Evening star., 1963-08-24
Power of the Court

ROVER OF Ine S0uTr
Lester M. Kimble (Star.
Aug. 20) made a persuasive
and moral effort to defend
the Supreme Courts decision
in the Tennessee reappor-
tionment case. He said the
State had failed to carry out
its constitutional mandate to
reapportion, and that its fail
ure to do so could ultimately
lead to a dictatorial type of
government. The Su p re m e
Court being opposed to die
tatorships, kindly intervened.
The object of Mr.. Kimble's
letter and his reasoning be-
hind it are quite inconsistent.
The Supreme Court is an
appointive body, with a life
time reign. The Tennessee
legislature is an elected body
subject to approval by the
people through the ballot box.
Thus the latter is subject to
the will of the people while
the former is not. The gov
ernors of 40 States have the
veto power North Carolina
does not and are elected by
a majority of the voters.
Should a dictatorial-minded
legislature, If one could ex-
ist, pass oppressive legislation
then the governor could cas-
lily veto the bill. The real
question is not whether it is
morally right for one vote
to be equal to 20. This on the
face of it Is quite wrong, but
would Mr.. Kimble have the
Supreme Court prohibit
Detroit from determining the
electoral college vote for the
whole State of Michigan?
This may be wrong, too, but
both actions are constitu-
tional.
Article Four. Section Four,
Of the Constitution guaran-
tees to the States a repub-
lican form of government.
This section had kept the
Supreme Court from inter-
fering with matters Of State
government for more than a
century. Since the Baker VS..
Carr decision, the Supreme
Court has thrown the doors
wide for its intervention into
matters solely concerning the
citizens and their political
makeup within a State. The
issue involved in the case
concerned the procedure in
which a State legislature
could establish the basis for
its own representation. The
fact that the State considers
historical and geographical
as well as numerical reasons
as a basis for its representa-
ton was in the view of the
court a denial Of the equal
protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. This
in essence is saying that the
Supreme Court, not the State
Legislature, is a better judge
in the determination Of leg
islative representation.
Until the States ratified
the Constitution, there was
no Supreme Court. The
States created the Constitu-
tion and the Constitution
created the Supreme Court.
Thus the States it would
seem are the parents, the
Supreme Court the child. If
today the Supreme Court can
divide the States Of Tennes-
see. Georgia, Maryland and
Michigan according to its
views, tomorrow it may reap
portion the Nation. II it can
pronounce the States incom-
petent to deal with this
problem, tomorrow it may
pronounce the Staes incom-
petent to deal with State
taxes. schools, highways and
courts of law. The trend is
well under way.
Dictatorial powers are not
being accumulated by an
elected LEGISLATURE in some
far away State, but rather
in nine political appointees
answerable TO no one, subject
to no one and who can ban
the Lords Prayer in so
States, affecting 1870 million
people with q stroke Of the
pen. Ted s. Douglas.