Court Opinion

ID: 9651910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 16:58:58.849237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:43.072233
License: Public Domain

JONES, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the result.
The single issue in this case is whether Section 304, as worded, is a valid exercise of the constitutional powers of the Congress.
The authority of the Congress to make appropriations, within the framework of the Constitution, is plenary. The power to make appropriations carries with it the power to withhold or deny appropriations. That power has been exercised for generations.
This is as fundamental as the ten commandments.
As to the wisdom of granting or withholding appropriations the courts have no right to pass judgment, granted, of course, that the Congress is acting within the scope of its authority.
The Congress has the sheer power to grant or withhold current appropriations to individuals except for services already rendered, regardless of whether the action taken is wise or unwise. It does not have to assign a reason for such action, and we have no right to ask for a reason.
A member’s constituency alone, under our philosophy of government, has a right to call such member to account.
Having the power to appropriate for specified purposes it has the power to limit the use of such funds so long as it is merely a limitation.
If Section 304 merely forbade the use of funds in the bill, or other funds already available in other bills, I would have no hesitancy in holding it a limitation on appropriation.
The true issue is narrowed to whether the expression “or which is hereafter made available under or pursuant to any other act” transforms it from an appropriation to a legislative provision, and whether such legislation deprives plaintiffs of valuable rights as citizens which they would otherwise have under the Constitution.
The language quoted goes beyond a mere limitation on appropriation and becomes, unless affirmatively repealed, a permanent denial of plaintiffs’ rights as citizens. A rose remains a rose even though someone calls it a lily.
No one has a right to be employed by the Government, but every citizen, whose rights have not been legally forfeited, is privileged to apply for any position within the Government and to have his application considered on its merits. This is a thing of value not only intrinsically, but because of the satisfaction it brings a man regardless of whether it is ever exercised. The knowledge of its possession is a powerful element in the pursuit of happiness. Section 304 forecloses this right and closes that door of opportunity.
The national government is one of delegated powers in all its branches. All powers not delegated remain with the states or with the people.
The tenth amendment is as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The ninth amendment is as follows: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The power to provide or deny appropriations is vested in the Congress. There is no other way to take money out of the Treasury. The Constitution provides (Art. I, Sec. 9) “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law * *
If Section 304 were a mere denial of appropriation, however unjust it might be, it could not be successfully questioned. But it does noj stop with a mere denial of appropriation. It goes far beyond this. It forbids on a permanent basis employment in the future. It thus becomes a permanent legislative ban.
I cannot find within the four corners of the Constitution any power lodged in the Congress to deny these privileges to any citizen, except in the manner prescribed in the Constitution.
The principle of equality was written in the Declaration of Independence before we had a constitution. It was the result of a long struggle of English peoples upward toward the plains of liberty. It is one of our *150proudest traditions. It was carried forward into the Constitution. It shines through almost every provision in that instrument. The Constitution provides for liberty, equality and fair play; and freedom from every form of new and old world caste and privilege, and from the tyranny of wealth and birth. It throws every safeguard around the rights and privileges of the individual citizen.
The right to .seek employment is one of the most highly prized rights of the Anglo-Saxon race. When a citizen by his conduct forfeits any of his rights, privileges, and immunities, a method is provided for establishing that forfeiture. That method was not pursued here. One of the chief glories of the Constitution is the fact that you cannot take the shirt from the back of a ragged street urchin without either securing the lad’s consent or paying for the rags in the manner prescribed by law. The same is true of his privileges in every form. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 41, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220; International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 236, 39 S.Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211, 2 A.L.R. 293.
Section 304 in making a permanent ban on the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs, exceeds the authority delegated to the Congress by the Constitution.