The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1963-07-26

tAlC pOWCI VI Vic 1dW, lids HU
existence. Courts are the mere
instruments of the law and can
will nothing" They can decide
cases, rightly or wrongly, and
the parties to the case are
bound by their judgments. But
no one else! If their decisions
were to bind other persons, then
such persons would be ruled
against without being heard,
without their day in court. :"
This would violate all concepts
of justice and law.
Judges can say what they
think is the law, or what they
think the Constitution means,
and apply that to the decision
IF the case before them. They
IAN override, or refuse to follow
What they or other judges have
previously thought was the law.
3ut they cannot make law, or
eWrite the Constitution. A court
leciSion is an opinion!
On the other hand. Congress,
whom is vested all legisla-
i've powers Of the Federal gov
rnment, can decide what they
.hink should be the law, and by
! majority vote, what they think
becomes law. assuming that it
S constitutional.
But what a court thinks should
be the law, does not become law
because they think it should.
Court Reverses Itself
If that were not true, the SUI
preme Court could never over
rule its own previous interpre-
tation of the Constitution as it
has done time and again. In de-
Gliding the Brown case, the Su-
prene Court did in fact over
rule its own previous decisions,
and the settled law Of the ma
ton for ninety years.
But if these previous decisions
were "the supreme law of the
land" which the judges had
sworn to uphold, how could they
reverse such decisions without
violating their oath?
That the Supreme Court has
at times acted as a superlegis-
lature has been many times
stated by Supreme Court judges
themselves in dissenting opin-
ions. Conferences Of the Chief
justices and Attorneys General
Of the States have also charged
the Supreme Court with violat-
ing the Constitution.
Those who are making a fe-
fish Of the segregation decision
should remember that the OPP
ponents of slavery were once
shouted down by the same po-
lit;cal ballyhoo. The Fugitive
Slave Act Of 1850, which was
held constitutional by the SUI
preme Court. was not consider
ed "the supreme law of the
land" by men and women Of the
highest character in the North
who kept right on helping fugi-
tive slaves to freedom via the
underground railroad" TIL e
shoe was then on the other foot
The same thing can be said
Of the bred Scott decision Of
1857. Did the people Of the North
bow down to this decision as
the supreme law of the land,
binding on them? They did not
In fact, the man who did more
to abolish slavery than any
other, Abraham Lincoln. said
that if he were a member Of
Congress, and the same ques-
ton arose. he would not be
bound by the bred Scott de-
cision.
And so. on other occasions,
Thomas Jefferson and Andrew
Jackson said that while a court
decision bound the litigants, it
did not bind them
In the interest of stability and
uniformity Of the law. it is gen
orally desirable that lower fed
eral and state courts should
abide by a decision of the U. S.
Supreme Court, even if they
think it is wrong. But they do
so, not because the Constitution
says they must, for it does not.
but for the practical reason that
if they do not abide by it, they