January 11, 1936 - Editorial - A Specious Short Cut, by George Lorimer

Governor Hoffman, of New Jersey, has suggested an amendment to the Constitution. This proposed amendment is extremely simple; it merely provides that all laws passed by Congress be submitted to the Supreme Court for a decision as to their constitutionality before they go into effect. Governor Hoffman declares that to leave extremely important questions up in the air for two or three years produces nothing but confusion, and he adds:

"The enforcement of unconstitutional laws during the political and social nightmare of the last 29 months has brought nothing but misery to the majority of the people. I do not believe that such a condition should be allowed to continue, or that any future President or political party should be permitted to engage in a similar adventure."

Even under existing conditions, the tendency of the executive and legislative branches to pass the buck to the judicial branch is discouraging..... The Supreme Court is a great safeguard against hasty and careless legislation. But it cannot be made to relieve the other branches of their proper responsibilities, and attempts to do so are especially specious. (pg. 26)

Comments: The primary duty to see to it that the Constitution is upheld does not reside with the executive branch of government, the legislative branch of government, or the judicial branch of government. This primary duty is with the people, and if the people are shown by the media, the press, and the Supreme Court that their Constitution is being blatantly violated, then it is up to the people to stop it. If they chose to re-elect the very political forces that are violating the Constitution, then they will loose their liberties and deny liberty to future generations. The Supreme Court stated back in 1933 in the case of O'Donoghue v. U.S.:

In a very early period of our history, it was said, in words as true today as they were then, that "if they [the people] value and wish to preserve their Constitution, they ought never to surrender the independence of their judges." Rawle on the Constitution (2d Ed.) 281.

It turns out that the majority of people back in FDR's time allowed the court to be attacked and its independence destroyed. They chose not to preserve their Constitution.

Back to Old Weekly Press Table of Contents

Home