The Farmville herald. (Farmville, Va.) 1957-current, 1963-08-02
Answer To Constitutional Issue
Below
to constitutional the
ed in oumn

on page two of your letter. distinction must
be drawn between the question Of legislative
wisdom and constitutional power. am adj
dressing myself exclusively to the latter.
The quoted sentence Of Section COL appar-
emily means to do no more or no less than
make it possible for diSbursing officials of the
government to cut off public funds, under any
financial assistance program administered by
states. whenever in such administration indi-
viduals are Disseminated against the
ground of race etc. There are numerous pro-
visions the United States Code which affect
the disbursement Of public funds in one cir
cumstance or another. They naturally require
the Comptroller General or some other Of
fetal to determine such circumstances
Examples of such g-standing provisions
in the United States Code lend considerable
perspective to the matter. Money benefits to
individuals are of course rendered non-paya-
BILE in many situations Thus the Congress has
enacted that there shall not be paid to Off
GERS and employees of the United States any
retirement benefits or annuities on conviction
Of a great variety Of offenses, refusal to tes-
tify or produce records, concealing member
ship in SubverSive organizations, or leaving
the. country to escape prosecution. Veterans
convicted of subversive activities have no
right to gratuitouS benefits under the laws ad-
miniStered by the Veterans Administration.
For similar activities people may lose Social
Security benefits as an "additional' penalty
imposed by the court. For permitting forbid
den political activities "any loan or grant Of
funds Of the United States to state and local
governments may be diminished upon order
of the Civil Service Commission. Grants for
hospital construction may be cut off for fail
ure to provide facilities without discrimina-
ton account of race creed or color"
ofha h,,t 70 ind
cate that, save possibly in its breadth of po-
tential coverage, the technique Of the present
proposal cannot be said to be essentially new.
The constitutional issue, then, is whether
Congress may so condition its appropriations
OF that nature. Using normal constitutional
criteria. can we predict that the Supreme
Court would find Section sol unconstitutional?
1t has given every indication to the contrary.
1t has said that Congress has exceedingly
broad authority to appropriate funds for the
general welfare. 1t has said that Congress
may impose reasonable conditions and limita-
tons upon such disbursements It has said
that such limitation may forbid the dis
bursement of funds to persons who have vio-
lated the laws. You will recall that in max
ing appropriations, Congress, itself, has con-
strued the words general welfare of the
United States very broadly. And when the
President acts pursuant to an express or i'm
piled authorization of Congress his authority
is at its maximum since it includes all that
he possesses in his own right plus all that
Congress can delegate On the basis of this
history certainly cannot say that the Court
would now strike down Section sol if it be-
comes law.
Moreover there are other mpediments to
any such result Sovereign immunity from
money suits is roadblock. Unless the pro-
To for FL i'll
dicial review. it will be difficult for anyone
to obtain standing to sue. Considerations such
as these. added to what have stated in the
previous several paragraphs. require me to
answer your question in the negative upon
present information. you wish. shall be
glad to detail these views and embody them
in a formal legal memorandum
Sincerely yours,
Hardy c. billiard