ated.
The extent to which the Supreme
Court assumes the function of policy
maker is also of concern to us in the con-
duct Of our judicial business. We realize
that in the course of American history
the Supreme Court has frequently -
one might say, customarily - exercised
policy making powers going beyond
those involved, say, in making a selec-
ton between competing rules Of law.
We believe that in the fields with
which we are concerned, and las to
which we feel entitled to speak, the
Supreme Court too often has tended to
adopt the role of policy-rnaker without
proper judicial restraint.
We do not believe that either the
~ ~ GstC ~ G0GstNE OUSgSCGGUIGOU W
the possibly somewhat gifted craftsmen
of the 18th Amendment euer conten,-
plated that the Supreme Court uould,
or should, haze the almost unlimited
pOlicy-n,aking poUers uhicI it nou ex-
ercises. It is strange, indeed, to reflect
that under constitution lUhich pro-
rides for a system of checks and bal
dnces and of distribution of polcer be-
tUeen national and state governments
one branch of one government WV the
Supreme Court - should attain the i'm
mense. and in many respects, dominant,
pOLCer lC|tick it nOU yields.
1t has long been an American boast
that we have government of laws and
not of men,
We should ever keep in reserve our
powers and reserve our convictions to
the end that we may assert ourselves
and to keep these reserves within the
sovereignty of the states.